Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 17 December 19 >

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 keep. Docg 19:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D's 2006-07 Tour[edit]

Tenacious D's 2006-07 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nothing notable enough about this tour to make it worthy of getting its own article Joltman 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just another random tour from what I can tell. Most groups do not have pages for their tours. TonyTheTiger 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, can I just state that I made this. Please keep this article up for a while for the other mods to decide. I think this article is worthy, for a couple of reasons:
    • This is probably a farewell tour
    • Other bands (like Coldplay and ahem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Concert_tours) have these articles.
    • The concerts (and I know this sounds biased) are more than simply vehicles for performing songs, they are also almost plays in themselves, in that they reenact the film.
    • I have cited this a bit too

Thanks anyway, I am interested in your response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digitaltam (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Weak Keep The tour appears to be notable through the sources at the bottom, which seem to be reliable sources. —ShadowHalo 20:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are currently over 300 concert tour articles in Wikipedia, as you can see from Category:Concert tours. They vary in quality, but this one sounds like it can easily become a quality, notable concert tour article for the reasons the editor has given above. Wasted Time R 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above--Slogankid 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just because there are 300 others, doesn't mean this one should be included. If it is the farewell tour, then I would be inclined to abstain, but "probably" doesn't cut it with me. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not just another random tour. It is notable because Tenacious D is not a "band" in the traditional sense--It's made up of two actors, one of whom is a huge Hollywood star, so it's not like they go on tour all the time. I would say this tour is pretty rare, and was more than likely conceived to coincide with the release of their movie. Wavy G 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Tenacious D This is not a band which tours intensively, like Phish or Dave Matthews Band. The paragraph describing the stage setup and performance of this tour can easily be merged into the band's main article. Milchama 12:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Tenacious D rock my socks. There is nothing wrong with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chedz (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Well, just now the majority says keep the page. Is it okay if you took the delete sign off, and gave me a chance to improve this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.159.112 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Tenacious D is a band like any other, no problem with this article--will probably become a strong article in a few years.Publicus 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless. They're a side-vehicle for a Hollywood actor.Famous Mortimer 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tenacious D was around before they were famous. Milchama 12:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a concert tour will of course get reported on in music magazines and publications. This provides verifiability, but I remain unconvinced of notability. There is nothing in the article that identifies why this tour is of particular note or stands out. If this really were the farewell tour, I might be persuaded but this is onyl speculation. -- Whpq 17:16, 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 unverified (however, I will userfy to badlydrawnjeff per his offer) . Docg 19:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga (3rd nomination)[edit]

Nominated by Jonny2x4 (talk · contribs) stating "Obvious vanity article. I know the article failed nomination once, but this REALLY is a vanity page." Only helping the nomination along. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the first two nominations. Got web coverage, and the nomination rationale is entirely without merit as I'm the primary author from over a year ago and had nothing to do with the actual situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Web coverage shouldn't be a factor whether a hoax gets an article or not. People make hoaxes all the time on the internet and I don't see how different this one, other than Zelda is a really popular franchise. Jonny2x4 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one reference is a blog. Internet hoaxes picked up by other websites aren't notable. It would need to have gotten picked up by a print source. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and the fact that one reference is a blog. †he Bread 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with The Bread. To quote the emphatic point made at Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:RS. The one and only cited source is a blog, and that just doesn't cut it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of computer and video game hoaxes. Wow, that article finally will have a purpose! --- RockMFR 01:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the merge; it does not address the problem of their being no reliable sources. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but this reasoning doesn't really hold water, lots of articles go up and back and up and back at AfD, sometimes due to clouded votes, lack of consensus, sockpuppetry, and a host of other reasons, I would advocate reexamining every AfD on its own merits, unless it is a bad-faith nomination.--Dmz5 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it survived 2 previous nominations, it means those arguing against it in those nominations weren't forceful enough in demanding reliable sources. Geoffrey Spear 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough sources to establish notability. Recury 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR, OR synthesis, POV, reads like an ssay, WP:V, WP:RS. Moreschi Deletion! 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepvery notable--Slogankid 21:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- non-notable. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. And remove the image while you're still at it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. per nom?? Nom argues for deletion when nominating, then votes to keep arguing against. Anomo 12:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he was just helping another nominator complete the nomination process. Read again, please. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user put the AfD tag on the article, didn't fix it, and tried to argue deletion on the article's talk page. I merely fixed the nomination for him. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Userfy. Merge to that one Zelda one the nom said in the talk page or another. If not, maybe userfy to a subpage of Jeff's userspace since he said he wrote most of it in the talk page. The main problem is lack of notable sources. Anomo 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd gladly accept a userfication if this ends up being deleted, I haven't really bothered with it in a while anyway, so it may push me to clean it up better for better acceptance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Maybe merge into Zelda II: The Adventure of Link if anything. Koweja 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This could possibly be merged into the LoZ II article, or possibly a list of hoaxes if there is one. - Bisected8 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't believe this is still here! Delete as an apparant Joystiq fanboy vanity page. The Kinslayer 10:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per badlydrawnjeff's offer to clean up the article. --DavidHOzAu 12:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to badlydrawnjeff. I think the topic is encyclopedic and it could be an article worth keeping, but not yet. — brighterorange (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if deleted and userfy the talk page as well so you know what the contradiction tag is for. --WikiSlasher 02:17, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:16Z

A Cappella Groups at the University of Virginia[edit]

A Cappella Groups at the University of Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An article about several groups which do not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the standards of WP:RS/WP:NOR. All the "citations" in this article to the groups personal webistes, not to secondary sources. Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Nomination says it all. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ok, I realized that I was being hypocritical in choosing to delete this one and not the other a cappella groups. Simply, those are about 1 group and are detailed. This is more or less a list. See WP:NOT. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I merged the underlying articles into this one, but yes, I agree that this can probably go too. None too notable. Hullabahoos have their own article. Ohconfucius 08:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Somitho 13:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, and as I see it, it is not notible away from the nomination so theres 2 reasons for ya. → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS 13:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I would delete individual articles aboout the groups, but I think it is reasonable to have an article about them collectively. I object to the absence of any independent sources (other than the choral groups and the university). The university sources are at least verifiable if not wholly independent. There must have been newspaper articles about the groups or their albums. Serious and encyclopedic music groups at least get independent reviews of their public performances at cathedrals, concert halls, etc. I expect the article and articles like it would get more support if multiple independent reliable sources were provided, because they would then be notable by traditional Wikipedia standards. If it is just a recreational group of no demonstrated artistic merit then it is as non-encyclopedic as a recreational softball or bowling team. Edison 16:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pooling 8 non-notable groups together does not result in notability. Perhaps what you're looking for can better be accomplished at the List of collegiate a cappella groups, which includes their name, school, and website without including any of the unsourced information that is so problematic in these articles. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.188.183.7 (talk • contribs) 20:17, December 18, 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep I mean, I don't care for a cappella, but I believe they meet WP:MUSIC #1, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", per a quick search on the Cavalier Daily. The article on the Sil'hooettes, for example, says they are nationally acclaimed, and have won multiple CARAs (Contemporary A cappella Recording Awards). At least some of the other groups are also covered by Cavalier articles. schi talk 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in their college newspapers are insufficient. They establish existence but not notability for anyone outside the college. For example, college newspapers often write about their BBQ clubs, whip clubs, etc. These do not all merit encyclopedic articles. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, college newspapers aren't considered reliable sources? The newspaper does assert notability, at least for the Sil'hooettes if not any of the other groups. And where in WP:N or WP:MUSIC does it say that the source that provides non-trivial colverage has to establish notability? I thought the idea was that if they're covering the subject at all (in a non-trivial manner of course), it's ipso facto notable. schi talk 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
College newspapers are not reliable enough to establish that a group is notable beyond their campus. They tend to exaggerate the importance of their institution and cover groups that other media wouldn't. If a groups notability can be established without its college newspapers, they may be used to augment the information in that article. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentCollege newspapers are independent sources which can be considered in determining notability. Edison 05:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • College newspapers intentionally promote campus activities like the arts. They should be treated skeptically at best for such activities, not assumed to be independent sources. As WP:INDY states, "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." Groups that have achieved notoriety through outside publications, like Skull and Bones, can lay claim to independent sources. I don't think Wikipedia has reached the point where any person or organization mentioned in a college newspaper deserves an article. (That will have to wait for the Final Encyclopedia, perhaps. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if were going to accept WP:INDY as an authority (which it's not), the essay specifically says "for a recording artist, an independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release". A college newspaper is not these a cappella groups' press releases or album notes. To be on the "inside", the source would have to be a publication of the a cappella group itself - which the Cavalier Daily is not; it's an independent student newspaper with no official links to the a cappella groups. If you contend that a college newspaper, because of the very nature of its focus, is not a sufficiently independent source, then does that mean the New York Times should likewise be treated skeptically for its coverage of Manhattan news? Or we shouldn't consider USA Today independent in its coverage of U.S. news, but should rather consider the foreign press? There is nothing in WP:RS that indicates college newspapers are not reliable sources. In terms of exaggerating the institution - I'm sure there are plenty of college newspapers/alumni publications which larger circulations than plenty of other, non-school-affiliated "reliable sources". I don't see why these sources should be treated "skeptically" just because their community of readers is based on an educational institution rather than say, a county. schi talk 08:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a lot of the previous post. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should assume that facts sourced to college newspapers are false. However, the existence of a college newspaper article about a college club does not establish that clubs notability, even if the article tosses around adjectives like "premier", "internationally-known," etc. It's not that we can't trust sources within the geographical jurisdiction that their name implies, it's that small sources tend to cover their local beat generously. Thus, a college club that manages to get an article in their college newspaper does not automatically warrant a wikipedia article. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
schi, as someone who has personally experienced the low bar of college-newspaper journalistic integrity of by having entire sentences invented by a "reporter" and attributed to me, I think it's outrageous to compare the New York Times and USA Today to them. And, anticipating the next riposte, I advise against using Jayson Blair or the like as a yardstick of NYT and its ilk. It's precisely because such incidents are outrageous scandals, not the business-as-usual of amateur student writing, that we consider professional publications reliable sources. Personally, I'd prefer to have outside sources for just about anything cited in a college paper. But savidan again reminds us that the issue here is notability, not factual accuracy. The issue of other, outside sources for college material becomes moot because the subjects are of only parochial interest. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment College newspapers typically are very critical in their reporting of the cultural efforts of on campus groups. There is no incentive for the campus reporters to slavishly praise every musical group on campus. It is purely a strawman argument to go from the statement that a campus paper counts as a source to saying "I don't think Wikipedia has reached the point where any person or organization mentioned in a college newspaper deserves an article." No one has even proposed that "any group or organization mentioned in the New York Times deserves an article." Substantial reporting of a campus group in a campus paper counts fro as much toward notability as an equivalent reporting of an off campus group in the local town newspaper. Also a strawman argument is reference to "an article" in the campus paper not being enough, since outr standard is multiple sources. But an article can certainly be one of those sources, in combination with other sources. Please do not use a sliding scale to disallow coverage in campus papers. At colleges I attended, they were not a mouthpiece to do public relations. The reviewers ridiculed lame efforts by student groups as much as they ridiculed stupid policies of campus administrators. Edison 15:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffq, for the record, I did not attribute a similarity in journalistic integrity between the apparently monolithic establishment of college newspaper journalism with such institutions as the NYT and USA Today. (Nor do I particularly appreciate your presumption that I was going to next invoke Jayson Blair, as that is obviously an irrelevant and extraordinary circumstance.) My point is that college newspapers should, generally, pass WP:INDY with flying colors, just as much as NYT or USA Today would. The assumption that just because an independent, reliable source covers a particular community makes it de facto unsuitable for determining notability seems to me to leave the door wide open for systemic cultural POV. You may call a school-affiliated publication a "small" source, or a particular-school-affiliated subject a parochial topic, but where do you draw the line/set the arbitrary level of granularity? (!Pokemon, but...) To consider notability as something that must be geographically affirmed (nationally recognized, etc.) privileges arbitrary geographic formations that aren't necessarily relevant to the scope of the topic. I'm sure you would agree that a topic doesn't have to rise to the level of being covered by a state or national newspaper to be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, as in many, many cases that would be totally irrelevant, but that's what these arguments sound like. I guess we have a fundamental disagreement, which I think I'm sure I've seen in other Wikipedia discussions like this. schi talk 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Edison: Please be careful about accusing people of making straw man arguments. My statement, "I don't think Wikipedia has reached the point where any person or organization mentioned in a college newspaper deserves an article", was specifically about Wikipedia articles, not campus paper articles. I said nothing about "'an article' in the campus paper", and turning this into a denial of the "multiple sources" standard can itself be construed as a straw man. I am saying that any amount of reporting in a campus paper is not inherently reliable or notability-confirming. It must be judged on its merits and double-checked for accuracy, since the authors are not professionals, and the oversight of collegiate news is in general less rigorous than the professionals and varies widely from school to school and year to year. But this whole line of discussion is a straw man, because there are no such college-paper articles cited in A Cappella Groups at the University of Virginia. Currently, its sole "sources" are group websites, which can be useful but can't be the only means of justifying notability. It is certainly possible for student reporters to do a good job, but the proof is in the pudding, and we have no pudding at the moment. I would also like to make clear (not that you suggested otherwise!) that I do not believe that we should delete all college a cappella group articles on principle. To use your example above, the Virginia Sil'hooettes have an arguable case for notability, having won 2 CARAs — a verifiable factual tidbit from the Cavalier. My problem is with this article, which encourages the inclusion of any collection of Wahoos who know how to sing without instruments and can file a student group application. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to schi: I apologize for offending you with the Blair comparison, but I believe it was an obvious next argument for someone who is pushing the geographical-context comparison between NYT and UVA's Cavalier without acknowledging the editorial-concern argument, given my point that I have personal experience with reporters-in-training making stuff up to serve their agendas. I concede this is an extreme example, and that reporting on college music groups is probably not usually this biased. I also apologize for any implication of a "monolithic establishment of college newspaper journalism". As I mention in my above response to Edison, college papers can have useful material, but they must be double-checked because they are far more prone to favoritism and simple ineptitude by fledging reporters. (The change at Wikipedia:Notability (music) was done with far too little discussion or any meaningful consensus, and opens the door to the promotion of any local artist or group that catches the fancy of the student staff.) Finally, I don't agree that a topic need not "rise to the level of being covered by a state or national newspaper"; I think this is a useful yardstick for notability in a global encyclopedia. I take this position because Wikipedians are, in general, atrociously bad at creating proper citations for reliable sources, mostly believing that (A) "truth" is all that matters; (B) bare links to self-promotional websites, fansites, or user forums are sufficient; or (C) mentioning correspondence or a newspaper without giving specifics is more than enough for "sourcing"; when none of these are adequate for verifiability. I am not saying you are doing this; that's just the experience motivating my hard line on solid, neutral, professional sources. (My point can be easily demonstrated by observing the sore lack of proper sources in the first 10 articles one fetches through "Random article".) If we had more folks doing a thorough job of vetting sources, I'd be much more willing to accept very local sources, as I am an inclusionist at heart. Until that time, I'm a practical deletionist in order to force that vetting. But as I mention above, we currently have absolutely zero independent sources cited in this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffq, I wasn't really offended, but I do appreciate the civility. Finally, I don't agree that a topic need not "rise to the level of being covered by a state or national newspaper"; I think this is a useful yardstick for notability in a global encyclopedia. - Perhaps I shouldn't have said "rise", as my point here is that the fact that an information source is geographically-based is often irrelevant to its usefulness as a reliable source (to establish notability). Esoteric/academic/highly-technical topics that are routinely not covered in general (geographically-based) newspapers but are discussed in academic journals/conference proceedings are considered sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia, even though such sources can have very small audiences and are not geographically-based. schi talk 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I submit that a previous deletion nomination should be considered which happens to be one of the a cappella groups in question.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hullabahoos. In the end this article was kept... we need to maintain consistency... if we keep Hullabahoos, how can we delete a listing for the remaining a cappella groups at the same University? I know the rest are not as developed as the linked example, but you have to give it some time to grow. Seems kind of hypocritical to keep the example and delete this one if you ask me. Jazznutuva 08:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see why keeping one group at a University, means we have to keep all a cappella related articles from that University. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Consistency" is a common but erroneous argument for inclusion. To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The golden standard for verifiability is multiple reliable sources. Hullabahoos has them; many other UVA a cappella groups do not. What's more, this is not a discussion about the groups themselves, but rather whether we should have an article collecting the groups. This list article currently has no independent, reliable sources whatsoever. (Actually, after examining the Hullaboos article, I see that the use of bare links disguises the fact that most of the "sources" are either Cavalier articles or clearly not wiki-reliable sources. Only the Kennedy Center link is inarguably reliable. This will need some investigation, too.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks reliable sources, and the article is apepar to be essentially an attempt to get around notability of individual groups by lumpng them into teh same article. -- Whpq 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a larger University of Virginia student organizations or something. Dylan 17:41, 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 Merge to Twin Peaks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:12Z

Invitation to Love[edit]

Invitation to Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a fictional TV show within a TV show (Twin Peaks, one of my favorite TV series), with only a few scenes total material. There is no reasonable expectation of reliable sources for sourcing any information. Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep I remember this got a multi-page article in Wrapped In Plastic (issue 8 or 6 or something). Could probably be a keeper if anyone cares enough about it to expand and reference it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a minor but important important component of Lynch's doppelganger motif for the series. As for reliable sources, what in the article needs to be sourced beyond the confirming its existence and the names of the characters (as is done for three of them here for starters)? Additionally, Wrapped in Plastic did an ITL episode guide in issue 6, which I'm sure someone still has floating around somewhere, if additional sourcing is needed. And as always, the show itself is a reliable source. Otto4711 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, obviously, since notability isn't established. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fictional TV show within a TV show simply is not notable enough to merit its own article. At most, this should be dealt with within the main Twin Peaks article, as any notability this "show" has is made apparent only in the context of the show in which it exists. Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment then we will be running into a lot of problems with things such as Sick,_Sad_World and Tool Time. wtfunkymonkey 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then nominate those articles for deletion. This discussion is about the Invitation to Love article, not those other articles. Interestingstuffadder 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I definitely don't think there's enough here to support a separate article for Invitation to Love. The basic info that currently exists on the page doesn't support the inherent notability of the show-within-a-show, and one article in a publication directly related to the show doesn't cut it (that's only one step away from using an indie band's MySpace as a source). The Google search I performed gave no information other than characters' names and perhaps a one-sentence synopsis, and these hits were not plentiful. Simply put, ItL is not sufficiently significant by its own merits. -- Kicking222's 5,000th edit to Wikipedia! 01:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Twin Peaks article, seems pretty simple to me. wtfunkymonkey 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redir to Twin Peaks. Which is awesome, as are <fireworks>K222's 5000 edits</fireworks> ;) Deizio talk 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect per above. Split Infinity (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, first, Wrapped in Plastic was created and produced by people with no connection to the show itself, so it's incorrect to dismiss its content as "a publication directly related to the show." Second, checking through the Ghits turns up an article which apparently uses ITL as a basis for an analysis of TP. That plus the aforementioned WIP article plus the many minor mentions of the show-within-a-show peppered throughout TP online sites plus the fact that most TP scholarship isn't available online and the topic is notable. Barely notable, I will freely admit, but notable nonetheless. Otto4711 04:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: So, what does that make your vote then? I'd guess you're leaning for keep, but OK, first isn't exactly a formal position. - wtfunkymonkey 05:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already "voted" up-article. Otto4711 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm tickled that someone actually wrote a serious article using "Invitation to Love". I would consider changing my vote to "merge" to include a very short statement that summarizes the basic idea, with the proper citation (Charney, Mark J. (1991). "Invitation to Love: The Influence of Soap Opera on David Lynch's Twin Peaks". Studies in Popular Culture. 14 (1): 53–59. ISSN 0888-5753.). But the entire current content of the article is too trivial even to merge, IMHO. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:01, 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 Both. If someone wants to create a redirect to "Baker's dozen", feel free. ---J.S (T/C) 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Baker's Dozen[edit]

The Baker's Dozen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
also nominated: Vocal music at Yale.

College a cappella group which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR. Claims to notability are having performed in front of various people (which can only be sourced to the group's webiste) and having alumni who went on to join the U.S. Navy or become a Junior Analyst at Merrill Lynch. Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I also question the utility of the related article Vocal music at Yale. Wikipedia is not a data mirror for Yale's websites. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added to nom insince no one else has voted. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of that being a criteria at WP:MUSIC. Certainly not everyone who is 60 years old is notable. There are tons of college clubs that have been around a long time but haven't become notable outside of their college. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Some of the trees in my garden are 70 years old, pretty damn notable trees we grow round these parts. Deizio talk 02:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And do the 70 year old trees in your garden sing and go on tours? I would worry if you answer yes. Edison 05:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they did they would be notable on account of the reams of direct media coverage the "All Singing, All Dancing Trees of Scotland" phenomenon recieved, not how long they had been around. Deizio talk 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Birnam Wood perhaps. Edison 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of my nomination concerns the article's quality, but rather that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Which criteria do you think it meets exactly? savidan(talk) (e@) 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a cappella groups are notable. They're just as notable as political organizations. Why don't you nominate the Skull and Bones Society for deletion? It's a college organization. And the page has lots of original research and speculation. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been books, newspaper and magazine articles, etc. written about the Skull and Bones society. Perhaps the same is true for some college a cappella groups—not the ones I nominated. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are most certainly notable a cappella groups, like The Bobs, Da Vinci's Notebook, and Take 6 to name a few. But just like college political organizations, college music groups rarely make the notability cut. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of a silly redirect. In this case it would be permissible (GFDL-wise) to delete and redirect since the redirect would be to an article unrelated to the group. Not a very worthwhile redirect though. People don't often use the definite article when talking about bakers' dozens. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added two references to New York Times and one to Fortune magazine which mention the group. They of course had numerous mentions in Yale papers and alumni mags. Seem more notable than most college a capella groups. Edison 17:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No way the group qualifies as the primary subject of any of the cited references. We already know they exist. Deizio talk 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the group is noted by prominent mention in the New York Times or Fortune in more than a directory listing or a passing reference, that should count some towards notability. "Noted" implies "notability." Edison 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Edison's conditional statement is misleading. The Holland citation explicitly states "mentioned as one of several newer glee clubs at Yale". The Freedman citation doesn't even state whether the article mentioned TBD, saying instead "The Baker's Dozen sang the Louis Jordan song "Ain't nobody here but us chickens" as part of the recruiting of highschool students" (clearly not a quote from the article, given the use of the non-existent compound word "highschool"). The Fisher article is about Keith Ferrazzi (himself a subject of arguable notability), saying only, "Ferrazzi loves singing, so 'I do piano-bar parties, where I have Lionel Richie and the Yale Baker's Dozen come and hang out,' he says." The actual quote doesn't even specifically say that Richie and the Baker's Dozen were there at the same time for a single party, while the citation implies a much stronger connection: "they performed along with Lionel Richie at a piano-bar party". (Such expansive interpretations of cited material are exactly why proper citations and quotes are necessary, to avoid reading too much into trivial items.) These are clearly passing references, not "prominent mention". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, reply to Edison's self-deleted comment}
  • Comment Please remind me which guideline says something has to be the "primary subject" of an article for the article to work toward extablishing notability. Thanks. Edison 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "press coverage" criteria at WP:BIO states "primary subject". The corresponding criteria at WP:MUSIC states "subject". If you're suggesting either of these can be interpreted as being fulfilled with "(mentioned as one of several newer glee clubs at Yale)" or either of the other references you cited, you're missing the point. As a self-proclaimed BLP patroller you should really know about these guidelines. You're welcome. Deizio talk 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect exact of trivial references in non-trivial sources; not a basis for notability. If they're writting an article about college marching bands and mention one person to get a quote from them, that person doesn't get an article. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Group is, in fact, notable. If this is deleted, The Whiffenpoofs needs to be brought up for deletion as well. dcandeto 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one's stopping you from nominating that article. It's an inclusionist fallacy that the existence of other non-notables justifies the existence of more non-notables. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - calls to delete The Whiffenpoofs and Skull and Bones are rather petulant, as they are world-renowned organizations that have been subject to oodles of press, coverage, third-party sources, etc. Yale has 1145436 a cappella groups. So does Harvard. A lot of other colleges aren't far behind. They do NOT need their own articles.--Dmz5 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the vocal music page, can it be renamed and improved? Like, "music at yale" that could also feature historical info and real sources, as well as lists of present and past organizations? That seems doable. --Dmz5 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do not seem notable and are the "references" any more than trivial mentions? They do not seem focused on this group. Moreschi Deletion! 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are at least notable for being the subject of a neighborhood attempt to evict them. There are many other hits when I searched for Baker's Dozen on the Yale Daily News, some of which probably contain non-trivial discussion of the subject - even more so for the general subject of vocal music at Yale. schi talk 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yale Daily News articles given prove existence, not notability. Many non-notable school clubs get covered in their school newspapers. If that attempt to evict them got national (or perhaps even state) coverage that'd be a start. If only their college newspaper picked up on it, no dice. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My same comments as above, in the AfD for A cappella groups of UVA, apply here too. Also, this blog reproduces part of (and provides an apparently broken link to) a New Haven Advocate article on the eviction story. I can pull this article from Lexis (hopefully) later, but the point is that even if college newspapers with editorial oversight are, for some reason unbeknownst to me, not considered reliable sources, then the Advocate coverage should be enough. Would you say that alumni magazines also aren't considered reliable sources? schi talk 23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into an argument about what is and isn't a valid source for notability, but this does seem like a rather backdoor way to confer notability on the group -Dmz5 04:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do blogs make things more reliable? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, when? I know I didn't make that assertion. I said that a blog referenced a relevant article in a newspaper which I was trying to find a copy of. schi talk 08:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Bigtop 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A college newspaper is an independent sources for determining notability. Edison 05:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • College newspapers intentionally promote campus activities like the arts. They should be treated skeptically at best for such activities, not assumed to be independent sources. As WP:INDY states, "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." Groups that have achieved notoriety through outside publications, like Skull and Bones, can lay claim to independent sources. I don't think Wikipedia has reached the point where any person or organization mentioned in a college newspaper deserves an article. (That will have to wait for the Final Encyclopedia, perhaps. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment about this point, college newspapers (despite Edison's assertions below) do have a vested interest in promoting campus life, and while they are usually not just arms of the administration, they are still far more likely than, say, the New York Times to be full of fluff pieces exhorting students to check out this or that performance. As such, it is proper to scrutinize them in this regard.--Dmz5 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with JeffQ - this statement, without any caveats, means that every college organization of every stripe can get an article on wikipedia, from the SUNY-Purchase Lawn Bowling Society to the Dordt College Flea Circus Appreciation Club. While articles in college papers support findings of fact (i.e. "this club exists") they do not confer notability. --Dmz5 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where in WP:N (or WP:MUSIC) does it exclude college newspapers from the notability-determining criteria? The idea that we should not consider college newspapers reliable sources seems to defy policy and guidelines. schi talk 08:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little investigating and it looks like school newspapers were explicitly prohibited from the WP:MUSIC guidelines until very recently [3] when they were changed with the approval of approximately 2 editors on the talk page, and then later rewritten to not mention school newspapers. However, the intent of the policy is clear: the published source is supposed to demonstrate that the groups notability extends beyond their immediate sphere; a write-up in their college paper does not automatically establish such notability. However, facts from a college newspaper article could perhaps establish that some of the other criteria have been met. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no one is saying they are not reliable sources; the phone book is a reliable source if you wanted to publish someone's address, but it doesn't make that person notable. I know it's not the same thing but you see my point.--Dmz5 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (with a feeling of deja vu) At the colleges I attended, the campus paper had an independent editorial board and was often critical of administration policies, the sports teams, and campus arts groups. Maybe at some college, the President hires reporters and tells them to praise the chorus. I think that is the exception rather than the rule. They had as large a circulation as the town paper, and operated at perhaps a higher journalistic level. It is unreasonable to claim that an article in such a paper does not count as one of the multiple, verifiable, independent sources for notability. Otherwise a Cleveland paper could not be a source for notability in Cleveland. And it is a straweman argument to start talking about the impossibility of having an article for "everything mentioned " in a campus paper, since we are judging by the standard of multiple coverage. The campus paper is an independent source; the chorus newsletter would not be. Edison

15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally see your point, however - I have seen debates (such as the one surrounding Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves) in which the use of a small-town newspaper as a source was criticized for the same reason (i.e. providing trivial coverage of every conceivable organization in the town). This may be splitting hairs, but the Cleveland metro area has a million people; there are about 5,000 undergrads at Yale. Furthermore, college newspapers indisputably and rightly give coverage to all kinds of trivial things; the Cleveland Plain Dealer generally does not write articles about local knitting societies and community choruses unless they are involved in something that meets a higher standard of notability. Please do not interpret our responses as being a jab at college newspapers or a claim they are invalid sources or journalistically incompetant, because I don't think that's what anyone is claiming. --Dmz5 16:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I went to very "good" schools for ugrad and grad school and they both did, in fact, have papers of very low journalistic quality, one of which frequently instates and then removes an editorial policy not to provide critical coverage of performing organizations. So I do not think it is totally off base to question them a little more closely, just as we should question the Small Town Times a little more closely. This sort of contradicts what I said about jabs at college papers but it's a point that's worth making.-Dmz5 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly agree that college newspapers, regardless of the quality of journalism or stature of the college, report on a very closed sphere of interest and necessarily give coverage to elements of campus life that would not feature in even a local, let alone a regional or national publication. Reports in college papers and glancing / trivial mentions in mainstream media do not satisfy the spirit or the letter of our notability criteria. Deizio talk 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N and WP:MUSIC indicate that multiple, non-trivial discussions in reliable sources establish notability; editors here contend that multiple, non-trivial discussions in college newspapers do not establish notability. That sounds to me like you don't accept college newspapers as reliable sources, at least for the purpose of establishing notability. If that's the case, you need to raise it at WP:N or WP:MUSIC, not here. Also on the topic of splitting hairs, while there are about 5,000 undergrads at Yale, there are 120,000+ living alumni who could be interested in topics covered by the Yale newspaper. Further, the article in the New Haven Advocate about the attempt at evicting The Baker's Dozen's is not glancing nor trivial - they're the subject of the article. As for the policy's intent concerning a topic's notability extending beyond its "immediate sphere" - again, I question that "immediate sphere" extends to the entire communities of, in this case, Yale, New Haven, and/or a cappella-affiliated/interested people. schi talk 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sidenote, but as I mentioned above, it seems to me that an article about a real estate conflict the group had might not propel it to notability unless the article is called The Baker's Dozen Eviction Case. Just my opinion. Also, I posted a comment about this discussion on the WP:N talk page, so feel free to continue this there.--Dmz5 19:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A notable music act will be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (WP:MUSIC) on account of its music, not being evicted, being "new this year" or anything else. I don't accept that being reported in a publication which exists to report the affairs of one university and does not have to compete in the free market can be judged as "reliable" as it pertains to establishing notability. The downpour of cruft such a definition keeps out is frankly huge. I appreciate not everyone shares this view. Deizio talk 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete vocal music article as in my opinion it can be the basis for a substantial article, although I agree that it is useless in its present state. I commented on this above but I wanted to !vote here for emphasis.--Dmz5 09:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:RS -- Whpq 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dylan 17:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual group articles without evidence of wide notability. I think reworking the "Vocal music at Yale" to include brief descriptions of the various groups might be acceptable. -- Infrogmation 00:03, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:11Z

Terra Soft Solutions[edit]

Terra Soft Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. Speedy deletion tag removed, no real assertion of meeting WP:CORP or indeed any external sourcing at all.

  • Delete per nom - nn corporation, SkierRMH,05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failure of WP:CORP.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to importance in the Power Architecture community being the only Linux-vendor soley concentrating on this segment and being first to market for PowerMac G5 and PlayStation 3. Please read Talk:Terra_Soft_Solutions. -- Henriok 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 500,000 ghits, plenty of independent write-ups online though nothing in print by the looks of things, article could quite easily be referenced by the looks of things. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Somitho 13:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Heligoland. The article is not much, but the company appears to be notable. - Justin (Authalic) 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - major distributor in the PPC field. Plenty of room for expansion. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:36, 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.--Húsönd 01:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beelzebubs[edit]

Beelzebubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella article which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR. Claims to notability include “pioneering the contemporary a cappella sound” (cited to a blurb on a site where they sell their albums, not an independent review) and having “permanently affected the characteristics of collegiate and contemporary a cappella” (without a source). Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Stebbins 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - and prior arguments. SkierRMH,05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Josh Parris#: 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 06:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. Terence Ong 07:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above reasons, and because it is all too easy for college students and alums to make wikipedia a venue for pushing the supposed "fame" of their pet organizations and causes. This is the case at many, many articles on college orgs, from a cappella groups to orchestras to newspapers to tennis teams.--Dmz5 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - fails WP:RS -- Whpq 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was gonna write a big full-blown case for deletion, but realized while writing it that it sounded redundant, so I'll just agree with everyone else here on the article failing WP:MUSIC and WP:V. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 18:38, 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. Deizio talk 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean's Best Albums[edit]

Sean's Best Albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information - it's some guy's favourite albums list. Not speediable as patent nonsense; prod removed. StoptheDatabaseState 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I can't find any evidence whatsoever, except for a fleeting glance in the nominator's contribs, that this article ever existed. This is probably due to the current db problems. MER-C 03:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've fixed the AFD page so that it goes to the right article title. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 04:03, 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 04:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brown Derbies[edit]

The Brown Derbies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella article which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR. Claims to notability are (1) performing in front of the first lady (cited to their website—would the band that performed "privately" as the Bush's wedding also deserve an article?) and being on TV once (cited to their school newspaper—which does not make the claim that they are notable outside the campus). Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Josh Parris#: 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A cappella groups have some notability. This group has had serveral albums and many Google hits. A cappella groups are not radio towers. They are established musical organizations. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a radio tower. A google hit is not the same as a reliable source that can be cited or notability. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles that are by far less notable than all these a cappella groups. Instead of deleting them, why don't we expand them? S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Classic fallacy. Existence of other non-notable articles doesn't justify more. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most of the ghits are in myspace. Fails WP:RS. MER-C 06:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, low relevant ghits. SkierRMH 07:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Fails WP:MUSIC? Yep. Bye bye baby bye bye (that was all she wrote)--Brian (How am I doing?) 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a capella cruft. Recury 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I said it before and I'll say it again, it is tempting and easy for college students and alums to make wikipedia a venue for pushing the supposed "fame" of their pet organizations and causes. This is not the only article that fits that mold.--Dmz5 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep They have notability with national cappella. They were on Best of College A Cappella Humor - Wasting Our Parents' Money, BOCA Vol 1., BOCA 97 & 98, and Best Of Collegiate a Cappella 2000. [4] The website also places the Brown Derbies in a list of "some of the best known collegiate ensembles." 209.162.23.188 06:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source given is not a reliable source because it's not sufficiently independent. It's from someone selling their records; may as well be liner notes. Also, BOCA is not a good indicator of notability—see the BOCA afd. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:03, 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 04:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chord on Blues[edit]

Chord on Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella article which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR. Only claim to notability is having appeared on Fox & Friends once. Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom & previous discussions on these groups. SkierRMH,06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Josh Parris#: 06:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep A cappella groups have some notability. This group has had serveral albums and many Google hits. A cappella groups are not radio towers. They are established musical organizations. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This keep vote has been copy and pasted and has nothing to do with the merits of this article. Good hits do not an article make. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Per my mistake in copying and pasting. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SkierRMH 07:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral They claim to have toured nationally in Canada, and would therefore meet WP:MUSIC. This is unverified, but I'm not convinced that it's unverifiable. Then again, it's been a stub in this condition for two years. If someone adds a source, I'll change to keep. On another note, I'm confused whether there's been a previous nomination for deletion; the article history suggests there has, but I can't seem to find one. Shimeru 08:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there has it was under a different title. If there were reliable sources about their trip to Canada we might be talking.savidan(talk) (e@) 08:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article suggests it was only one appearance on Fox and Friends, which doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and from what has been said, it doesn't look like any reliable source for the statement about touring across Canada will be found. —ShadowHalo 18:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the same reason as the other currently nominated groups --Dmz5 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would argue, though perhaps not strenuously, that college a cappella groups touring are not automatically guaranteed notability. My a cappella group in college toured all the time, often "cross country" or "internationally" but it was always on the coattails of a larger choir or simply going to a bunch of other colleges and getting hosted by their a cappella groups and having a dual concert. This is not "touring" per se, in the way that the Harvard Krokodiloes tour.--Dmz5 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dylan 17:40, 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 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterparts (band)[edit]

Counterparts (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

College a cappella article which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR. Only claims to notability are getting a track on a BOCA album and having a notable alum. Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient to ever produce a good article. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep A cappella groups have some notability. This group has had serveral albums and many Google hits. A cappella groups are not radio towers. They are established musical organizations. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This keep vote has been copy and pasted and has nothing to do with this group. Google hits have nothing to do with it; it doesn't have any WP:RS. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per my mistake of copying and pasting. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SkierRMH 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong 07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Acs4b 07:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC, lack of reliable sources. —ShadowHalo 08:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Asserts notability, received recognition by nation organization of singing groups, has notable alumnus. Needs more independent sources. Does not appear to be a BAND but rather a singing group, so the article needs to be renamed.Edison 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BOCA is not an award. They take every entry they recieve (unless its really bad) and you have to pay them $200 in the form of pre-buys. If you had to pay money when you won the National Merit Scholarship, you wouldn't put it on your resume. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me: National Merit Scholar" does not help your resume, whether you paid money or not. Edison 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same old same old....-Dmz5 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:44, 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 close and delete per unanimous consensus. Sandstein 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Democratic Democracy[edit]

Secure Democratic Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Zero Google hits for exact term; suspicious original research. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:54, 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 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knock Knock Albino[edit]

Knock Knock Albino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Gay For A Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This allegedly influential team of filmmakers appears to be virtually unknown outside of MySpace. None of their work appears to have been reviewed or critiqued by anyone of any repute. NatusRoma | Talk 01:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Gay For A Summer to this AfD, these should be deleted together, unless Sylvester Stallone suddenly pops up to confirm his role in the film... Tubezone 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete Gay For A Summer. These "influential" filmmakers are completely non-notable. Their name gets only 86 total and 22 unique Google hits, and they're all Wiki mirrors or MySpace. -- Kicking222 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, per above. Deizio talk 02:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lookit, Daisy Mae! I gots 98 MahSpace friends, Ah is whorl-fay-mus! Gots to write me a cyclerpedja arteecul! Delete Tubezone 04:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - all ghits are Wikipedia, myspace or deviantART. Fails WP:V. MER-C 06:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abysmal failure of WP:V. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom myspace <> notariety. SkierRMH 07:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just get rid, hell, there should be a speedy category for non notable crap from MySpace and YouTube --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable for all of the above reasons, plus all of the 'references' in the articles are either to Blogspot or Google's cache of Blogspot. Shadow1 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Bigtop 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just H 20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - not verifiable from reliable sources -- Whpq 17:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both nn, as per comments above. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 10:42, 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 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Pub Company[edit]

Little Pub Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Small, defunct chain of pubs in England. No sign of compliance with WP:CORP Deizio talk 02:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bryk[edit]

Dan Bryk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability, but doesn't qualify. The subject meets WP:MUSIC with a tour through Canada, the US and Japan, and with the outside coverage. That's imo enough to avoid speedy deletion, but the issue is whether it's enough to meet the notability thresholds. That's why I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 02:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions and in the list of Canada-related deletions. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 02:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he passes WP:MUSIC, he deserves an article. Tevildo 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wp Music !paradigm! 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we understood how well we needed to justify Bryk's "career" to be notable. Sorry, it's our first wiki entry. We're getting it, honest. Umrecs 3:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Since you seem to represent Urban Myth Records, Umrecs, I strongly recommend that you read our conflict of interest policy. If your contributions to Wikipedia are determined to be primarily commercial promotion, you may be subject to blocking. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, while Dan Bryk could be considered a "commercial" artist, if you had read our mission statement in your research, you might have noted that Urban Myth is a 'recording collective'. While we ultimately serve some of the facilitating functions a record company might, we are a non-profit 'artist collective' that serves as a resource for the artists who do the commerce. (FYI Urban Myth sells no products directly or from our website.) Semantics and issues of self-interest aside, I really don't see how you can dispute Dan is a notable artist (cf. new link to COVER Feature Story from Now Weekly, a 395,000 READER CIRCULATION city weekly and a major Toronto cultural signifier). I have supplied the baseline data and links there, please feel free to put your mad skillz to use and re-write for Wiki style. Merci. Umrecs 1:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, non-profit is still commercial -- but we don't care if you're non-profit. We're not here to provide free hosting and promotional services, let alone rewrite services, and if you persist in acting like our rules do not apply to you for some reason (believe me, we've seen them all), and we're just here to provide you a soapbox, you will run into problems -- I guarantee that. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dhartung, I'm not sure why you appear to taking this so personally. As you should realize from the proposed entry (or even a cursory Google search) Dan Bryk has plenty of other avenues for commercial promotion. My original entry was quite simple, factual and non-promotional, and it was immediately tagged for quick deletion. I then supplemented Dan's entry in hopes of enhanced notability, and was immediately attacked by yourself for alleged commercial promotion. Apart from my role at UM, I PERSONALLY believe Dan deserves a Wiki entry, assuming Wikipedia considers noteworthy alternative music artists to be worthy of entry, and it is up to editors like yourself to debate that. I'm still not sure how that equals "persist(ing) in acting like the rules do not apply to me." Really, hurling threats(!!!) at a first-time wiki author for admitting "Sorry, it's our first wiki entry" seems a little out of line. Umrecs 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not taking this personally. I am telling you that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy and reminding you to abide by it. When an editor has an interest in an article, any article, their objectivity is likely to be called into question; in this case, had there been any question of notability, then for me (and others) the fact that it was written by a connected entity could easily have tipped argumentation the other way. It's really better to avoid this problem by not editing the article in the first place. Now, we really don't care whether you "personally believe" Bryk should have an entry. We only care whether he meets the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as notability. I have not attacked you, nor have I made threats, if you will reread my comment. I have been firm, and other Wikipedia editors and administrators may be far less forgiving of any violations now that you have been told about our policies, so you should base your future participation in Wikipedia on that. If you don't understand how your editing of the article is a conflict of interest -- and you have not said that you do -- then I will be happy to explain it again. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fully Understood. (I apologize for the cavalier tone of my "mad skillz" quip, since obviously these protocols are critically important to you.) The bottom line is, Dan Bryk, acclaimed, loved indie rocker he is, did not have an entry. My intial proposed entry had nothing but objective, factual data that you yourself _could_ have written based on one or two of the cited articles (and that's a selective sample; a Google or EBSCO search will return many more). It was IMMEDIATELY marked for speedy deletion. When augmented with _subjective_ data to DEFEND _notability_, the interest flag came up. Does NO-ONE else here find that process flawed, or at the very least problematic? Umrecs 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Placement of the speedy deletion tag is a nomination open to any editor who believes it is warranted. It is an implicit trust of the administrators that when they are closing speedy deletions, since only the nominator and the closing administrator are involved, that the admin take care to abide by the criteria. That was done. The admin had questions about the nomination, so placed it here for a community consensus, rather than leaving it between two people who disagree. To the contrary, that process worked wonderfully, and from your point of view, succeeded -- because here editors found sufficient notability to vote keep (in fact not one editor has voted "delete"). I find no flaw in this process, nor in the way it proceeded in this case. If had been a procedural flaw, we have deletion review as a sort of appeals process. --Dhartung | Talk 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multinational tours + multiple commercial albums [5]= meets WP:MUSIC. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the heck? keep. While I'm glad that the pendulum has swung away from "Delete per this proposal", I'm not happy it went all the way to "Delete despite meeting this guideline"... -Amarkov blahedits 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was a procedural nomination as speedy is not meant to adjudicate notability. Aecis stated "no opinion". --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then it's even worse, someone thought that something meeting WP:MUSIC could be speedied. -Amarkov blahedits 14:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 04:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Are you kidding me? This article practically embodies WP:MUSIC.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:MUSIC does seem met. Article is a mess, though. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, but it does need a good re-write. SkierRMH 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC but needs a complete rewrite. I never heard of him but through a Google search he is obviously notable. Terence Ong 07:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a pretty no-brainer keep. May need some rewriting, but that's a different issue. Contested speedies don't necessarily have to be taken to AFD, if doing so would violate WP:SNOWBALL. Bearcat 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as while the article is indeed rather messy and we should tag it for cleanup, it easily fulfills the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. To illustrate, reviews of his work have been featured in several recent non-trivial published works, such as Pitchfork Media. Check out Pitchfork Review #1 and Pitchfork Review #2 for examples. TheSteve04 20:08, 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 04:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Baker (financier)[edit]

Arthur Baker (financier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Accountant and financier who deals with a lot of zeroes. Don't see the connection with WP:BIO though. Deizio talk 02:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7. In this case, the criteria is WP:CORP, and it fails spectacularly. --Dennisthe2 03:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slow Delete - crz crztalk 04:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Bwithh 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per, hmmmm BIO/CORP/WTF? SkierRMH 07:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Terence Ong 07:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His notability is 'in the red' and he can't claim an exemption from WP:BIO OR WP:CORP on his wiki-return (sorry, accounting humour).--Brian (How am I doing?) 14:50, 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 04:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mall at Stonecrest[edit]

Mall at Stonecrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previous AfD here. Contested PROD Yanksox 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Whack anyone who throws up a strawman of racism to avoid addressing notability. -Amarkov blahedits 03:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to fail to proposed WP:MALL. MER-C 06:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & MALL, no syrawman here. SkierRMH 07:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This mall has 1.3 million square feet of space [6] which I believe would help it pass WP:MALL. A mall with five major department stores sounds like it should have a chance to have a decent article on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE I am usually the first to jump to the defense of a NOTABLE mall. This one is not notable. Also, WP:MALL is proposed, it isn't a guideline, it isn't a rule. It holds no more weight than something I would whip up in my sandbox or userspace. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the 1.3 million square feet of GLA. Would like to see independent sources. Power centers are generally not regional malls.Edison 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - absolutely no assertion of notability anywhere. Moreschi 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in Google Books and no non-trivial mentions in News. Also, "This number is big." is not an argument to keep. JChap2007 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See the proposed guideline WP:MALL where 1 million square feet of GLA is a breakpoint for regional malls versus lesser malls, as a standard established by the mall industry. Many guidelines have numbers. Numbers are your friend. Edison 15:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that makes the implicit assumption that regional malls are automatically notable, unlike other malls. -Amarkov blahedits 15:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I see in WP:MALL is a rephrasing of the primary notability criterion followed by, "Malls at or larger than one million square feet (93000 square meters) of gross leasable area fall under this category in many cases." But where the mall in question does not meet the PNC... JChap2007 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to suggest this isn’t just another mall. Fledgeling 02:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a directory of sahopping malls. No evidence this is considered an important or significant example of its kind, no independent non-trivial sources. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references or links are independent. The prior AFD doesn't help either, no sourcing is mentioned there. No non-trivial, independent, reliable sources means I have no reason to believe it is notable. GRBerry 02:14, 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 04:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sets of unrelated albums with identical titles[edit]

List of sets of unrelated albums with identical titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This list violates WP:NOT#IINFO. There is nothing interesting to be said about albums with identical titles that warrants an article on them, much less a list of examples.Bjart 20:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If two albums have the same title, mention it on a disambiguation page for that album; there's no need to mention it in a centralised place. I've listed it on the daily log now. Graham87 03:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the information useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Useful" is not a valid keep criterion, in the same way that "not useful" is not a deletion criterion. Please cite relevant policies/guidelines this subject passes in order for it to be kept. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review!
    • "Useful" is perfectly valid counterpoint to deletion based on "indiscriminate". Indiscriminate is a catchall for saying it has no use in Wikipedia. It should be labeled as a disambiguation page too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go with keep also.

savidan(talk) (e@) 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, WP:NOT. For goodness sake, a Listpedia should be created. Terence Ong 07:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - create disambig pages, not lists. SkierRMH 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Check the history, look how many wikipedians contributed! Many individuals clearly want this entry to exist. Rearden Metal 08:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "How many Wikipedians contributed" is not a valid keep criterion, in the same way that a "sparsely edited" article is not a valid deletion criterion. Please cite relevant policies/guidelines this subject passes in order for it to be kept. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review!
  • Delete. The list of unrelated songs with identical titles is interesting, because a song's title reflects its lyrics and melody, but an album can really have any title, and most of these titles listed here are so common that there's bound to be coincidences. JIP | Talk 10:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this list per WP:NOT#IINFO. Doczilla 11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, superceded by disambiguation pages really. Punkmorten 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I thought I already saw this on AfD - The RSJ ¿Qué? 02:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. A totally random and unnecessary list that is far better dealt with by using disambiguation pages (seeing as this is precisely what those pages are for). --The Way 06:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unambiguously indiscriminate and arbitrary. WP:USEFUL does not trump WP:NOT. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy if anyone cares to, because it is an interesting list. But if anyone actually wanted information about one of these albums, they'd see the relevant info on the disambiguation page. Not encyclopedic. --Quuxplusone 02:02, 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 speedy redirect to Boot Camp (film). Pardon my boldness, but this was a matter that did not require deletion. --Wafulz 04:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Edge (film)[edit]

Straight Edge (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page should be deleted because the movie title has been changed to 'boot camp'. If you click the link to the IMDB site, you can see the name has changed. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870204/) silic0nsilence 03:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboarders v. Skiiers Conflict[edit]

Snowboarders v. Skiiers Conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is non-notable and unverifiable. Also, this article is just ridiculous. Split Infinity (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A1 (no context). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems interesting enough. Would like to see it improved. Has potential. Recommend Keep. Navou talk 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that "this article is interesting" is not much of an argument to keep it on WP.--Dmz5 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting article that IS sourced, see the references section. Overall, a keeper indeed! Systemex 04:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs work, but the issue is certainly real. - Justin (Authalic) 05:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this article should probably be renamed "Snowboarders v. Skiers Conflict" if it survives this AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - totally written from a snowboarder's pov as well. The reason skiiers hate them is because they park themselves in the middle of the slop of their ass with their boards in from of them. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete So badly written and formatted. Has a POV.--M8v2 05:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV OR mini-essay. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IslaySolomon. FiggyBee 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV, OR, and based on a single article that's actually about a conflict between snowmobiles and skiers --Steve (Slf67) talk 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Seems interesting enough" is not a criterion for inclusion. This article is original research, biased (the skiiers represent the traditional mode of alpine recreation, the snowboarders are comprised mostly of a unorthodox, avant-garde coterie... sez who?), and the only potentially reliable source included in the article has next to nothing to do with the topic at hand, as mentioned by Steve above. Not the basis for an article. --Kinu t/c 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not an encylopedia article; it's an essay. If there were some relevant sources to demonstrate that this is an observed and noteworthy phenomenon, it might work, but it does not now. Heimstern Läufer 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article can be fixed. Sure, it needs to comply with WP:NPOV and less original research, but it can be made into a sufficient article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this could become an encyclopedic topic. — QuantumEleven 07:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - potentially encyclopaedic. Poor writing is not a criterion for deletion. See also [7]: "Snowboarders, for their part, felt that skiers were unwilling to share the slopes with them and complained about the negative attitudes of some skiers. Globally, some ski areas reacted by banning snowboarding from their slopes and sadly, even now a few resorts still do." --Stemonitis 10:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steve. Inherently unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing encyclopedic here. If there is to be an article describing the history of interaction between skiers and snowboarders, it damn sure shouldn't have "conflict" in the title. Deizio talk 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:CLEANUP is not a keep rationale. WP:RS requires multiple sources. Fails WP:V as this cannot be confirmed as anything but perhaps a local phenonomena. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong delete - why wasn't this speedied? - farcical nonsense. The very idea that a painfully POV essay like this could ever be cleaned up is just ludicrous. Moreschi 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay that is an opinion piece based on assumptions and stereotypes, no sources, no verification. Agent 86 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a real, widely-known phenomenon, but this is just an essay without a single sentence that belongs here. If someone wants the find some sources and write a proper article, I would have no objection to that. The only source in the article is about the antipathy between cross-country skiers and snowmobiles. JChap2007 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the big three: WP:V, WP:OR and WP:POV. -- Satori Son 05:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV original research with no encyclopedic value and no hopes of ever being cleaned up enough to come remotely close to being able to be a legitimate article. --The Way 06:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be a keep because it has a source, but the source is a fail-source because it requires a log-in to view, so delete. Anomo 12:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Would keep without the OR. Can't though. Just H 20:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's POV, OR and the source is about a different phenomenon. Snowboard and snowmobile isn't the same thing. Secateur 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just stumbled upon this in doing research on Snowboarding and I have to say that this phenomenon is real and verifiable. Great start!! Titlalin 02:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense (albeit amusing). --Quuxplusone 02:04, 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 links to Criticism of Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:08Z

The Shiny Diamonds controversy[edit]

The Shiny Diamonds controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a rather strange case. It's an article about a prior AfD and a Washington Post article on AfD generally that leads with the aforementioned AfD specifically. One source doesn't quite cut it for most notability considerations, and I don't think a write-up in the Post makes it a "controversy" per se. The article is quite well written and flawlessly formatted, but it, like the band, is not notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Kchase T 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn I am now in agreement with Antepenultimate's point below that the news links, at the very least, ought to be merged into the Criticism article. There's not really a section of the Criticism article that covers the criticism the Foundation Office is getting phone calls about all the time: that Wikipedia's notability guidelines disallow a compendium of all human knowledge. Though we usually hear about this criticism here in deletion discussions on Wikipedia, the media has started covering it enough that a general mention at the article is appropriate. I don't agree with this criticism, but that doesn't matter. Please note that, per WP:SK a withdrawn nomination doesn't close a discussion.--Kchase T 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One Washington Post article does not a controversy make. -Amarkov blahedits 03:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for now - This article is approximately one day old and has a single editor with a brief edit history. If this is an actual controversy, we should wait and see if the article develops. I suspect that, since the original band article was deleted, nobody will come looking for an article about the deletion of another article. But, we should give it 2 weeks and see what happens. The story could get picked up by more media outlets which might increase attention. - Justin (Authalic) 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If other newspapers were going to pick the story up, they would have in two weeks. Nobody will care now, even if anyone cared then. -Amarkov blahedits 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be crystal ballism and is covered under WP:NOT. If it does become notable then an article may be warranted but I don't think we should keep it just in case. --67.68.152.133 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a non-notable "controversy" about a non-notable band. Otto4711 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-referential, original research (all that guff about import of WP guidelines) and an obvious back-door attempt to get mention of the deleted group back into WP. Just kill it. --Calton | Talk 05:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a non-notable "controversy" about a non-notable band and back-door attempt to get mention... into WP pretty much sums it up. In the end, one article in the paper does not meet the "multiple, non-trivial" aspect of WP:RS... indeed, it is just one example provided, and is not the subject of the article. In the end, it is self-referential and unencyclopedic. And the solution for a deleted article is WP:DRV, not to create another article that is indirectly about it. Rather than generating a stink about it in the Post (was it even in the print version, or just online?), might I suggest the band focus its energy on meeting WP:RS? --Kinu t/c 06:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Why didn't they quote me? :( MER-C 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The band's AFD is provided as an example, not as the focus of the article. There is no "controversy" to speak of. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Survey says: Drop dead! Sorry Tim the Mute, this Internet-snob wiki-geek deems your band, and your whinging to the Post, non-notable. FiggyBee, who isn't notable either but is quite okay with that. 07:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as attempt to "bootstrap" an article on the band onto Wikipedia on the grounds that they were mentioned in a newspaper article about Wikipedia's deletion process. (I believe that the article was syndicated to various newspapers, but that does not justify this article.) The "controversy" does not seem to exist outside the band itself. Article violates the guideline of avoiding self-reference. Note that if the band manages to satisfy one or more WP:MUSIC criteria, they can have an article, but I would support blocking anyone who tries to take this self-reference any further by creating The Shiny Diamonds controversy controversy or anything like that. --Metropolitan90 07:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly non-notable, bunch of unverifiable piece of work with no reliable sources. No encyclopedic at all, total original research, nothing more or less. Terence Ong 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, V, etc. SkierRMH 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some day, when the band itself is notable, might be of interest, but right now, as noted, clear "bootstrapping." Robertissimo 09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "cut it"! "flawless"! anybody? anybody? oh well :) Deizio talk 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Boooooo... :P. --Kinu t/c 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, don't boo me.. Kchase wins "Best subtle AfD nomination punnery / gaggery insertion" for December 06 :) Deizio talk 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, the best puns are unintended.--Kchase T 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, modesty? :) I'd be claiming it even if it was coincidental. Deizio talk 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Ironically, this desperate attempt to circumnavigate a page protected from re-creation didn't get speedied. I see the thought process that went into this one going something like this: "Hmm, how else can I get a link to my band's MySpace page on Wikipedia?" -- Antepenultimate 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources = change in vote, see below. -- Antepenultimate 10:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for more responses. As I know the author is in no way promoting the band, but rather providing a discourse on the development of Wikipedia, I believe that we need to give the post more time to develop. Jusher99 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't keep articles on the grounds that more sources for them might be created eventually. If they don't exist now, it gets deleted now, and can be recreated when the sources are created. -Amarkov blahedits 22:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WashPo article is duly listed under Wikipedia:Press coverage; the Shiny Diamonds article is only his lead example in a long article on notability. If the particular example is used elsewhere, a new WP article can be written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Criticisms of Wikipedia. Just H 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why is some random guy complaining about how we're not sharing our webspace with any subject a notable criticism? -Amarkov blahedits 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure. You're a random guy, you're complaining about me not sharing your opinion, why is what you are saying notable? Just H 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't. Note how it isn't in an article. -Amarkov blahedits 23:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're saying that what you're saying to me isn't notable? Please clarify. In my comment, The article on this article was deleted and protected already, which was why the Post newspaper article was created. thus putting it in criticisms of wikipedia works for me if it isn't enough for an article on its own, because this would help that article. Just H 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I'm saying that wouldn't help the article, because including criticisms by just some guy who happens to have a non-notable band is bad. It's not our obligation to provide as much criticism as the database will hold on a "Criticism of X" article. -Amarkov blahedits 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's your perogative. You're entitled to yours and i'm entitled to mine. It appears we will not convince each other, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just H 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator has added a few more sources: [8], [9].--Kchase T 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a "controversy," just one article in the Post. Apparently this was also mentioned in a blog. This and $1.25 gets you a cup of coffee. JChap2007 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help. Hi everyone, thank you for helping me improve the article by providing information here on this delete page. Thank you in particular to Amarkov, Justin (Authalic), Metropolitan90, Robertissimo, PMAnderson, and Just H. I just got out of an interview with CBC Radio One. They did a segment on "The Shiny Diamonds Controversy" after they read the Washington Post article. Just so you know, I have never met anyone in the Shiny Diamonds band before... in fact I just heard their music for the first time today (on myspace). I live in Paris, they live in Vancouver. You can google me if you don't believe me. I'm just very passionate about keeping this type of information in wikipedia. It makes me sad to think of wikipedia as the sum of SOME human knowledge. Can someone help me out with improving the page so that it is less likely to be deleted. I don't even know how to reference a radio broadcast. I could really use some help. Thank you in advance. Leigh8959 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if I thought that a rewrite could possibly make this good enough to keep, I wouldn't have said to delete, and I probably would have rewritten it enough to establish notability. But there is no controversy, therefore there aren't sources, therefore no rewrite could make it better. -Amarkov blahedits 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citation template for radio broadcasts can be found at Template:Cite episode if that will help. --Metropolitan90 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually think if there's a radio interview on this issue (raising the number of sources to three) that would probably be enough to keep it. Even if it gets deleted this round, there's always deletion review after the show airs. We'll see what happens; I'm waiting to hear more.--Kchase T 05:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I heard about this whole thing on the radio this afternoon and thought it was interesting enough to start up a Wiki page for. It's not even really an issue or news but if these guys were talked about on CBC Radio 1, which is as relevant as it gets for Canadian broadcast, it warrants a mention either in their own page or a 'Shiny Diamonds Controversy' page. I looked on Google and there are dozens of articles quoting or elaborating on the whole thing. I liked what the guy in Paris said about the sum of all knowledge. If the internet has fairly limitless potential, why should Wikipedia users be waging some sort of battle against this very Wikipedia-related issue being mentioned on the site? It's all very strange and I expect to see more news articles popping up daily about this, as they seem to have been doing for weeks now.--Mercury0T 07:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) — Mercury0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Changing vote to Merge news article links with Criticism of Wikipedia, under "dated links." Let's not lose our sense of perspective here: To call this a true controversy, or to even say that Shiny Diamonds is the main focus of these articles, is misleading. They are being used as a current example (one of many, it should be noted) for an opinion article, and they are then mentioned (very briefly) in another editorial (about the original opinion article). -- Antepenultimate 10:41, 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 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-squared[edit]

A-squared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Seems like an ad. Navou talk 04:01, 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, no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland Jungle[edit]

Newfoundland Jungle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Seems like promotional material for a business; probably exists but nothing comes up for them on Google Daniel Case 04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, this would belong better in a directory it seems. Navou talk 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No notability asserted here, it's merely a very description of the operation, so I tagged as WP:CSD A7, speedy delete Tubezone 04:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. - Justin (Authalic) 05:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom [10] reports no pages linking there.
  • Speedy delete - {{db-corp}}. MER-C 06:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. Terence Ong 07:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Rearden Metal 08:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 10:44, 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:04Z

List of LGBT Jews[edit]

List of LGBT Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Categorize - There is no need to list LGBT Jews by their occupation, which seems to be the only reason this list is even maintained. This should be converted into a category to better organize its contents per Category:LGBT Christians. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A list allows for a brief, one-line bio, which can help readers find the person they're looking for. A list also allows for the inclusion of red links to be filled in later, while a category does not. I do not have a vote one way or the other. — coelacan talk — 04:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - list is better than a category because such a compilation requires sourcing. That should happen in the individual articles but people looking at the cat cant see sources. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The number of additions which are sourced is less than half and with a category the relevant citations would be in the articles in the category anyway. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With lists such as these, there are always thorny issues about categorization. For example, I was very surprised to discover that H.L.A. Hart was a homosexual, until I made the further discovery that he was married with four children and that it is some unnamed, unsourced "biographers" who claim that he's gay. I'm not going to do anything about it because doing that would involve a revert war and most likely some nasty attacks on my own motives. I would like it if someone would properly source this list and indeed leave out the ones whose sexuality is based on conjecture, or by a claims made by a minority of their biographers (who after all often make such claims to generate attention; if you don't believe me think of Albert Goldman's scandalous biography of John Lennon [which ironically enough accused him of homosexuality-- add Lennon to the list of LGBT Britons!]), but this is wikipedia after all and it is expecting too much for people to follow historical methods. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
    • After looking further at the list, I'm changing my vote to Delete because many of these people are not sourced (Jonathan Taylor Thomas, etc.). Sourcing should be mandatory in this situation because of the markedly personal nature of claims about people's sexuality. And to be frank, how would you react if your sexuality were unfairly miscategorized like this? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Keep. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, it can be expanded and cleaned up. There have been far less notable lists that are still here on Wikipedia after passing AFD. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, such lists do have encyclopedic value. Terence Ong 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator asks for this to become a category, however it does not meet the criteria mentioned in our guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories which says that Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid. I don't think there is anything distinct and unique about being LGBT and Jewish, and I speak from personal experience. Categories have entries without citations, and categorization policy general guideline (#8) says, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." This guideline was written for examples such as this case. -- Samuel Wantman 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you can't think of anything distinct and unique about being LGBT and Jewish. Have you seen Trembling Before G-d? There are gay synagogues, such as Beth Chayim Chadashim. In recent decades there has been a lot of controversy within Judaism about LGBT issues. While some of this is similar to the controversy in Christianity, there are also substantial differences. Dfeuer 07:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ditto Rearden Metal 08:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least substantially prune because most of the list is unsourced and in the same time it is about biographies of living persons (WP:LIVING !). Therefore for every person in the list we need a proof (=reliable reference) that he/she identifies as 1) Jew and 2) LGBT - otherwies it is libel and WP:OR.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As people can see from the page history, there has been an effort to work the source problem for this list. If someone wants to prune the names for whom there are no sources while references are found, fine. I'm focused on sorting ref problems on other similarly unsourced lists and just haven't got round to it. But I think a list is more useful than a category- a category would simply give each person's name. This list provides brief information about each person (and hopefully a quickly checked reference), without having to visit each person's article in turn.- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I tried it for the first three paragraphs. More than 50% deleted because of WP:LIVING (I checked also their WP articles for sources and references and found no relevant ones for at least one of the two claims). And most of the rest are dead persons, very often still with WP:V issues (I added the cn tags). My conclusion is that the list in this form is very bad and should be quicly pruned or deleted - WP:LIVING is really an important issue.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so would you have a problem if I simply went through and delete all the unsourced ones? Because right now only about five of them are sourced. This is crazy; the list will never be sourced properly. Also, I am concerned that Wikipedia should not be a forum for outing people: the risk of error in such assessments (esp. by activists who are not disinterested observers) is much too high. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Keep. Source better. Haiduc 12:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LIST WilyD 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Terence Ong - Nico2001 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of list-making is too easily abused by those who wish to promote, vilify, or "out" people — depending on one's agenda — regardless of unbiased evidence of this socially powerful categorization. One major benefit of using Wikimedia categories instead of lists is that the claim for inclusion or exclusion is made in the subject's article (with the cat tag), not an external list. This means that the people most likely to have sourced information to confirm or refute this categorization will see the claim as it is made or removed. The usefulness of this approach renders the "list can include source info" argument, which is already largely bogus, superfluous as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who hangs out at CFD, this amuses me because CFD has been moving in the direction of getting rid of categories like this because they cannot be sourced. Jeffq wants to get rid of the lists because people who edit the articles won't see the information posted in the list. So nobody really wants to deal with this problem. I see a few possible ways to solve it:
  • Avoid having lists OR categories for controversial subjects that require verification. This option probably has no possibility of garnering community approval (I wouldn't support it either).
  • Change the WikiMedia software so that lists can be created dynamically from database entries, and those entries would come from any article. So in effect the list entry for a person would be maintained in their article, and anyone looking at the article would see all the information that is posted about that person in lists.
  • Keep the info in lists.
  • Keep the info in categories.
Since the first option is unlikely and we'll have to wait for the second, that means either lists or categories. The big advantage of lists is that there is a history, you can see the citations, and the history shows who was added and who was removed. While it is possible to dig and find who added someone to a category, it is near impossible to find out who has been removed from a category and by whom. The relevant citations might be buried in the article or talk page. For these reason, I'd say, keep this info as a list and not a category. Require citations and remove anything that is uncited. This is how Films considered the greatest ever has worked for over a year without any major problems. -- Samuel Wantman 23:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists seem to me the way to go. They allow for a brief reason for inclusion and a reference backing it up. The problem here isn't the topic or the list, its the fact that people have been added without references. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you assume good faith, Jeff? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, yes. But I am highly skeptical of the agendas of folks so very interested in categorization by sexual preference, especially since much of the vandalism I revert at Wikiquote appears to be from people who perceive homosexuality as a slur on a person's character. I've done a lot of research on people for articles on WP and WQ, and while I find their professions, their nationalities, and sometimes their ethnicity and gender important, the only people for whom this tidbit seems important are people on the forefront, voluntarily or not, of the pro-homosexuality/anti-homosexuality melee. Is there some encyclopedic purpose for identifying the sexual preferences of all Jews covered in Wikipedia?
If so, I think a category would be easier to maintain (and prevent vandalism or unsourced rumor-mongering), because the people who know the subject best will see the addition, deletion, and alteration of this information.
Samuel Wantman's point of the source of this information being "buried" in the article actually bolsters my argument, as the cat tag would be in the place where the sourced data is, rather than having to duplicate the source in both the article and the list for each and every person. His no-history point is only valid if you assume the people maintaining this information are list watchers, not subject watchers. It's like assuming that you need a list for trumpet players because the editors working on each trumpet-player article can't be trusted to categorize their subject, when the reverse is actually more accurate: subject editors are far more likely to command accurate information than list editors. But I appear to be in the minority on this opinion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per smauel wantman & list also allows redlinks, (there are a few there as it is) also people sometimes 'randomly' remove certain categories from articles, less likely to do so from a list? obviously has to be sourced & verified (this is policy, remember?)  ⇒ bsnowball  09:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this list is too difficult to source because the classification of so many on the list rests on usually unverifiable claims made by biographers of homosexual liasons. Also, I find the definition of Jewish POV: is it an ethnic or religious definition? I think this list, finally, forces Wikipedia to take a position on Outing. Is it morally justifiable to "out" people who don't want to be perceived as gay? How much should we respect the decision to "stay in the closet." When Wikipedia lists men and women as "gay" (without the context and qualification provided by a full biographical article) who wished to keep their sexuality a guarded secret, I think WP is sending a message that sexuality is inevitably a public affair and that it is okay to "out" people. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus). Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Goldman[edit]

Eric Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Law professor who predicted Wikipedia's imminent demise in his blog. Seems to be the only reason he has an article. NTK 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep, there wasn't even a source for the statement that someone has noted him, but now there is. -Amarkov blahedits 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've added a link to a Law.com article that quotes him for commentary on an internet law issue, which should provide citation of his notability. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is notable for the claim, which was covered by InformationWeek [11]. SSRN shows activity regarding his scholarship as well [12]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep claim was covered by InformationWeek and also in a Law article: [13] Leigh8959 04:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That Law.com article makes no mention of his Wikipedia claim ... it just quotes his comments on the Google case. --Dennette 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк) 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to criticisms of Wikipedia unless he has some other claim to fame (perhaps he has some important law publications, etc.) savidan(talk) (e@) 05:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Leigh8959. frummer 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terence Ong 07:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. If Wikipedia is the source of his notability (and beyond his bet, he is just another r-o-t-m prof, this should be covered elsewhere (as noted above). Is simply being mentioned in an article now grounds for establishing notability? That's ridiculous. Eusebeus 10:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Semi-merge per Savidan. While the prediction is notable because of the non-trivial coverage, all this warrants is a one-line mention in the criticism article. A full article on this person based on their blog entry and news coverage of that blog entry is not warranted, unless he is demonstrated to be notable in some other way. ("Multiple non-trivial sources" etc. etc.) Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Leigh. -Toptomcat 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO ... having something from a blog entry covered in a single magazine article (also note that it's the second blog that made the news, not the first prediction from a year ago), and a casual mention in another article about a completely unrelated subject (Google's anti-trust case), are hardly "notable accomplishments" worthy of an article ... if he's such an authority, then why aren't there more citations for him other than his blog? Noteriety is not the same thing as notability. Remember, he is supposed to be the subject of multiple articles, and so far, it's only his prediction that has been the subject of a single article in an industry trade journal that is not widely read by the general public (InformationWeek is a long way from New York Times or Wall Street Journal kind of exposure, right?) ... being quoted (along with others) in one Law.com article (about Google) is not sufficient. Maybe add a paragraph to Criticisms of Wikipedia#Recent media discussions with the InformationWeek citation, but what they said about some topic is not the same as what they have accomplished, and while the topic may be notable, that does not grant notability to the speaker. --Dennette 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be notable only by Self reference. TonyTheTiger 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone check the ref at [14]? A quick Google turned up [15]. See also WP:PROF. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19t19:58z
    • Reply - They are the same thing ... an amicus curiae brief can be filed by anyone, even people who are neither lawyers nor academics ... there is nothing intrinsically notable about having written a "friend of the court" essay along with two other lawyers ... all this citation does is document his academic affiliation as of the date that it was filed. --Dennette 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in 4 years... eh... just kidding. Delete. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TonyTheTiger Alan Pascoe 12:18, 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 Merge to Cornell University Glee Club. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:00Z

Cornell Sherwoods[edit]

Cornell Sherwoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod was contested. College a cappella article which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR/WP:V. The closest they come to a claim to notability is having travelled somewhere. However, these claims can only be sourced to their website (and perhaps their school newspaper); such tours would have to be the subject of non-trivial secondary-sources, which also are required to establish the notability of a group generally. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. It's CollegiateACapelladämmerung on Wikipedia!! Bwithh 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • lol. Delete per above. Eusebeus 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahahaha --Dmz5 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Josh Parris#: 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A cappella groups have some notability. This group has had serveral albums and many Google hits. A cappella groups are not radio towers. They are established musical organizations. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copy and paste vote again. Nothing to do with this group. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was the comment crossed out? Xiner 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per my copying and pasting. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 86 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 06:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cornell University Glee Club. It's odd that savidan would complain about "copy and paste voting" when he just copy-paste AfD'd a series of articles with exactly the same description. For instance, he argues above about the group's "web site," but this group doesn't even have a web site as they ceased to be back in the 70's. With all that said, there's no sense in discarding this particular content when there's a logical home for it at the Glee Club article. JDoorjam Talk 07:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already resolved the copy and paste issue with sharkface. This article does have an external link to the hangover's article which I mistook for their own website. Honestly, though, that just makes their notability worse. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a second look at the gleeclub article, I'd be amicable to a merge, although, given the lack of reliable sources for most of the info in this article, I imagine that the amounnt of material in it that I think is suitable for merging is much less than you would like to merge. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is as valid to cut and paste the same comment on a series of mass produced AfDs, if it fits each one, as it is to say 'delete per nom' or to cut and paste the AfDs. Edison 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is. My main objection was that the vote claimed to be specific to the group in question (i.e. albums plus g-hits). savidan(talk) (e@) 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep They had a notable alum, toured internationally and put out numerous albums back when that was an expensive proposition of stamped out vinyl rather than knowing someone whose PC could burn CDs or putting files on a download site. I could only find 1 passing reference in a New York Times article, about an alum. Edison 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Passing NYT reference is a perfect example of trivial news coverage, which does not warrant notability. Not every proper noun which recieves passing reference in the NYT should = an article. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not keep introducing the same strawman argument of not wanting to create an article for "every proper noun" in a newspaper, when the topic of debate is multiple reliable, verifiable, and independent coverage in more than a passing reference or directory. And please note that I did not characterize the one mention I found as more than a passing reference.Edison 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that it was only a passing reference, and that it doesn't constitute notability, that's fine. I thought it was implied in your post (being as you voted keep) that you thought the substance of your comment justified your vote. If however, that was just an aside, I won't press the issue. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the above, and note my comment about the Chord on Blues that touring for an a cappella group might not necessarily be a guarantor of notability.--Dmz5 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's merged, none of the uncited information about the group should be merged. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a former college singer I am sort of taking it upon myself to fix a lot of these articles (various glee clubs and the like) and I'm trying to drum up other people to help find citations, remove promo material, etc. If/when this article ends up getting absorbed back into the Cornell Glee Club page it will be in a well-cited form, I promise.--Dmz5 03:10, 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 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yak (game)[edit]

Yak (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

It seems to be a set of rules to a game that was just invented (WP:NFT and WP:OR. The only link is to a website in spanish (which is inappropriate, this is the English Wikipedia) -- Selmo (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFT. Regardless of the language, the link doesn't seem to have anything relevant anyway, so it's worthless. Fan-1967 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page seems incredibly useless and the game doesn't seem to have enough of a following to put it on Wiki. --Rubiksphere 05:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable WVhybrid 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Josh Parris#: 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, classic WP:NFT/WP:OR, fails WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 06:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a non-notable game, wait till it is well known then an article here will be considered. Terence Ong 08:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SkierRMH 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Rearden Metal 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete close. Just H 23:38, 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 No consensus, and the article has been rewritten since nomination - no prejudice against renomination if the article still has not addressed concerns. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:56Z

Retrocausality[edit]

Retrocausality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first nomination was poorly stated; here is the real nomination

This article represents original research. From Opabinia regalis 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC): This is a novel synthesis of independently published claims. The physics section is, taken on its own, muddled at best; the OR is in the connection to the psychology discussion, in which each of the individual studies mentioned is either a) widely agreed to be plagued with methodological problems (PEAR), or b) entirely unrelated to the thesis (skin conductance and heart rate studies). Seriously - the creator, User:Dicorpo, has contributed nothing outside of this type of material, in particular his linkspamming of this "open access journal" (read: some guy's website) for these ideas. Also, the sources cited in this article may appear to be legitimate, but "Physics Essays" and "NeuroQuantology" are not well-regarded journals, and those sources that are reliable, are related to the psychology experiments - which, as I mentioned, are unrelated to the quantum consciousness thesis. --ScienceApologist 05:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the original debate is relegated to the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination) --ScienceApologist 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Endless procedural discussion which was cluttering the page has been moved to the talk page. -- SCZenz 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
STUBIFICATION I've reworked the article as a totally revamped stub as per JzG's suggestion Bwithh 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak keep Delete Weak keep, the sources do used to seem to kinda address the subject (in a way that they are completely irrelevant), but now they do. -Amarkov blahedits 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources are you refering to, the reliable ones (which are not about retrocausality) or the unreliable ones (which are part of the original research)? --ScienceApologist 06:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh boy. I missed the titles of the articles. What the heck? Changed to delete. -Amarkov blahedits 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Sources are a mix of irrelevant and unreliable. -- SCZenz 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Completely rewritten. Now verifiable. -- SCZenz 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those sources are unreliable. Perceptual and Motor Skills, for example, is not a respected peer-reviewed journal. Authors pay the journal to publish their articles. Other sources have absolutely nothing to do with the article's basic assertion.[16] The NeuroQuantology article addresses supercausality, not retrocausality. Doczilla 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This referencing of random unrelated sources along with a few unreliable sources is annoying, and seems to be happening with increasing frequency. But perhaps Retrocausality and Supercausality should have been listed together? --Philosophus T 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I will remain as a delete vote for now. Most of the sources given are not reliable sources for the purpose of an article on a scientific topic, and should be removed. MSNBC and the San Diego Union Tribune just aren't appropriate sources for this type of article. The only source that might be remotely considered reliable is the AAAS symposium. I'm concerned that there are no references to papers in proper peer-reviewed journals. Why is this? It also seems that Cramer might be trying to use a concept that he calls "retrocausality" as an abstract formalism for dealing with entanglement, and the popular press is presenting it as traveling back in time. But even then, some of the things don't make sense to me. Cramer's presentation says "the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present ... retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature". I would very much like to see an explanation as to how this does not violate causality, and how one can have that sort of "retrocausality" without tachyons that cause a breakdown in energy conservation. Finally, none of the sources given are suitable for a scientific article according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Philosophus T 06:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reliable sources are needed for WP:V. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Mike Peel 09:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - This seems like some type of strange metaphysical ramblings that are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 10:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Isn't this a genuine concept, even if one that's almost universally dismissed by the scientific community? Isn't this a case of an article that needs to be corrected for NPOV rather than deleted? Isn't it comparable, as an article subject, to Action at a distance (physics)? KarlBunker 11:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be, but the current article is just a hodgepodge of OR, POV, and just general stupidness. We won't lose anthing. -Amarkov blahedits 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since unverifiable OR. The only verifiable concept in this article seems to stem from the Klein-Gordon equation, and it is then interpreted in a novel way. Awolf002 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The recent re-write now clearly shows that there is no real substance to this, that is verifiable. All possibly salvageable small amount of information should be merged into subsections of the appropriate main article. Awolf002 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to acute lack of reliable sources to back the content of the article. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewritten stub, hope that Bwithh has the persistence to keep it real going forward :-) Guy (Help!) 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify Unnecessary to delete the article outright. Cut out the OR, reduce it to the basic meaning in quantum physics & philosophy based on [17][18]

[19]. I supported the relisting of this afd, but I'm still unhappy with the wrecking of the afd process here by both sides Bwithh 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. --- RockMFR 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Retrocausality suggests that much as the present affects the future, the reverse can also happen; the future can affect the present, and the present can affect the past. This strikes me as the Platonic ideal of original research: a neologism devised as part of a crank theory. Unless it's shown to be a noteworthy crank theory, delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Scientist published a 2,425 word article on Retrocasuality in September 2006 (as referenced in my above comment). I quote: Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and... Bwithh 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub it and start work, then I'll change my !vote. Nobody here is against a good-faith contributor making a valid fresh attempt at the article, it's the nonsense we want gone. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've stubbed and revamped it as per your suggestion Bwithh 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Scientist may not be a peer review journal, and its reputation has come under attack, but it's still a major, respected science news and ideas publication (by the way, the retrocausality story was actually the front cover story of that edition of the New Scientist[20]. The New York Times and the BBC have had their journalistic integrity far more widely attacked - does that mean they are no longer reliable, respected sources for Wikipedia? Bwithh 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added further details on the AAAS symposium on this theme. Bwithh 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there no proper articles in peer reviewed journals? Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience - specifically, Appropriate sources. New Scientist is not to be considered a reliable source for an article that represents its subject as a scientific topic. --Philosophus T 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current stub. I am convinced, at any rate, that the word "retrocausality" has sufficient currency to describe theories of this type to warrant an article on the subject. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fringe, stub, cites hype articles rather than real science. IMO, physics+philosophy for the same subject seems suspect in the first place! —Długosz December 18, 2006
Well, the new stub states that its a thought experiment concept. Anyway, take a look at Philosophy of Physics. Science and Philosophy are not opposites to each other Bwithh 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its revamped and stubified form. The proper approach to scientifically invalid concepts is to discuss them honestly and explain why they're invalid, not to pretend that they don't exist. KarlBunker 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is an encyclopedia. Writing a tutorial on why an invalid idea is invalid is pure OR, and highly inappropriate for WP. linas 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe very thought of not having an article on something hat was a new Scientist cover story is absurd. DGG 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current references make it clear that this is a topic that has been discussed, regardless of its innate veracity (or lack thereof...). Keeping OR out of the article as it goes forward is an editorial issue, not an AFD issue. Serpent's Choice 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC) - See below for clarification[reply]
  • keep as it stands, its a pretty poor stub about a just notable idea (the only valid ref is the ns article), but it appears to have legs. try to ensure it's very clear it's a thought experiment. (i had to link that)  ⇒ bsnowball  09:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted on the talk page and this AfD, the NS article is not an acceptable source for an article on a scientific topic. --Philosophus T 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Retrocausality made the 30 September 2006 cover of New Scientist, an international science magazine with a circulation of over 160,000 and a worldwide readership of over 670,000, and has also been covered by the general press. The popular media may not be a reliable source for what science says about retrocausality, but they are a reliable source for what the popular media say about retrocausality, which we can present. Additionally, philosophers have been publishing on retro-causation since at least the 1950s; see backward causation at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, particularly the extensive bibliography. Tim Smith 16:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Finally a more scholarly source for a portion of the article, and other references we can consider using. Also, I agree about having an article about what the popular media say, but I'm not sure what such an article should look like, and would appreciate it if you could help in that regard. --Philosophus T 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if we could get an article out of this that was of the caliber of the standford encyclopedia entry. Unfortunaely, given the experience I've had with WP, this seems unlikely.linas 01:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why my vote is still to delete, especially as it seems that the article is soon to become part of a battle over Luigi Fantappiè as well. --Philosophus T 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to time travel. --EMS | Talk 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The stub is better than the original, but as of this moment it still contains not a single citation to a peer-reviewed *printed* article on retrocausality. The AAAS symposium is a step in the right direction, but oral presentations aren't citable. We can't go back in time to listen to them, as it were. It seems not a coincidence that nobody can find *anything* peer-reviewed written by John Cramer on this subject. EdJohnston 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But does that mean we shouldn't have an article, or just that the article should make clear that it's a vague idea and not peer-reviewed scientific work? It's also possible we already have some article on the arrow of time somewhere, that we should redirect to, but that can be considered after this AfD. -- SCZenz 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...at arrow of time, in fact. Serpent's Choice 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, despite snarkily providing that article link, I do not advocate merger. The arbcom case dictated that even patently wrong ideas that meet inclusion standards should be covered, but that we should take caution not to conflate them with established views (or, often, with science at all), and should give due weight to whatever science and established, peer-reviewed philosophy have to say that falls into the issue. That means, by the way, that we should consider rewriting this article in favor of Feynman's depricated theory of the reverse-causal positron (Physical Review 76) and its refutation by Earman, tachyon theory by lots of people (Bilaniuk was in Physics Today 22, for one) and its refutation by Recami, Price's 1996 discussion about boundary conditions, and probably de Beauregard's quantum paradox work (although I am not familiar with it, and it is mostly in Italian). Serpent's Choice 05:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? When a capable author who is knowledgable (or at least acquainted) with Feynmann's ideas shows up, and shows the interest in writing about them, then this person should be encouraged and aided. That person may show up next week, or may not show up for half a decade or more. In the meanwhile, we shall have a stub that attracts oddball, factually incorrect edits, building up a crunchy crust of cranky, crappy edits? Who shall have the energy to maintain the cruft patrol? linas 18:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

81.132.177.55 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Keep Bizarre debate. Clearly retrocausality exists as a theory whether or not we're able to find credible sources for it. Why not have an entry that informs of the concept, but emphasises how its scientific basis is at absolute very best tremendously shaky. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general interest, not a dictionary of science. It'd be highly pedantic to delete the entry altogether.[reply]

  • Keep Everything in the article is either sourced or verifiable. --Oakshade 07:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added this ref to the article Bwithh 01:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... and please note that I've completed a fairly extensive rewrite of the article from its intermediate stub state, citing topics in both philosophy and science (and trying to preserve a bright-line distinction between the two), referring to several important existing Wikipedia articles, and offering references to (among other places) Physical Review, and Review of Modern Physics. The article bears little, if any, resemblence to its form at the start of this AFD. I have hopes this will satisfy all involved parties. Serpent's Choice 10:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the very nice rewrite by Serpent's Choice. HEL 23:31, 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 04:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. (I'm Still Not Over You)[edit]

P.S. (I'm Still Not Over You) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Per WP:CRYSTAL,WP:N, an unreleased single (still 4 months off) can't be notable yet. Also see AfD's for the album and the other single, By Yo' Side Tubezone 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would this article require deletion? It just needs some improved content. --MaTrIx 00:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it does. In getting that improved content, it might help if there were actually information, which might come from it being, um, released? Delete. -Amarkov blahedits 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Josh Parris#: 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn yet. feydey 06:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not yet notable. In future yes if released. Terence Ong 08:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to A Girl Like Me. No reference verifying that this will be the next single. —ShadowHalo 08:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - because there's no source verifying that it will be a single. RaNdOm26 10:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to A Girl Like Me because there is a posibility that it might be a single. But until we really know, redirect the page to the album's page. Tcatron565 17:04, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearydale farms[edit]

Clearydale farms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A dairy farm in Ontario, with lots of pictures. Only the most weasel-worded attempts at notability (despite the placement and removal of a tag), such as "one of first in Ontario to use irrigation to spread manure". No references, either. Calton | Talk 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing links there, indicates to me nn Josh Parris#: 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a farm, so what? No notability at all. FiggyBee 06:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Rearden Metal 08:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 36 Ghits, could find no print references. Edison 19:09, 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 08:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Morris Hall[edit]

William Morris Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable hall at Loughborough University, article only serves to list students on the hall committee Steve (Slf67) talk 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom --Steve (Slf67) talk 06:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be a non-notable location, a dormitory rather than a notable subunit of the university per the Oxbridge colleges model. Already mentioned sufficiently in the list of student halls in the university article, and should return to being a non-Wikilink as the others are. And not to be rude, but WP:DUMB does state Your dormitory or any suite therein is a bad article idea. NB: I've removed the unencyclopedic vanity listing of the student committee members, as even if this article were to survive AfD, that probably would be the first to get chopped down anyway. --Kinu t/c 07:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are correct in that this is a dormitory rather than an 'Oxbridge College' unit --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:20, 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 as G11 and G12. Kusma (討論) 10:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Dwyer[edit]

Benjamin Dwyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Vanity biog for nn composer. Fails WP:COI and fails to meet WP:MUSIC Pathlessdesert 23:43, 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, Kchase T 06:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:VANITY (see User:Benjamin Dwyer) --Jmax- 09:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check out WP:CSD and WP:SK while you're at it. Vanity isn't a speedy reason.--Kchase T 09:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to violate WP:COI (as a reprint of the performer's stock bio). We need citations (and independent reviews) of his performing career. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G12, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 05:48, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:50Z

Route 66 (film)[edit]

Route 66 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Stifle (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This does not seem to be correct. Or rather, if it was, they are now planning on using that title for another movie per [21] & [22] among others. Whether there are enough sources to justify an article on this planned movie, I'll leave to others, but it shouldn't be redirected to Cars. -- JLaTondre 23:59, 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 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Well, it was in Variety which makes it a source, however, I'm not sure that this film is going to be made. I do think some sort of redirect to Cars would be appropriate, but if this movie ever pans out, that would have to take precedence. Not going to say keep or delete, but I could go either way. FrozenPurpleCube 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by nom, there is far too little info on this film to create an article. Maybe in a few years, when the status is clearer... — QuantumEleven 08:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cars (film) since Route 66 was its working name. This does not warrant its own article on Wikipedia since they are both the same thing. Terence Ong 08:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A redirect will cause confusion with the {{DreamWorks animated films}} template. If the closing admin chooses to redirect, they should fix that template so that people are not directed to an article that has no bearing on the link they are clicking. -- JLaTondre 13:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A 2010 release? Do we really need this now? Wavy G 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cars (film --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should not be redirected to Cars (film), because it has nothing to do with it and if it will be made, will be made by Dreamworks, not Disney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.180.205.82 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete, do not redirect. If it's a real film, a redirect will just cause confusion in the future. --- RockMFR 14:50, 25 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. Sandstein 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer[edit]

Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Rampant crystal-ballery, a movie that may or may not be released and isn't scheduled to come out for another 5 years. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's not "may or may not" at this point. Confirmed here: "We will have the ['Puss in Boots' spinoff] movie � it is interesting to do a movie only with the character � called 'Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer.' It would be between the third and the fourth 'Shrek.'" Crystal-ballism only qualifies on things without attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 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 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep per badlydrawnjeff. It would also be notable, since the character already became popular with Shrek 2. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-ballism. When the only information we have is: A movie of this title will be made years from now (bearing in mind how often movie plans change) it's not worth an article. We cannot provide encyclopedic, verifiable information about this movie at this time. Fan-1967 07:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even EmpTV's (incredibly ugly and clunky) website really doesn't "confirm" anything except what few lines Banderas himself says, no references to studio press releases or other sources on this. A line or two in other articles saying that such a thing is hoped or planned for in the future is enough, not enough to go on to make a whole article at this point. Tubezone 08:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Terence Ong 09:01, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:49Z

onedotzero[edit]

Onedotzero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't assert notability, no references, reads like ad copy.

  • Delete Noclip 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nonsense. Jefferson Anderson 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. There are over a quarter million Google hits for this quite-legit outfit, and some of the lead ones are off of the BBC's and MTV's websites. The article is certainly a mess, but last I checked, that's not a valid ground for AfD. RGTraynor 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per RGTraynor. Does need Alot of wikiwork but legit big time.--Xiahou 02:28, 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 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources sources/we need sources/I don't see them/find dem sources. -Amarkov blahedits 06:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources sources/we like sources/I now see them/love dem sources. -Amarkov blahedits 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, notability not established, and it reads like a promotional brochure. - Justin (Authalic) 07:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup supported by Arts Council of England, at forefront of experimental/digital arts media, quarter million google hits, should be a no-brainer. 151.170.240.10 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - have edited it to include some sources and remove a lot of the PR nonsense, still needs some work done but is now hopefully worth keeping. Yorkshiresky 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I now see two independent reliable sources, one from 2001 and one from 2003. The article could use more cleanup, and fewer links to the company's websites. GRBerry 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems notability hasn't been met and the article reads like self-promo.Alan.ca 09:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way hasn't notability been met? There are sourced quotes, showing it's reach, both internationally and culturally and it's importance in the field of digital media, production and promotion. Yorkshiresky 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)15:35, 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 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songs about places[edit]

Songs about places (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

This is an unnecessary list; everything here is better covered as a category, namely, Category:Lists of songs and its subcategories. Crystallina 06:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom, content better served by a category. — QuantumEleven 08:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This has the makings of an extremely large list, almost without limitation. Presumably could include songs that are about fictional places as well, making the list even more unweildy, and begs the creation of songs about people and the songs about things. Serves no real encyclopedic purpose. Agent 86 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There have been innumerable songs about places. The list would have to bee very selective and incomplete. Edison 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - possibly use a category instead for this kind of thing. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 06:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 11:38, 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 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Cohen[edit]

Ryan Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Autobiography that fails WP:MUSIC. Deprodded. Neil916 (Talk) 07:04, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Class Notes[edit]

The Class Notes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod was contested. College a cappella article which does not meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC or the verifiability requirements of WP:RS/WP:NOR. Only claim to notability is performing concerts at their own Cornell and travelling; travelling only if it rises to the level of a "concert tour reported in reliable sources"; not if the only one who took note of it was the group itself or its local college newspaper. Multiple, non-trivial secondary-sources are required to establish the notability of a group. Claims from their own website are insufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, lack of reliable sources. —ShadowHalo 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Needs independent sources. International tours help to establish notability. Special recording: how many copies sold, or only for the members to buy for their families? Are they sold generally? No notable alums?Edison 19:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per . . . everything. I hope someone turns the same kind of attention to other college-related pages that have the same tone and verifiability/notability issues.--Dmz5 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And I hope someone turns their attention to rock bands which rehearse in someone's garage and "release albums" burned on their PC or from some nonselective download site, with zero print references and only blogs and their own websites to support notability. Edison 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too!--Dmz5 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these groups you speak of? savidan(talk) (e@) 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can start here: Category:Musical groups; there appear even at a casual glance to be some non-notable bands hanging out in that cat. JDoorjam Talk 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dylan 17:29, 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 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supercausality[edit]

Partner artilce to retrocausality which is also up for deletion. This article is even worse having no sources that follow its reasoning and being almost completely original research amalgamation. In particular, the energy equation quoted is a pretty famous result from special relativity and certainly has nothing to do with causality in its bald form. The term itself is not used, and even the reference to Einstein is inappropriate (since German words are not neologisms when they are squashed together: Einstein wasn't referring to a new concept, he was describing the forward arrow of time when he used the term).

--ScienceApologist 07:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unsourced article presents itself as science, misrepresenting the information it throws out there. The energy equation is thrown in, creating the illusion of meaningful when it's actually irrelevant. Article is poorly written, violating rules regarding OR, neologisms, and probably POV. POV is invoked if this is simply an interpretation instead of deliberate misrepresentation. At best, the information that would remain after deleting the bogus part of its contents would barely merit a dictionary entry. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Bogus science, with no reliable sourcing. -- SCZenz 07:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This referencing of random unrelated sources along with a few unreliable sources is annoying, and seems to be happening with increasing frequency. But perhaps Retrocausality and Supercausality should have been listed together? --Philosophus T 07:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Mike Peel 09:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V, WP:OR. Terence Ong 09:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is original metaphysical research. Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, no reliable sources. Awolf002 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/add brief sourced mention to Albert Einstein, possibly under the unified field theory section Abraham Pais, colleague and biographer of Einstein, believes Supercasuality was indeed a coinage of Einstein's and is related to his search for a Unified Field Theory[23]. Other biographers of Einstein also suggest that Einstein was referring to a new, but vaguely defined, concept[24][25] None of these sources treat Einstein's phrase as a just an ordinary "squashing together" of German words, nor does "the arrow of time" come up. Bwithh 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in default of specific, reliable sources indicating that this term has been used in any meaningful way. Anville 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and make sure this is covered under QM Handshake / Transactional model. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Długosz (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be some confused statement of basic principles. linas 01:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Terence Ong --EMS | Talk 21:21, 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 Speedy delete WP:CSD criterion A7. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robe.[edit]

Robe. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Massive unreferenced and unwikified text dump, doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. I'm thinking this might be a copyvio. Contested prod. MER-C 07:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a band created at some point this year with self-produced MP3 tracks and online reviews attributed to non-media sources doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Quite possibly a text dump of their Myspace page. --Kinu t/c 07:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes, don't you wish we could return to the days when putting out a 45 and using a real two-fisted computer cost thousands of $$? WP:NOT a place for copies of MySpace pages. I like the review: It’s hard to actually describe this record, because anything I say about it is going to make it sound like it’s not a very important record Sounds like someone is trying to avoid stating the obvious. Fails WP:MUSIC miserably, no notability asserted = speedy delete - so tagged. Tubezone 07:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush. Fails WP:MUSIC miserably.— QuantumEleven 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-promotional rubbish. Speedy per WP:CSD#G11, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia, not MySpace. Rearden Metal 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Terence Ong 09:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer Frizbee[edit]

Flyer Frizbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable game, seems to still be in the "stuff made up one day" category. Contested prod. MER-C 07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom , as nn notable as it goes.[26].--John Lake 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely WP:NFT. The references provided are two Freewebs sites and a Blogspot blog, so WP:RS is definitely not met. I find nothing else. --Kinu t/c 07:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rearden Metal 08:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete If applicable merge to Ultimate (sport). TonyTheTiger 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If we discount the information that isn't backed up by reliable sources, there's really nothing left to merge... --Kinu t/c 22:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm a disc sports player and I've never heard of it. Don't merge to Ultimate as they have nothing in common. If it would need to be merged, Flying disc games would be an appropriate article. --Liface 02:16, 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 07:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Rozzotto[edit]

Paolo Rozzotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Was proded and prod2 removed by author without comment now to Afd. Non notable guitarist, very few Ghits, no assertion of notability, reads like a babel/fish translation -- John Lake 07:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as prodder. Reads like a vanity page. Questionable notability. Unsourced. MER-C 07:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedster Deleter No notability, no source, vanity. SchmuckyTheCat 07:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page was blanked by User:Crissandor, who also removed the AFD notice from the article. And Delete as NN, vanity. Move to MySpace. Neil916 (Talk) 08:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt liberally, and block User:Crissandor and all socks. I have reverted removal of AfD notice twice. 7 unique Ghits, 4 of them from wiki. Wikipedia is not myspace. Ohconfucius 08:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, speedy it. Terence Ong 10:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "fastest guitarist in the world" is quite a claim. Shame it's nonsense. Deizio talk 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "He is a self-taught person." Woah, that's a pretty lofty claim. How does one become a "self-taught person"? Did he raise and educate himself without the aide of any parents or school system? He must be notable for that alone. Oh, wait, I see. This is a poorly written vanity piece. Wavy G 22:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, zero evidence from WP:RS of meeting WP:MUSIC, and is likely WP:COI as well. --Kinu t/c 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, possible conflict of interest. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:50, 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 08:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yiffstar[edit]

Yiffstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nominated for AfD by SchmuckyTheCat with comment "No sources. No notability. No anything." AfD closed out-of-process by Quarl. I'm re-opening the AfD - my opinion is Neutral (for now). Tevildo 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. I'd say it was blatant spam, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What the heck was that!? An article that's been on Wikipedia for more than a year and a half goes from untagged to AFD to Spd and disappears in the span of under an hour? The AFD part I can understand, but I thought there was supposed to be a discussion period of at least a day or two for people to review the article, comment and vote on it. To have the whole process start and end as quickly as it did for this article looks pretty fishy. --Mwalimu59 15:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up - Thank you, Tevildo, for the revert to AfD. Whatever the result is, at least this approach will give some sense of due process. --Mwalimu59 18:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website devoted to a small aspect of a sexual fetish (if that's what you call it?) niche. Wavy G 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Very-notable website devoted to a large community, regardless of sexual fetish. not all stories there are adult in nature (though most are). Niche community? not really, since it boasts over 8000 members, including yours truly. The Legendary RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 00:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment; your's is probably the best argument so far leading to delete -- wtfunkymonkey 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be a "niche community." Thank you for helping me make my point. Wavy G 03:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable source for 8000 members? What makes 8000 members notable? We delete websites with 8000 subscribers every day. SchmuckyTheCat 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the primary notability criterion and number of participants is not a reason to keep. JChap2007 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with furry fandom and not yiff Furry fandom has more appropriate material. The yiff article is more about defining a term. Anomo 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (even while I'm supposedly on the site's side). While this site is notable by furry community standards, I don't think it's remarkable enough in Wikipedia's standards - the user community is sizeable but not that sizeable. We have WikiFur for this material... This may be external-link-worthy in yiff or any related article, but I don't think the history of the site interests too many non-furries. (or furries, for that matter - let's face it, they're just there to read the stories. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and I could swear I've seen this unreferenced, no-reliable-sources spam before a while back. Could be wrong, though. Moreschi Deletion! 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See the article's history at earliest point. Anomo 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability outside the fandom. (And not that notable within the fandom, to be honest). Tevildo 13:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about that "within the fandom" . . . there's not that many furry sites that have a sub-100,000 Alexa rank (80,000 avg, venturing into 60,000 territory occasionally) and which have been up almost five years. It's porn, to be sure, but it's well-managed porn. GreenReaper 02:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know we're not supposed to invoke precedent here, but my point - perhaps expressed rather too subtly - was that compared with (say) FA or FN or VCL or Yerf, all of which went without a whimper, Yiffstar isn't _the_ most significant of furry sites, and it would (IMO) be perverse to keep this article while the most important sites are deemed non-notable. However, this isn't a legitimate line of reasoning for AfD. Tevildo 03:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom-DESU 23:17, 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 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream[edit]

PeerStream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. — QuantumEleven 08:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mostly hits to download sites on Google. Shadow1 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - creator removed prod without improving the article. I am willing to reconsider if independent sources verifying notability are added as references. JonHarder talk 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - afd tag was just removed by an anon. I replaced it. No assertion of notability. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:11, 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 04:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. couch[edit]

Mr. couch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN band, claim to notability is "They have recently been interveiwed on C4's Live at Yours. The interview lasted about 45 minutes and was aired about 4 weeks ago", which is unreferenced. No album releases yet. Article editor disputed speedy deletion tag so I am bringing to AFD for consensus. Neil916 (Talk) 08:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete fails WP:BAND nn notable [27].--John Lake 08:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, could find no mention of either the band or the interview with Live at Yours (which would have been an argument in their favour if a reference could be found). No albums released. Fails WP:MUSIC. — QuantumEleven 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above Rearden Metal 08:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and salt per delete log. Danny Lilithborne 08:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quantum. —ShadowHalo 08:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BAND. Terence Ong 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the obvious. Single (or perhaps not even at all) television appearance and nothing else to show for. Smells like a hoax. Painfully non-notable at best. Wavy G 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:BAND --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy -- per WP:BITE. The author's user page only mentions two bands, so let him keep a draft. // FrankB 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Author's comment on Neil916's talk page implies that he is a member of the band. I would say this article was created purely for self promotion. Wavy G 02:59, 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 as a short article with no context. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli painters[edit]

List of Israeli painters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

What is the point of this list, when we already have category:Israeli painters? Aleph-4 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - usually a list would supplement a category by providing links to articles that have not bee created, e.g. List of craters on Mars and Category:Craters on Mars. However, this is not the case here, since the nominated list consists of (gasp) ONE MEMBER. MER-C 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category exists, list is redundant now. Terence Ong 10:33, 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 as it does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. - brenneman 11:53, 18 December 2006

Bilişim Kulübü[edit]

Bilişim Kulübü (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

Tagged as speedy A7 (no assertion of notability) but passed previous AfD in 2005. Looks unlikely to pass current WP:WEB, though.}

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

The result was Redirect to Catholic Church hierarchy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:47Z

Catholic-Hierarchy[edit]

Catholic-Hierarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I created this article. The Catholic-hierarchy.org website is a very useful, and, as far as I can tell, reliable, resource for data on Roman Catholic ecclesiastical organisation and for biographical information on the higher-ranking clergy. This article is internally linked from a number of different Wikipedia articles, including Pope Benedict XVI. Some more pages link directly to the website. And I am pretty sure it would be useful as a source for many additional articles.

Now an anon has tagged it with {{db-web}}. I don't think a useful quality resource such as this should be treated the same as some random ephemeral forum for teenagers, just as we don't (or shouldn't) treat academic journals the same as Barbara Cartland novels. On the other hand, I can't quickly find any good third-party references. I would be grateful for some help with that. Is it really possible that nobody has written about this database? In case no references can be found, I would suggest keeping it and moving it to project space, as it remains a useful resource that Wikipedia editors should know about. U◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 08:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep' This is an extremely accurate, up to date, reource on the heriarchy of the Catholic church throughout the world. It is used by many dioceses as a reference when the Official Catholic Directory may be slightly out of date. SkierRMH 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good reason for having an external link to it in Catholic church hierarchy#External_links, not a reason for it having an article itself. Indeed, pretty much all of the current contents of this article are little more than summary information that would annotate that external link. WP:WEB is for determining whether something should have an article in its own right, and the fact that a book or a web site is a useful source for information used to build other articles doesn't mean that that book or web site should have an article in its own right. It just means that it should be cited in the "References" or "Further reading" sections of the subjects for which it is a source. Uncle G 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed keep per user:Uncle GRaveenS 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'll read his comment, you'll see it actually is a refutation of another poster's "keep." JChap2007 02:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By all mean keep it as an external link in the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy article. It sounds like a useful website compiling historical data. But the question is, as a website, does it deserve a separate article? Given that this appears to be one man's compilation as a labour of love, I am not convinced that it has the kind of staying power as a resource to make it worthy of an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. All we could say is 'hey it's a useful (useful is POV) website'. Short of listing its contents (which you can get by clicking on it) what could we say? Has it had any notable influence, impact, controversy, media comment? --Sandy Scott 17:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK, I have added the text from this page as annotation to the external links of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy article, which is probably the best solution. This article can probably be deleted (as most of the content was by me to begin with) or just speedily redirected there. U◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 18:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB, as there are no non-trivial mentions of it in reliable sources. This website is linked from multiple Wikipedia articles, but eliminating the article on the website itself will not change that. Also, WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. JChap2007 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect At this point, we actually have more content in the Catholic Church hierarchy article than we do here. GRBerry 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. As much as I like the site, and as often as I use it to work on Catholic hierarcy articles here, the website itself does seem to fail WP:WEB in terms of rating an article all on its own. Argyriou (talk) 20:32, 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 08:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kovach[edit]

Tom Kovach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-18 08:53Z

  • Weak delete. Ran for congress, blew the whistle on an environmental problem, invented something, wrote a book... maybe a bit of an assertion of notability in there somewhere, but the links to the sources cited are almost all broken, and a lot of them are from blogs and other things that probably don't count as WP:RS. delldot | talk 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Appears autobiographical per user's contributions. Has not been the subject of multiple mentions in independent, reliable sources. JChap2007 02:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sufficient assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 04:23, 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 04:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VCL (Vixen Controlled Library)[edit]

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the debate was keep.
VCL (Vixen Controlled Library) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

2nd nomination. Unsourced. Non-notable to anyone but an obscure sexual fetish group. No movement to source a single thing on this article since the first nomination. SchmuckyTheCat 08:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Six months is plenty long enough to find sources. Fails WP:V. QuagmireDog 09:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, although I don't think it's necessarily a sexual fetish. JIP | Talk 10:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unvrifiable, agree with nom. Terence Ong 10:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would've thought most anything with over 10 years of continual online operation would have some reliable mention, somewhere. Under either name, I appear to have been wrong. Serpent's Choice 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Trim, Shave, Wax it, take your pick) What the hell? Where are all these "furry"-related articles coming from? This has been around since 2003 and there's no source for the claims yet. Wavy G 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete furrycruft. Anomo 12:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Calling it "furrycruft" isn't really a convincing argument as it doesn't really address any issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Xydexx 06:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or chainsaw merge. The reason I'm now grudgingly saying this should go is basically the same reason I gave for Yiffstar's deletion. I'm standing by my position from the previous AfD that the site is widely known. However, I feel that an external link, possibly a very brief discussion, in an appropriate article is all that is really needed. Non-furries aren't likely to find the history of the site fascinating enough, and furries are probably there just to look at the pretty pictures. We have WikiFur for this sort of stuff. And Carthago must be deleted I hate verifiability as the only deletion argument, no matter how you phrase it it comes across as a cop-out. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly enjoy just using 'V' as an argument either, AFD discussions should be more than that. However, when trying to hold the balanced view (IE holding up WP's rules against its own bedrock of being about providing information and discussing that comparison in AFD), this is often used as leverage to keep articles which do not belong. It shouldn't be, but it is, making it more difficult to hold balanced discussions when they are indeed necessary, more's the pity. I quite agree with you that VCL is an important website within the furry community, but that there's no material out there to make an article from. What is there to say about this site? "It's full of furry pics - if you want furry pics go there." That's it, in a nutshell. The way to provide that is as an external link from the main furre article or by providing a link to WikiFur which will doubtless have an article. I would have liked to have summarised all that in my 'vote', but I grow tired of some contributors insisting the grass is blue and the sky is green, just to keep articles which are clearly not suitable for WP. QuagmireDog 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VCL is already an external link on the Furry fandom article, as is WikiFur which in turn has an article on VCL. QuagmireDog 14:43, 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 04:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire When Ready[edit]

Fire When Ready (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND, only one album, non-notable band. SkierRMH 09:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:RS, too. Tubezone 09:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, especially since that doesn't seem to be a notable indie label. —ShadowHalo 18:25, 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. Tagged {{db-afd}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L2walker[edit]

L2walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

A cheat program for a game having no assertion of notability Delete Steve (Slf67) talk 09:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE, zero news ghits. MER-C 10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:SOFTWARE. May I point out WP:SOFTWARE is currently in development. MER-C, just remember ghits are not always a good guide to the notability of the article. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 00:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, I see. I misunderstood; thinking you meant the game had no assertion of notability. I still don't think it should be deleted as it's relevant and technically correct. Maybe merged with the Lineage 2 article? Due to its subject matter, it would fit perfectly in Section 5 entitled Botting.
  • - How about the fact that l2Walker allowed for some of the most profitable real money trading companies like IGE to become not mere 'gamers with bucks on ebay' but full-fledged businesses?
  • Great references! Unfortunately they are for Lineage II (which I do not doubt is a notable subject) and not L2Walker which is the subject of this AfD. --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A huge problem with tracking down l2walker usage or stories about it come in part from the fact that most people (even players who use the program for non-monetary purposes) will deny using it, since even suggesting that you might use it could get you banned. Most forums dedicated to the game actively censor discussion about the program, and the official lineage 2 forum policy dictates that any discussion about it can get your thread locked or deleted, with your account having the same done to it. Mentioning the program any other way than referring to it in the third person (That program, The program, IT, the program which shall not be named, etc) can get your post edited and/or deleted. NCsoft NA representatives in official threads on the subject even refrain from mentioning it, except by slight reference:
1. Gameguard works! No tool will ever stop all bots from working. Gameguard has stopped many 3rd party programs from working. Yes, I know which one it has not stopped.' Look at it this way, if there is only one enemy for me to combat, it is much better than 20 (amount of high level botting programs before GG.) - Emphasis added [28]
Please remember to send any reports about specific programs through the "Ask a Question" link in the Support Center – do not post the names of these programs. We are aware of most programs in use, but please send us any additional information you feel might be helpful. [29]
l2walker is infamous in that regard, because it *is* the one that hasn't been stopped, and has not been stopped during the last several years of Lineage 2's existence. Its kept the real money traders in business in lineage, and kept legitimate players from competing normally against others. In short, its usage has been a constant plague upon the players of Lineage 2. Removing this article would just serve to further censor a product that, for good or worse, affects the majority of the million-strong player base for this game across the world.
Finally, talk about the program has been published. When I get home I will find the actual article, but its use was mentioned in a gaming magazine article about real money trading during 2005, specifically mentioning Lineage 2. 12.110.71.30 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Either the article makes no claim to notability at all or I blinked at the wrong time. The Kinslayer 10:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--RWR8189 07:03, 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 Speedy delete as compellingly argued below. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinaldo Arifin[edit]

Reinaldo Arifin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:COI and probable hoax, since "Reinaldo Arifin" gets 0 Google hits and the article was made by User:Reinaldo arifin. Danny Lilithborne 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only that, the only assertion of notability here is being a good high school soccer goalie, which is to say, not much and not enough. Tagged as db-bio, speedy delete, WP:CSD A7. Tubezone 09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - WP:HOLE. MER-C 10:17, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautiful Game (football podcast)[edit]

The Beautiful Game (football podcast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Neutral. Talk page asserts notability. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-18 09:29Z

  • Delete as per WP:WEB. One mention in a "Top 10" chart in Metro is not enough; for starters Metro is a freesheet not a paid-for newspaper, and a top 10 chart counts as merely "Trivial Coverage" as laid out in criterion #1 in WP:WEB. Qwghlm 09:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 09:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete- what difference does Metro being a free-sheet make? Wikipedia is free. The Metro has a higher circulation than most-paid for newspapers. The article about The Beautiful Game podcast does not constitute advertising or promoting of the podcast, it is informative and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleggy (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Terence Ong 10:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. – Elisson • T • C • 11:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see nothing notable here. aLii 18:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on, no matter about Metro is a paper or a newspaper, the Beautiful Game is only new, so why delete it?? we can keep it for a few months, if it has not edited later, it can be deleted... Rakuten06 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence from multiple, non-trivial reliable sources that podcast meets criteria outlined WP:WEB. As for "the Beautiful Game is only new, so why delete it??"... indeed, that's precisely a reason to delete it. Maybe when someone else considers it notable and ample secondary sources are available for an article, then it can come back. Until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Kinu t/c 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V and WP:RS not met. No established notability. Also, for those saying "the Beautiful Game is only new, so why delete it", please read WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete. I have reformatted the article to make understanding much clearer but references and further details must be added. --Cryzal 07:13, 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 speedy as requested. - brenneman 11:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until June[edit]

Until June (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, no discography, no tours, & crystalballing SkierRMH 09:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We would love to think that we are making music that will change the world. Don't they all? Well, until they do some of that, no article. No references for Sony/BMG claim, one reference is an empty page, others 404 errors. Should be speedy delete as spam or no assertion of notability. Tubezone 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete endorsed, an upcoming album isn't an assertion of notability. MER-C 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, unverifiable. Terence Ong 10:53, 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 KEEP (no consensus). Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Great Powers[edit]

The Three Great Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-18 09:35Z

  • The article should be kept because the topic is from a major fictional universe, but clearly this article needs to be reorganized in some way to mesh with the One Piece series of articles. I would (AFD propose) Merge to One Piece so that Talk:One Piece could sort it out. hateless
  • 'Merge to One Piece. SkierRMH 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - More and more info will be revealed in the manga and anime, and this is where it should go. - Peregrinefisher 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment normally I'd say delete, but holy crap look how many freaking One Piece articles there are... I'm just going to pretend like I didn't see that... and go on my way.. -- Ned Scott 07:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You haven't seen the Mortal Kombat pages then I take it. This is nothing compared to that. There is a lot of info people want to talk about on certain topics I guess, I'm saying that for all the fictional universe base Wikipedia pages, not just One Piece ones. Even the Donkey Kong games have expanded like the One Piece pages. Angel Emfrbl 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have articles for each of the entries on this page already. This page was made without being discussed by everyone working on theOne Piece pages. We have enough One Piece pages without ones for trivial things like this. Those other paes that contain the info for this go into things a lot better then this page, this page seems to be designed to be a short summery page nothing else. Bottom line - the page is uneeded reguardless. Angel Emfrbl 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and evaluate a lot more.. we got some clean up ahead of us. -- Ned Scott 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --Mhking 19:58, 27 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 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond CBE Inc.[edit]

Raymond CBE Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable corporation, under 500 employees, appears to fail WP:CORP SkierRMH 09:41, 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 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PicoZip[edit]

PicoZip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged as db-advert, but it's not, as far as I can see, although it's largely the work of single-purpose account User:Acubix (the name of the company which makes this software). Whether it passes WP:SOFTWARE I wouldn't like to say, but it's not a speedy candidate, so I'm bringing it here for consideration. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable, Google hits are primarily the website or to download the website. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Terence Ong 11:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE w/ zippo ghits outside of site or links to it. SkierRMH 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources cover this. JChap2007 02:23, 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 08:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Photography Greece[edit]

Digital Photography Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. 14k users. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-18 10:23Z

  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. Nothing but directory entries and forums on Google. MER-C 10:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB big time! SkierRMH 00:46, 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, vandalism. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Átta Húskarl[edit]

Átta Húskarl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Ocht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both articles are total bollocks, zero ghits, author also vandalized redirect for Ógra Fhianna Fáil Tubezone 10:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as part of the Ógra Fhianna Fáil hoax/nonsense (the youth wing of the Fianna Fáil political party is not descended from a mediaeval religious sect). The author's other contributions (especially [30][31]) do not inspire confidence. Demiurge 10:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do not inspire confidence. I admire your civility. Tubezone 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:35, 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. John Lake 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FriendFinder[edit]

FriendFinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged as A7 (no assertion of notability) but notability is asserted (but do be sure to check that really reliable source...). 25 million members might make it notable, but this is a directory entry. Merge? Delete? Fix? You decide. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Major players in the online dating game. Alexa rank of 1,480 for the parent company (FriendFinder) and an Alexa rank of 77 for Adult FriendFinder. Definitely notable. SWAdair | Talk 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SWAdair. The fix to substubs is expansion, even if they appear to be a mere listings (or dictdefs). hateless 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with major re-write, including facts & figures given by SWAdair. SkierRMH 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough in its own right. Sources needed, but this can be kept. --SunStar Nettalk 00:49, 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 08:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian blogosphere[edit]

Belgian blogosphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previously kept no consensus in 2005 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgian Blogosphere), but I don't think this would pass the current notability criteria, and I am not at all sure it should have survived back then either - many of the Keep arguments were along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Do we have a reference to say that the Belgian blogosphere is different from the blogosphere generally? Not as such. Do the blogs discussed have articles? Seems not. Is it full of lovely weblinks to blogs? For sure. Do any other articles link here? Nope. I'd say this is a type of article that we used to think might one day become useful, but we've now decided is not as useful as we thought and rather too prone to vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no external sources or indications of notability outside the Belgian blogging community itself. Demiurge 10:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the statistics has sources (be it badly formatted). And since most of those blogs are written in Dutch or French, I don't see lack of notability outside the Belgian blogosphere as valid reason to delete it. Wikipedia is an international project and anything with a national notability in the country of origin is an acceptable subject. That's probably the reason why individual articles on the relevant blogs haven't been created too. Not enough people with the relevant language skills to do it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. Eusebeus 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do 5 websites = notariety? Me thinkest not. What makes this different from the Welsh Blogosphere (which does need a universal tranlator obscure Red Dwarf joke). It may one day be widespread enough for inclusions, but even with proper translations, I don't think that this is widespread enough now for encyclopedic inclusion. SkierRMH 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Widespread is subjective. The fact the Dutch language is pretty small makes for few blogs in that language, but that doesn't make it any less important. It's national importance that counts, not if it's important to speakers of English. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For Wikipedia, notability exists when multiple independent, reliable sources publish material primarily about the subject of an article. Blogs are not reliable sources by our standards. So I don't see any notability to Wikipedia's standards for this topic. GRBerry 02:40, 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 08:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmate (rapper)[edit]

Checkmate (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged A7 but notability asserted. Connection with a single underground hip-hop single is probably not enough, though. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIDEB[edit]

CIDEB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged as A7 but not unambiguous. Seems to be an educational project, but it's hard to know if it's significant or not from this article. Not an A7 candidate anyway, so please see what you think of it. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable school, fails WP:V. I could find no evidence on Google that this exists. MER-C 11:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SCHOOL and WP:CORP, sort of falls in between, I guess. P.S. if you're going for ghits, use "Centro de Investigacion y Desarrollo de Educacion Bilingue" (typo in Spanish) - which only gives 2 hits. SkierRMH 01:26, 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 keep per added sources. - 10:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Bianco[edit]

Nicholas Bianco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This was tagged as a speedy, but I consider a 1930s mobster who's still known today mildly notable, so I'm bringing it here just in case. LexisNexis wasn't helpful as it gave me no articles on the guy and Google lists a lot of links, but non I can see relevant to the mobster. I might be missing something, so no opinion. Mgm|(talk) 11:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Nicholas Bianco is not a mobster of 1930s. He was born in 1932, and his career spanned from 1960s to his death in 1994. The google hits generated are about him, not irrelavant. Please see this and this. Notability ok. --Dwaipayan (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable.--Mantanmoreland 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've listed additional references so as to establish his notibility which, I hope, should resolve the issue. MadMax 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established.--Slp1 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep with additional information in article. And note to close debate at this point. SkierRMH 01:39, 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 08:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AANR-East Youth Leadership Camps Program[edit]

AANR-East Youth Leadership Camps Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable Navou talk 11:53, 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 Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GrodsCorp[edit]

nn website. google 30000 over hits[32]. alexa traffic rank: no date.[33] Wohianwinmg 12:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC) — Wohianwinmg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. The Bulletin bit is completely unreferenced, even on the blog itself. So tagged. MER-C 12:12, 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 deleted. - brenneman 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASif!: Australian Specfic In Focus[edit]

nn websites--Wohianwinmg 12:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC) — Wohianwinmg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:09, 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 deleted. - brenneman 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbirds[edit]

nn company--Wohianwinmg 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:15, 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 deleted. - brenneman 12:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robeks Juice[edit]

nn company--Wohianwinmg 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. -FisherQueen 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per FisherQueen. So tagged. MER-C 12:14, 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 speedy deleted. - brenneman 12:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuperGrads[edit]

nn company--Wohianwinmg 12:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability- looks like plain ol' spam to me. -FisherQueen 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:16, 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 criterion A7. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key Software Services Private Limited[edit]

nn company--Wohianwinmg 12:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:18, 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 Speedy delete G4, sorry about that, got distracted. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick Scott[edit]

Kendrick Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD A7 but notability is assertee. Article is clearly autobiography, and rather spammy. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was found in the first nomination. It's now in the right spot. MER-C 12:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 12:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - G4: already deleted, nn notable. -- Cate | Talk 14:33, 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 08:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mischler[edit]

Michael Mischler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy. I think this belongs on Wikinews, not here; the case is not in any way groundbreaking or notable (not likely to be cited in legal texts or as a precedent in case law, for example). Guy (Help!) 12:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only piece of biographical information separate from the court case is his date of birth, which is meaningless by itself. Sam Blacketer 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already included in the Elle Macpherson article, no need for this extra unneeded redundancy. SkierRMH 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Burglary and extortion cases are a dime a dozen, and celebrity victims are far from immune. Denni talk 02:05, 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 as G11 and G12. Kusma (討論) 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Solution & Management (DSM Network)[edit]

Dynamic Solution & Management (DSM Network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fairly obvious commercial spam, not notable Walton monarchist89 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 12:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - copyvio from [34] and [35]. So tagged. MER-C 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 speedy deleted. - brenneman 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bypedes[edit]

Bypedes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

A combination of semi-nonsense dicdef and a web site (or some such) with no asserted notability and nil related google hits[36][37]. Deprodded. Weregerbil 12:55, 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 04:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vocognition[edit]

Vocognition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I prodded it, prod was removed. Says it used to be an industry leader but is now bankrupt? Not cited, appears to be NN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as internally contradictory (VoCognition is Europe's... - it doesn't exist, therefore it isn't or was). It no longer exists, and the parent company Zetes Industries does not have an article of its own. SkierRMH 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As nominator, i forgot to cast my nom. If it was not obvious. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was thinking about redirect to Zetes Industries, but that article doesn't exist. No sources, not notable. Secateur 17:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeshAir & Neshair[edit]

NeshAir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article was created by User:FrummerThanThou on 28 November, 2006, to tout a yet-to-be created and dubious "Haredi" airline in Israel. (At the same time an anonymous user added information to the Lev Leviev article that Leviev is founding NeshAir [38] which User:Frummer affirmed adding Leviev's interests in "aviation" [39] and the only mention of "Leviev and NeshAir" on Google is a link to the Leviev article on Wikipedia [40]) So we go full circle and Wikipedia thus becomes the ONLY source for all this baloney as Wikipedians and the world are "taken for a (sky) ride" on "NeshAir"! All this is highly suspicious and violates a number of things. A simple Google search shows exactly three hits for a "NeshAir" airline [41], the first being its own one web page ad for itself [42], and the other two are links to Wikipedia: this article, and its mention in the El Al article, also inserted by User:FrummerThanThou [43] into which he added: "...This resulted in the leading Haredi rabbis such as Rabbi Kanievsky, Eliashiv and Aron Leib Steinman to proclaim a boycott on the airline and promoting the new Haredi Neshair airline. jpost.com" HOWEVER a careful reading of the jpost.com article reveals ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of "Neshair" - so what we have here is Wikipedia helping to promote a lie about something that does not exist. This goes against Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) (Wikipedia articles are not advertisements); Wikipedia:Hoaxes; WP:NOT#CBALL; WP:NOT#WEBSPACE; Wikipedia:Verifiability and probably other rules as well. In addition, User:FrummerThanThou should be blocked from further edits for his multiple ongoing disregard of Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 14#Template:Bruchim and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha.) IZAK 13:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notice the above reads as a condemnation of myself, my contributions to wikipedia on the whole and is mostly nothing to do with why the article should be deleted. frummer 16:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read it at all Frummer? It's about how you have tried to create PR for a company that does not exist and unfortunately it fits into a pattern of how you operate, and all I have done is state the places where you have caused much trouble. Unfortunately, based on all these cases, I have concluded that you are a menace to Wikipedia, based in your actions and activities. Sad but true. IZAK 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 13:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first hit looks legit to me. Also, this is not the page to discuss whether frummer should be blocked. Take it to an admin; not here. MetsFan76 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MetsFan: No need to get so hot under the collar. He is a self-acknowledged sockpuppet, see User talk:IZAK#Close Shave and User talk:El C#More disruptions. It's relevant here, because this is part of a series of his deliberate disruptions of Wikipedia. So does anyone who puts up exactly one incomplete "under construction" web page with no information on it, have the right to have a Wikipedia article based on it? You make no sense. Did you notice that he lied when adding: "...and promoting the new Haredi Neshair airline..." in the El Al article (which is a serious article) when no such thing happened? Kindly do not vote on a kneejerk basis merely for the sake of disagreeing with me because this is not about me. Rather, analyze the contents of the discussion before us please. Thank you. IZAK 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • IZAK....I'm not being "hot under the collar." I just think you are in the wrong forum to discuss frummer's actions, of which I am aware of. And thank you, but I will vote how I please. MetsFan76 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi MetsFan: Of course anyone can vote how they please, but sometimes it helps to get another view. Glad to know all's well though. IZAK 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • All is well. MetsFan76 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually IZAK....all is not well. I just reread what you wrote to me. "I make no sense??" Is your email turned on b/c I think we need to have a talk... MetsFan76 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi Mets: Does it make sense to say that "The first hit looks legit to me" -- when Frummer has not stated the truth -- and then vote to "keep" this article (based on that flimsy one hit)? Why is that so complicated? IZAK 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • IZAK: I am not going by what frummer has said. I did a google search and saw the website. And I think you need to tone it down. MetsFan76 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hiya Mets: Sure thing. I am toned down, you should see me when I get worked up... :-} IZAK 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • IZAK: I have seen you worked up. You haven't seen me yet. =) MetsFan76 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Yossiea 14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per notability guidelines. --Zegoma beach 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Terence Ong 15:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, nom is corrent there are no sources besides for company's own email statement. At present with the lack of sources, the article may qualify for deletion. frummer 16:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE:Lookadat: Frummer now shows up and does his famous 180 degree U-turn over this misleading article that he had worked so hard to write up, edit, and maintain. How much longer will these disruptive, time-wasting, and energy-consuming antics be tolerated? IZAK 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recommend to IZAK that if he wants to complain at length about conduct, take it to an RFC rather than cluttering an AFD debate with the matter. - Jmabel | Talk 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Jmabel: I asked IZAK earlier to take it to an RFC rather than on here but he doesn't listen. MetsFan76 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Mets: Don't misunderstand me. Notch it up to my sense of mercy that I have not gone the RFC route at this time, which I consider to be a very serious procedure. I would much prefer that User:FrummerThanThou would moderate his ways and avoid his irresponsible style of editing and writing , with which I have unfortunately become well-acquainted in recent weeks. IZAK 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • IZAK: Suggesting that someone gets blocked is also very serious, as you have done with frummer. I had a conversation with him last night...he seems like a nice guy, although a little misguided lately. I think he needs a break for a bit, but not a block. Weren't you blocked in the past? I'm sure it wasn't fun. As such, stating that he should be blocked might not be considered mercy as you were in that situation. C'mon...it's the holiday season. This isn't necessary right now. =) MetsFan76 13:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi Mets: Sure he's a nice guy, that's not the issue, it's his wild pattern of editing, writing, nominating, and un-nominating articles relating to Jews and Judaism back and forth, that I have had the dubious pleasure of having to struggle with. I am not judging him as a person, I am judging his work, that's all. Furthermore, it is out of a sense of responsibility and of not wishing to see Wikipedia and its Jewish content articles mangled (as Frummer tends to do) that I am keeping a careful watch on what he does with Judaic articles. I can't watch his edits to non-Jewish articles, let other people take him up on that. And as for my history on Wikipedia, I started in December of 2002, four years ago [44] and at that time we had a number of virulent and scheming antisemites who were sabotaging Jewish and Israeli articles and in the course of a bloody slug fest over a long time I got blocked for about a week for repeatedly calling them antisemites. (Since then I am NOT that blunt, as there are more ways than one to skin a cat), and eventually a few of those characters were in turn blocked and banned for a long time as their true colors and Jew-hatred eventually did them in -- so I don't think that you or Frummer want to be gloating in their company -- nor do I suggest that anyone open that can of worms, they'll just get burned (by the worms ;-})! And yes, Happy Hanukkah to all! IZAK 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi IZAK: I am definitely not gloating in anyone's company and this is not about anti-semitism. This is about how you tend to lose control way too much. Instead of jumping on someone, why don't you take the time to find out what the problem is, instead of plastering it all over wikipedia. Obviously, if someone is deliberately causing problems (i.e. frummer), then they should be dealt with in the proper forum. This is an AfD, not The Jerry Springer Show. Anyway, my email is on here so maybe we should continue this through there. All I can see of our debate is just clutter. And also a Merry Christmas! MetsFan76 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted and Salt Well, ignorning the 'he said, she said' nonsense that most everyone above is embroyaled in, I'll look at the article and base my comments on it's merits. I read the article and the links. There is no mention in the linked article about this airline. I did some checking and the IATA code "SR" is not registered with the IATA.[45] The same with the ICAO code, NSH is not registered to any airline. I checked and there are no notices about this airline in the industry (as a privite IFR pilot, it's very easy to check this kind of thing). --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, WP:V. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non notable and massive WP:V problems. let rfc deal with salting issues. SkierRMH 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... the article makes a nice-looking, i.e., well-formed, stub, but it fails even the most basic criteria for notability. It is not an Israeli airline as the article asserts, it is, rather, an airline idea. That's nice, but unless it gains notability [which it has not] for being an idea, failed or otherwise, it's not valid article material. I wish the idea the best of luck, and once it takes off [pun intended], I'll be more than happy to support the article, even as a stub. Tomertalk 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brian. JChap2007 02:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bschott. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete When they start flying, we can reconsider.DGG 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, absolutely non-notable; CSD A7 sets in nicely. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 06:44, 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 Redirect to Juventus F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:44Z

Alessio Ferramosca[edit]

Alessio Ferramosca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Riccardo Neri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable...do we list "ballboys" from baseball or tennis? A JUNIOR player is MINOR league. Dying is not notable. → R Young {yakłtalk} 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's had quite a lot of press coverage recently, which means the article passes WP:BIO and it's quite a notable person. Jayden54 22:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Juventus FC article and give them an own episode in the history of the club. The players were not notible, their death was as it was in the media all over the world and all matches in Italy held one minute of silence before the start due to the death of these guys. SportsAddicted | discuss 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A Youth Team player for a side like Juventus isn't any different to a college player in the States dying. The article needs expanding though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yorkie19 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT a memorial and this person had not achieved anything notable in life. In a year's time no-one outside their family and friends will remember who they are. Qwghlm 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there were a source for "suspicious circumstances", maybe keep, but there isn't. -Amarkov blahedits 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, with no prejudice to another AfD after the story dies down a bit to re-asses notability. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On second thought, I really don't feel that this can really go anywhere. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both player's articles (the other being Riccardo Neri) should redirect to an article about the incident. There is no biographical information here. aLii 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of a lack of information and noteworthiness. I don't even think we need an article about the incident. Maybe the team page can have a line or two about the incident. --Daysleeper47 19:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Qwghlm. Plenty of people die accidentally every day. HornetMike 19:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it was undoubtedly tragic, but they don't warrant an article. A paragraph in the club article is more than sufficient. Daemonic Kangaroo 19:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the story has died down significantly (at least on the Italian news sites, last stories were 12/16, w/the exception of blog entries). It could be recreated, however, if it does result in significant changes to the Juventus association or in the Italian Youth Soccer organizations. SkierRMH 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment' - They were mentioned at the FIFA gala today at least twice, which is remarkable for two players which are really unknown. That doesn't change my opinion stated above though, but wanted to clarify that they're still in the news. SportsAddicted | discuss 03:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ohconfucius 05:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Consider merging information to Juventus FC if something notable in either person's name occurs (foundation or scholarship, football camp, etc). MSJapan 12:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I have also put Riccardo Neri up for AfD here for the same reasons as this article (it's more or less a carbon copy with a name swap). MSJapan 12:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (I merged the second article, as the two are very similar and similarly devoid of substantive content). Guy (Help!) 13:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for personal pages. Eventually I can understand an article (enough material??) to the accident, and redirecting the two names to that accident, but personally I don't find encyclopedic these persons and the fact (so in my opinion no merge needed). -- Cate | Talk 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think that the accident should be recorded so an article on the accident would be more useful than two stubs saying not very much at all. Triangle e 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dovea 17:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep These boys died whilst training to become professionals... Also Juventus postponed certain things, and so much press coverage was on this, that I believe it necessary for Wikipedia to keep this... Perhaps merge with Juventus under a section "Youth Academy Deaths" or something similar. Asics 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorry for the guys, but they weren't notable footballers at all. --Angelo 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They weren't notable. However, Juventus had to postpone one of their matches as a result of this incident.
    One minute silence was observed for these players.
    They belonge to youth team, but both of them played for the primavera team (squad right after the 1st team).
    Michaelangelo Rampula, Juve's goalkeeping coach had said that he was going to train Neri with Buffon from next year on. source: http://www.tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=21983 (I know it is from tribal but they have simply translated the news that came on tuttosport.com which is the leading sports news paper from turin: base of Juve)
    There is a very high possibility that Juve will keep organize a tournament or mark an occasion with their names.user:rahul.acm
  • Delete The event is rare by not notable enough to create article. Matthew_hk tc 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is lot more to develop in this story. One of the player's father has raised the issue of grave negligence on the part of Juve officials user:rahul.acm
  • Keep - as per Jayden54's comment on policy. - Deathrocker 17:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any useful information into Juventus FC article. It's tragic yes, but the players, no matter how much potential they HAD, were not notable in and amongst themselves to warrant seperate articles. There's a section in the current Juventus article about the tragedy (under Current Season), and that should be enough, considering the effect on the team (they had a game postponed, minute of silence, etcetera) SirFozzie 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject meets WP:N standards - multiple, non-trivial published reports. Notability is not subjective. Ccscott 18:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although probably too late to save I saw this on one of my watchlists, so, Keep per Ccscott. Bobo. 06:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If your son died in a car accident, that may be notable to you. Why should this kid be listed but not the one on the 'local' news? Today's TV market has become oversaturated with media coverage. A story may be run and played, but is that really significant? Five years from now, this article will look quite silly.

Also, it doesn't offer much information, not even a birthdate.

Biography is supposed to give people examples of notable lives of important achievement. Instead, we have a youth-oriented culture that self-glorifies itself before even achieving anything of real or lasting value. Playing a game at a minor league level and then accidentally drowning is a news story, but not a biographical article that people will need to know about. At least that is the way I see it here. Those that insist on "keep" are really watering Wikipedia down...if we include everyone, why not ourselves?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 07:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As already said, tragic though their death is, the young men are not notable in themselves. In my opinion, a unusual or even suspicious death does make not one notable. I am not recommending this, but if something noteworthy emerged about the accident, one could evaluate the possibility of writing an article about it. Goochelaar 23:56, 25 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) 2006-12-27 05:42Z

Cock tease[edit]

Cock_tease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)�-- (View AfD)

This article is unencyclopedic. Jackk 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Keep per upgrades... assumed there wasn't any real history/literary use behind it Jackk 07:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Slang, don't think Wiktionary will accept it. MER-C 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep since the concerns have been addressed. MER-C 07:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:WINAD Seventypercent 15:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slang dicdef. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki unless someone wants to put the time into upgrading it (might be worthwhile)Keep per DGG's upgrades. WilyD 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Keep all issues addressed in my opinion -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC) - It is slang, it is probably a dict def. If i was some clueless individual who heard the term and wondered what it was, I would probably come to wikipedia and look for an answer. If there was some work put into it, even a single valid cite, i would probably change my vote. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's already Wikt:cock tease, which predates the article. If there's some sort of redirect or transwiki notification, place it up. --Howrealisreal 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here worth transwiki-ing. If someone wants to upgrade the article, they can start from scratch, there's nothing here that they wouldn't have to rewrite or get rid of anyway. delldot | talk 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Weak keep after DGG's changes. Keep up the good work, DGG, it'll get there! delldot | talk 05:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a dictionary entry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SweetGodiva (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no transiki here! SkierRMH 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep-- Notability, Verifiability and WPDictionary objections answered Already in Wiktionary, of course, but I have given a somewhat more adult discussion, along with 2 unmistakably academic references--one even non-US--one law review article and one Master's thesis, along with 3 examples of notable mainstream use, in classic films and novel, and one presumably notable adult film already in WP. (and a link to the pornography and blogs) I had thought that the term was somewhat old-fashioned, but my teen-ager told me it was still in use. (smile) The non-academic stuff took half an hour, as did the academic. I'll add some song texts from mainstream artists. I think this was what you asked, WilyD, & Chris, and I find it easier to work with even a poorly done stub than to start afresh; for one thing, when it comes up for AfD, there's some pressure to get it done. (smile again)DGG 08:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep assuming DGG is going to continue working on it -- the recent additions seem to show that expansion is possible after all. Which I find somewhat surprising, but there you go. Shimeru 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: although there is a Wiktionary entry (for which I've added the link to the Wikipedia article), the article has additional information that wouldn't fit a dictionary entry. – SAJordan talkcontribs 07:12, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. Improved since nominated. Jokestress 08:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's vulgar, but it's certainly notable Mikemoto 17:40, 25 December 2006
  • Keep per above. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Keep"' and let's hope somebody chooses to elaborate on the "gender roles" implications - the article is already beyond just a definition, but there's room for lots more depth. Credmond 02:11, 27 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 Redirect to a more complete article Daisy chain. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Chaining[edit]

Daisy Chaining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No pages link here, and the article only contains a dictionary-like text Snailwalker | talk 00:19, 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 Keep Naconkantari 02:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dodoria[edit]

Dodoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)�-- (View AfD)

Dodoria is a minor character, he should be merged into list of other aliens in Dragon Ball. -- User:General Cui 00:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No he's not. First you vandalize the article because you don't like the character, and then when your vandalism is reverted, you put the article up for deletion? You have NO basis for doing this, and are making a nomination based on personal feelings rather than because it's appropriate. If Dodoria is a minor character, then so is Zarbon. Both only appear in a few (read: many) episodes, after all, as well as an hour long TV special that reveals a lot of background information about the Saiyajin, and Goku's father. And it's not like Dodoria had a major role in any of tha--Oh wait! He DID.
Nomination is invalid. Don't use your dislike of characters to try to change Wikipedia for the worse.
Daishokaioshin 02:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.I dont dislike him. 2.He does not deserve an entire page, all of this can be easily covered in other articles. 3.I dont see how he played a big role? Please enlighten me. -- User:General Cui 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you don't dislike him, then why did you vandalize the article?
2. Your opinion of what is deserving of having an article is noted, but irrelevant. A lot of things could easily be covered in other articles. The question isn't whether they can, but whether it is appropriate. In this case, the character has enough screen time and material to have an informative article written about them, which would be diminished greatly by deleting the article and putting a short blurb somewhere else.
3. He killed off Burdock's entire team, and nearly killed him as well. He was one of Freeza's two (that's right. Two. Kiwi was an incredibly trivial "character") top henchmen, killed Namekians while gathering the Dragon Balls for Freeza, and was nearly the end of Kuririn and Gohan. He might not be AS significant as someone like Freeza, but he appears in more than a couple episodes like Kiwi.
4. "minor character" as a comment summary isn't sufficient. Provide your reasoning for why Dodoria is minor.
5. Oh, I see. The Dodoria article is useless. It has absolutely no value whatsoever. And all of your vandalism and reverts and adding of pointless text is SO much less useless, right, "Frieza"-Bomber? Describe in what way the Dodoria article is "useless", rather than just trying to stack votes.
  • Why the hell does "General Cui" care. If he doesn't like Dodoria and doesn't believe that he merits attention, then he doesn't have to read about him. Why debate whether or not he deserves a page. Why not just enjoy the fact that someone took the time to put as much information about all of the Dragonball Z characters as they could for the enjoyment of others. Get over it. —the preceding comment is by 69.137.238.215 (talk • contribs) 69.137.238.215: Please sign your posts!.[51] 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep AFD was made in bad faith, by a sock puppet, with the only "delete" votes coming from that user and his anon IP address account. JRP 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per JRP -Toptomcat 15:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Toxinxc 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination made by vandal. All delete votes are from sock-puppets Wavy G 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep bad faith/vandal nomination. SkierRMH 02:38, 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:41Z

Esperanto and Ido compared[edit]

Esperanto_and_Ido_compared (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)�-- (View AfD)

Reason for proposed deletion: original research. Nov ialiste 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unsourced original research. MER-C 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: I hope we don't get articles comparing any two languages, no matter if they are related or unrelated. The paragraph in Ido seems more than sufficient for the subject. Fram 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Fram. ~ EdBoy[p]\[m]/[c] 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference more carefully. The Delegation_for_the_Adoption_of_an_International_Auxiliary_Language was one of the most important developments in the history of AILS. The end result "Ido" (= offspring in Esperanto) and its similarities and differences relative to Esperanto are of great importance in the area of International Auxiliary Languages even today: to such an extent that many an Esperantist would dearly love all references to Ido and comparisons with Esperanto to be obliterated. I therefore suggest that deletion of this article would be partisan. Nov ialiste 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have nominated the article for deletion, and are now suggesting to keep it, with everyone else suggesting to delete it (so you can hardly have changed your mind based on what is said in this AfD). This seems suspiciously like you are trying to make a WP:POINT, which is heavily frowned upon. Fram 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article inadequately referenced which is why I made the nomination. The sources are not clearly referenced in my opinion. I hope its sources will be specified more clearly and then deletion unnecessary. The genesis of Ido from Esperanto has been the object of scholarly study by the philosopher Couturat as well as linguists. I suspect that the article may in some places be a bit OR, but that could be cleaned up by sticking more closely to original sources. Nov ialiste 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an explanation of why you changed your mind. Please refrain from making WP:POINT AfD nominations. Fram 05:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is original research. If indeed the break between Ido and Esperanto is significant, it might be covered under Delegation for the Adoption of an International Auxiliary Language, with more emphasis on why some believed a new international auxiliary language was necessary, based on sources, rather than an original analysis of the differences between the languages. Heimstern Läufer 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Heimstern Laufer's point above is well-made. --SunStar Nettalk 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the strangely titled article is a product of Wikipedia:Summary style, derived from the featured article Ido. These two languages are really comparable, were often compared (i.e. no WP:OR) and their comparison is useful in order to understand the development of constructed languages around 1900. - On the other side this AfD looks really like a WP:POINT, probably related with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido and Novial compared. But we should not punish otherwise reasonable articles for it...--Ioannes Pragensis 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ioannes. OR is usually a cleanup issue, I don't think it has been proven that the subject is inherently OR. hateless 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia has several articles comparing auxiliary languages – Ido and Interlingua, Interlingua and Esperanto, and so on. Comparison in itself doesn't make an article original research. A few points in the article are questionable at best. Sidney Culbert’s figure of 1.6 million Esperanto speakers is certainly not the “most reliable estimate.” Culbert provided too little information to evaluate the accuracy of this figure, and even if it was once accurate, it is outdated now. But these details can be addressed without deleting.
  • Keep.*
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Cano[edit]

Genevieve_Cano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)�-- (View AfD)
  • Speedy Delete A7, and Not exactly a quality article.--AeomMai 23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note I couldnt finish the nomination due to an error that didnt let me complete it--AeomMai 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not an A7 candidate. However, she is a non-notable losing contestant, which warrants a regular deletion. MER-C 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable: high school teacher and administrator; Glendoremus 18:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete via WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF. SkierRMH 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save - notable; although she did not win the Miss Latin America Competition, she WAS the Miss Spain, therefore considering it to be a win. Perhaps a deletion of the high school section would be appropriate. Tingalex 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point to Note: The above is a grade nine student at ACS and has often admitted to having a crush on Genevieve Cano. At one point he recited his dream about her for a french project.--AeomMai 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me: Excuse me AeomMai, but that information is NOT true and is NOT relevant to the contant of the article. I would not support keeping an article on a high school teacher. The article exists because of her beauty pageant winnings. It is NOT appropriate to post information about my school work on wikipedia; you are defeating the purpose. Tingalex 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm trying to say. You are clearly a biased individual. Your opinion is biased and therefore not relevant in this article.--AeomMai 16:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you could be considered to be biased as well because you are her student. I suppose that somebody who writes an article on a political party would be biased because they have politcal views. Somebody who writes an article on a celebrity would be biased because they didn't like a movie they were in.....Tingalex 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and unlikely to have any WP:RS. And could the above two editors kindly keep their bickering to the schoolyard. --Richmeistertalk 18:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My grade 12 french teacher is not notable. she's nice and very patient, and i don't mean to sound mean, but she has not done anything to even warrant being in the Windsor Star. Mention her on the Assumption High School page, with her photograph, though. :) The Legendary Raccoon Fox: RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 05:27, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:39Z

List of stock photography archives[edit]

List of stock photography archives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails;

  • Keep This article is much more than a repository of external links or a directory. Precisely the opposite of an indiscriminate collection of information. Useful. Could be a good candidate for a featured list. Fg2 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Supplements the article stock photography well. Wikipedia should have at least some examples of stock photography collections.  The Transhumanist   07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete external link spam magnet [52] --Hu12 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm moving this to a private photography wiki. But I think Wikipedia should link to that private site somehow because this database is the only place on the entire Internets where a person can find this information. I can see that it doesn't fit in Wikipedia and it is a spam magnet. --cda 16:28, 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 KEEP. This page was previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Bauwens. I had closed that debate as "no consensus", which by default preserves the article. For reasons unknown to me, ForrestLane42 found my judgment wanting and replaced the AfD tag (without following through on other matters of procedure, such as creating a new discussion page). Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Bauwens[edit]

Michel_Bauwens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)�-- (View AfD)

Michel Bauwens is at the forefront of the P2P movement. There is not a single reason thinkable to delete his entry from Wikipedia, on the contrary. Rik Maes, University of Amsterdam

I cam across work by Bauwens here: http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=87 and wanted to know more about him. Had this article not existed, I would have been stranded. I think he might be more important in Europe than we know, so I would like to hear a European POV.

I think this deserves to be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdonovan11 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 18 December 2006

I need a Wikipedia page about Michel Bauwens, in order to point to the basic bio informations about him [53]. I don't know him personally, but from various debates around P2P. --StefanMz from Germany

  • Keep, non notables do not get 38.900 ghits, besides the P2P network is quoted in several European countries. Alf photoman 22:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, P2P widely discussed, hence qualifies under biography notability guidelines "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." M Alan Kazlev 09:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See Michel Bauwen's Notability section, below M Alan Kazlev 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Deleting this page is a very bad idea - Michel's activities are very valuable to the ongoing development and theorizing of one of today's more important movements. Mark Elliott 05:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) - Founder collaboration.wikia.com/metacollab.net.[reply]


Michel Bauwen's Notability[edit]

Here are some on-line peer reviews, interviews, recommendations, etc, of Michel Bauwens and his work. Includes google searching, also included are compliments he has recieved by email for his work: M Alan Kazlev 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


IMPACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
See especially his seminal essay, "Peer to Peer and Human Evolution," a piece that reflects his interest in the "metaphysics of technology. http://onthecommons.org/node/790
Dutch futurist Jaap van Till has written a short essay about "p2p upstreamers," and points me to Michel Bauwens site for "The Foundation for P2P ... http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2006/01/04/latest_in_peert....html
The Political Power Of Peer-To-Peer Networks. Michel Bauwens has a fascinating three-part essay on this topic which he begins: "Not since ... http://technology360.typepad.com/technology360/2006/03/p2pbased_econom.html
A Commons-based political economy would be centered around peer to peer, ... The author, Michel Bauwens, has played a major role in the digital revolution ... http://www.all4all.org/2006/08/2714.shtml
Bauwens is the author of a number of on-line essays, including a seminal thesis Peer to Peer and Human Evolution. He is editor of Pluralities/Integration ... http://www.xigi.net/index.php?person=431
If you digest the implications of the excellent work Michel Bauwens has done around Peer-to-Peer Governance, we see an emerging platform that can enable ... http://www.fuzzysignals.com/archives/2006/06/07/000207.html
Michel Bauwens, the WNRF Associate for Integral Studies, has released a landmark paper on "P2P and Human Evolution." Bauwen claims peer-to-peer technology, ... http://www.wnrf.org/cms/transmodern.shtml
in his pathbreaking paper on the wider implications of peer-to-peer, Michel Bauwens argues that peer-to-peer may even unveil the basis of a new model of ... http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0312/msg00012.html


ABOUT
In Canada you have peer-to-peer mentoring. And, in Thailand, you have peer-to-peer knowledge management," he argues. Pic: Michel Bauwens ... http://icommons.org/2006/06/09/virtually-obsessed-with-the-peer-to-peer-world/
Bangalore: Michel Bauwens turned his back on a senior corporate position, ... Peer-to-peer (or P2P) functioning takes an idea from the world of computer ... http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/33562
Virtually obsessed... with the peer-to-peer world Michel Bauwens, 48, turned his back on a senior corporate position, ... http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0606/msg00065.html
Michel Bauwens, 48, turned his back on a senior corporate position, ... He believes that peer-to-peer could be the "new form of communal shareholding". ... http://www.asia-commons.net/p2p


INTERVIEWS
In our first interview, we'll take a closer look into the fascinating peer-to-peer (r)evolution, together with Michel Bauwens. ... http://www.pantopicon.be/blog/2006/11/10/interview-michel-bauwens-a-p2p-future/
... Poynder does an extensive interview on P2P issues with Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation. ... Webcasts on some ICT issues ... including peer to peer ... http://www.shambles.net/pages/learning/ict/peer2peer/
Guido Eekhaut in conversation with Michel Bauwens, Peer to Peer Foundation. Brussels, December 4, 2006. Peer to Peer (P2P) productivity and projects are the ... http://www.futurevisions.be/index.php?page=nieuws
Network Collaboration: Peer To Peer As A New Way Of Living - Video Interview with Michel Bauwens. Posted October 10, 2006 * Comments(0) ... http://groworganisation.wordpress.com/tag/collaboration/


ONLINE ARTICLES PEER REVIEWED
Bauwens: Peer to Peer. English Summary. INTEGRAL REVIEW 2, 2005. 2. In the last part, we look into the possibilities of expansion for this new social ... http://integralreview.org/current_issue/documents/Bauwens,%20Peer%20to%20Peer%20English%20Summary%202,%202006.pdf
Michel Bauwens (Payap University and Chiang Mai University, Thailand) ... A Commons-based political economy would be centered around peer to peer, ... http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Bauwens37.htm


ONLINE ARTICLES
Peer to Peer and Human Evolution. On "the P2P relational dynamic" as the premise of the next civilizational stage. Author: Michel Bauwens ... http://integralvisioning.org/article.php?story=p2ptheory1
Michel Bauwens - Peer production, peer governance, peer property ... Peer to peer social processes are bottom-up processes whereby agents in a distributed ... http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=87


IMPACT CRITERIA
ONLINE IMPACT METRICS
"Michel Bauwens"
39,100 for "Michel Bauwens"
"Michael Bauwens"
10,100 for " Michael Bauwens"
(some other people with same name, but very largely the P2P-Bauwens)
31,300 for Bauwens + P2P
16,900 for Bauwens + " Peer to Peer"


IMPACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
See especially his seminal essay, "Peer to Peer and Human Evolution," a piece that reflects his interest in the "metaphysics of technology. http://:onthecommons.org/node/790
Dutch futurist Jaap van Till has written a short essay about "p2p upstreamers," and points me to Michel Bauwens site for "The Foundation for P2P ... http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2006/01/04/latest_in_peert....html
The Political Power Of Peer-To-Peer Networks. Michel Bauwens has a fascinating three-part essay on this topic which he begins: "Not since ... http://technology360.typepad.com/technology360/2006/03/p2pbased_econom.html
A Commons-based political economy would be centered around peer to peer, ... The author, Michel Bauwens, has played a major role in the digital revolution ... http://www.all4all.org/2006/08/2714.shtml
Bauwens is the author of a number of on-line essays, including a seminal thesis Peer to Peer and Human Evolution. He is editor of Pluralities/Integration ... http://www.xigi.net/index.php?person=431
If you digest the implications of the excellent work Michel Bauwens has done around Peer-to-Peer Governance, we see an emerging platform that can enable ... http://www.fuzzysignals.com/archives/2006/06/07/000207.html
Bauwens: Peer to Peer. English Summary. INTEGRAL REVIEW 2, 2005. 2. In the last part, we look into the possibilities of expansion for this new social ... http://integralreview.org/current_issue/documents/Bauwens,%20Peer%20to%20Peer%20English%20Summary%202,%202006.pdf
P2P and Human Evolution: Peer to peer as the premise of a. new mode of civilization. Author: Michel Bauwens, [email protected] ... http://www.networkcultures.org/weblog/archives/P2P_essay.pdf
Placing Peer to Peer Theory in an Integral Framework. Michel Bauwens. 1. Introduction. The following essay was prompted by Russ Volckman, editor of the ... http://www.integralworld.net/bauwens2.html
Michel Bauwens (1958) is a Belgian integral philosopher and Peer-to-Peer theorist. He has worked as an internet consultant, information analyst for the ... http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/02/20/p2pbased_economy_the_political_power.htm
Peer to Peer is the name for the the relational dynamic that occurs in distributed ... The author, Michel Bauwens, has played a major role in the digital ... http://www.integralworld.net/bauwens3.html
Michael Bauwens' essay describes the emergence, or expansion, of a specific type of relational dynamic, which I call peer to peer. It's a form of human ... http://www.networkcultures.org/weblog/archives/2005/03/michael_bauwens.html


CONFERENCES
the Departments of Computer Science, Mathematics and Science and International Communications presents Michel Bauwens' "Peer to Peer" on Thursday, ... http://00f2e0b.netsolhost.com/aupcal/form.php?id=344&calendar_id=43
Such networks are characterized by a peer to peer intersubjective logic and ... CV: The author, Michel Bauwens, has played a major role in the digital ... http://www.geocities.com/immateriallabour/bauwensabstract2006.html
A specter is haunting the world: the specter of peer to peer. ... http://zweite.oekonux-konferenz.de/dokumentation/texte/Bauwens.html Remote link ... http://zweite.oekonux-konferenz.de/dokumentation/texte/Bauwens.html
What has been needed to facilitate the emergence of such peer to peer processes? ... The author, Michel Bauwens, has played a major role in the digital ... http://www.geocities.com/immateriallabour/bauwenspaper2006.html
Michel Bauwens on the emergence of a more participative society based on P2P Networks Michel Bauwens is initiator of the Foundation for Peer-to-Peer ... http://nettime-ann.freeflux.net/.../2006/12/14/nettime-ann-killer-tv-willem-de-kooning-special-p2p-networks.html
Presentation by Michel Bauwens. Note taking was done by Frederick Noronha. ... i.e. the participatory or peer to peer paradigm, concern the process itself, ... http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Documenting_Asia_Commons_Practices


IN PRINT
Le peer-to-peer est un nouveau langage qui permet d'exprimer ces espoirs, ... Michel Bauwens vit en Thaïlande où il travaille à deux grands projets: un ... http://www.imagine-magazine.com/articles/Bauwens_integral.htm


ONLINE ACADEMIC REFERENCES
Peer to Peer: from technology politics to a new civilisation?, M. Bauwens, noosphere.cc page. .NET Web-site, O'Reilly. JXTA Web-site. ... http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~wvasconc/teaching/CS4022/information/
Michel Bauwens, the WNRF Associate for Integral Studies, has released a landmark paper on "P2P and Human Evolution." Bauwen claims peer-to-peer technology, ... http://www.wnrf.org/cms/transmodern.shtml
Bauwens: Peer to Peer. English Summary. INTEGRAL REVIEW 2, 2005. 2. In the last part, we look into the possibilities of expansion for this new social ... http://integralreview.org/current_issue/documents/Bauwens,%20Peer%20to%20Peer%20English%20Summary%202,%202006.pdf
Michel Bauwens (Payap University and Chiang Mai University, Thailand) ... A Commons-based political economy would be centered around peer to peer, ... http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Bauwens37.htm
P2P and Human Evolution: Peer to peer as the premise of a. new mode of civilization. Author: Michel Bauwens, [email protected] ... http://www.networkcultures.org/weblog/archives/P2P_essay.pdf
Michel Bauwens, "Peer to Peer and Human Evolution" Yochai Benkler, Wealth of Networks ... Thursday, November 16, Bauwens, Peer-to-Peer pieces Week Thirteen ... http://artificeandagency.blogspot.com/2006/08/syllabus-for-rhetoric-132-fall-2006.html
Bauwens, M. (2005). P2P and Human Evolution: Peer to peer as the premise of a new mode of civilization. http://www.networkcultures.org ... http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej34/m1.html
Bauwens: Peer to Peer. English Summary. INTEGRAL REVIEW 2, 2005. 2. In the last part, we look into the possibilities of expansion for this new social ... http://integralreview.org/current_issue/documents/Bauwens,%20Peer%20to%20Peer%20English%20Summary%202,%202006.pdf
P2P and Human Evolution: Peer to peer as the premise of a. new mode of civilization. Author: Michel Bauwens, [email protected] ... http://www.networkcultures.org/weblog/archives/P2P_essay.pdf
Placing Peer to Peer Theory in an Integral Framework. Michel Bauwens. 1. Introduction. The following essay was prompted by Russ Volckman, editor of the ... http://www.integralworld.net/bauwens2.html
Michel Bauwens (1958) is a Belgian integral philosopher and Peer-to-Peer theorist. He has worked as an internet consultant, information analyst for the ... http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/02/20/p2pbased_economy_the_political_power.htm
Peer to Peer is the name for the the relational dynamic that occurs in distributed ... The author, Michel Bauwens, has played a major role in the digital ... http://www.integralworld.net/bauwens3.html
Michael Bauwens' essay describes the emergence, or expansion, of a specific type of relational dynamic, which I call peer to peer. It's a form of human ... http://www.networkcultures.org/weblog/archives/2005/03/michael_bauwens.html


CONFERENCES
the Departments of Computer Science, Mathematics and Science and International Communications presents Michel Bauwens' "Peer to Peer" on Thursday, ... http://00f2e0b.netsolhost.com/aupcal/form.php?id=344&calendar_id=43
Such networks are characterized by a peer to peer intersubjective logic and ... CV: The author, Michel Bauwens, has played a major role in the digital ... http://www.geocities.com/immateriallabour/bauwensabstract2006.html
A specter is haunting the world: the specter of peer to peer. ... http://zweite.oekonux-konferenz.de/dokumentation/texte/Bauwens.html Remote link ... http://zweite.oekonux-konferenz.de/dokumentation/texte/Bauwens.html
What has been needed to facilitate the emergence of such peer to peer processes? ... The author, Michel Bauwens, has played a major role in the digital ... http://www.geocities.com/immateriallabour/bauwenspaper2006.html
Michel Bauwens on the emergence of a more participative society based on P2P Networks Michel Bauwens is initiator of the Foundation for Peer-to-Peer ... http://nettime-ann.freeflux.net/.../2006/12/14/nettime-ann-killer-tv-willem-de-kooning-special-p2p-networks.html
Presentation by Michel Bauwens. Note taking was done by Frederick Noronha. ... i.e. the participatory or peer to peer paradigm, concern the process itself, ... http://wikis.bellanet.org/asia-commons/index.php/Documenting_Asia_Commons_Practices


IN PRINT
Le peer-to-peer est un nouveau langage qui permet d'exprimer ces espoirs, ... Michel Bauwens vit en Thaïlande où il travaille à deux grands projets: un ... http://www.imagine-magazine.com/articles/Bauwens_integral.htm


ONLINE ACADEMIC REFERENCES
Peer to Peer: from technology politics to a new civilisation?, M. Bauwens, noosphere.cc page. .NET Web-site, O'Reilly. JXTA Web-site. ... http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~wvasconc/teaching/CS4022/information/
Michel Bauwens, the WNRF Associate for Integral Studies, has released a landmark paper on "P2P and Human Evolution." Bauwen claims peer-to-peer technology, ... http://www.wnrf.org/cms/transmodern.shtml
Bauwens: Peer to Peer. English Summary. INTEGRAL REVIEW 2, 2005. 2. In the last part, we look into the possibilities of expansion for this new social ... http://integralreview.org/current_issue/documents/Bauwens,%20Peer%20to%20Peer%20English%20Summary%202,%202006.pdf
Michel Bauwens (Payap University and Chiang Mai University, Thailand) ... A Commons-based political economy would be centered around peer to peer, ... http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Bauwens37.htm
P2P and Human Evolution: Peer to peer as the premise of a. new mode of civilization. Author: Michel Bauwens, [email protected] ... http://www.networkcultures.org/weblog/archives/P2P_essay.pdf
Michel Bauwens, "Peer to Peer and Human Evolution" Yochai Benkler, Wealth of Networks ... Thursday, November 16, Bauwens, Peer-to-Peer pieces Week Thirteen ... http://artificeandagency.blogspot.com/2006/08/syllabus-for-rhetoric-132-fall-2006.html
Bauwens, M. (2005). P2P and Human Evolution: Peer to peer as the premise of a new mode of civilization. http://www.networkcultures.org ... http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej34/m1.html


EMAILS RECEIVED
From Denmark, by Thomas Ermacora, webentrepreneur & futurist:
"Michael Bauwens belongs to this new generation of progressive, involved and hyperconnected intellectuals who develops a deep and continuous analysis of the social web phenomena, particularly how P2P impacts people and society at large, and what potential for positive change this sharing sphere comprises. Not only that, his foundation is a gem - a platform for interactive reformation. "


[edit ]Reactions on the Writings
- George Dafermos, at http://radio.weblogs.com/0117128/
"Michel Bauwens is the author of the most visionary piece on peer-to-peer I've ever read, published his much-awaited new essay on P2P, entitled P2P and Human Evolution: p2p as the premise of a new mode of civilization. As expected, his excellent and path-breaking treatise is all-encompassing, critically exploring P2P in all its possible manifestations and linkages, that is, with respect to its political, social, economic, spiritual, cultural, and technological implications. It is at the intersections of all these spheres and their interactions that P2P holds the potential to emerge as the basis of the new civilisation premised on self-realisation, autonomy, creation, eros, and sharing. It's either that or a return to barbarism, writes Bauwens. Read on and marvel at the mental syntheses that this essay invokes."


- Peer to Peer weblog / Unmediated at http://p2p.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000653037158/ "Michel Bauwens has written a phenomenal essay entitled P2P and Human Evolution: Placing Peer to Peer Theory in an Integral Framework. It's long and much of it goes far over my head, but reads like a P2P manifesto�? Bauwens even concludes by calling it a guide to an active participation in the transformation of our world, into something better, more participative, more free, more creative. Really quite fascinating."


- Integral Foresight Institute, Chris Stewart
"What Michael Bauwens has achieved in a very short space fullfills the same function as the Communist Manifesto once did: a call for a worldwide movement for social and political change, firmly rooted in the objective and subjective changes of contempary society, and articulated as a practical and insightful model of human value and power relations that is ahead of its time. If we listen more carefully to Bauwens than we ever did Marx, however, it just might lead to a smooth evolution for humanity rather than revolution, or at worst, destruction. Bauwens has traced out real contours of hope for Western civilization. His presentation of a P2P perspective includes a clear theory of human power and value relations, a practical appreciation of its relationship to the current orthodoxy, and an inspiring vision for viable, sustainable, and desirable futures. Just as Bauwens notes the limited social acceptance of Marx at the time of his writing, it may well be that in years to come Bauwens's articulate and deeply considered insights will not only be as profoundly influential and valuable but, crucially, a lot more workable."


- P2P and Integral Theory – Generation Sit weblog
"I rarely enccounter essays addressing Integral Theory in the context of emerging technology. But if there's one thing out there worth reading, this essay is one of them -- P2P and Human Evolution: Placing Peer to Peer Theory in an Integral Framework (via IntegralWorld). This very long essay describes P2P in detail, covering the interior and exterior aspects, and its incompatibilities with Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory. There are a lot of heady stuff for me to digest in this essay. And I'm still not done reading it."


- John Heron, Participatory Spirituality pioneer, author of Sacred Science
"What I appreciate is your clarity with regard to the following: your basic definition of p2p; the way you trace this definition, and any compromises and departures from it, within its many manifestations; and toward the end of your account, forms co-existence and of possible political strategies. All of this is very valuable food for thought and action. You make a most effective and persuasive case for the widespread significance of the p2p phenomenon, in diverse fields, and with due regard for the underlying epistemological shifts involved. This work is indeed a major achievement of scholarship, insight, moral vision and political imagination."


- Larry Penslinger, author of The Moon at Hoa Binh
"I have been reading your essay. The information in book form is far easier to approach than the online newsletter, of course. This is truly a great introduction to this field of thought. A major accomplishment, even in its present "a work in progress" stage. Thank you very much for making this available. One of the very useful aspects of P2P&HE, I find, is contextualization of the notes with their many website referrals. This allows me to follow out the ideas in a coherent fashion. A significant body of this material has been available only in French, which I do not read, and much of it remains untranslated. However, much information is now available in Englishon the net concerning what remains untranslated, and P2P&HE is an excellent guide.�?


- Brian Martin, University of Wollongong, Australia
"It's excellent! You've presented P2P in a logical way that clarifies how it relates to other modes of production, both meshing with and transforming them. I really appreciate your careful thinking.�?


- Victor Lewis-Hansom, by email:
"At first skim reading, I think that the spark you have created in our historical times, will be historically significant and remembered. Thank you for putting so much of yourself into your essay."


- Darren Sharp, by email
"Just read your outstanding 'P2P and Human Evolution: Peer to Peer as the premise of a new mode of civilization.' I've got to say, I was blown away by your bold synthesis of such complex material."


- Tony Mobily, editor in chief of Free Software Magazine
"I think your paper is fantastic.�? (email, 3/2006)
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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:37Z

Omar Rashid[edit]

Omar_Rashid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)�-- (View AfD)

STRONG delete: Rashid is a non-notable fictional character who appeared on BB less than 20 months!Yrgh 10:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh[reply]


Yes, but he is a huge part of Taylor Hayes Forrester history, and she is one of the most notable characters. Kogsquinge 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prince Omar and Taylor in Morocco was one of the most notable Bold and the Beautiful storylines of the 1990s. Notable. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:23, 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 speedy deleted. - brenneman 13:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Boy[edit]

Rat_Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)�-- (View AfD)

Not notable, appears to be spam. Ken S. 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7 and G1 since ratslaughter isn't a crime. So tagged. MER-C 13:34, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Culberson[edit]

Sarah Culberson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not satisfy notability. Sierra Leone is a republic and does not have a royal family. Being the daughter of a local chief, as I suspect ms. Culberson is, does not satisfy wiki's notabilty qualifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.macmillan (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 December 2006

  • Comment, not daughter of a local chief but the daughter of the Chief of Chiefs. There are many traditional royal families in Africa that do have considerable influence but little political power (beyond passing out recommendations who to vote for.) Don't know enough about Sierra Leone to form an opinion though Alf photoman 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, even if she is the daughter of a Chief of Chiefs, they are probably thousands of other people just like her but no one would suggest that they should get wikipedia articles. Is her notability determined by her adoption by a family in West Virigina, then?--Thomas.macmillan 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability would be determined by WP:BIO. In this case, the issue is if she has received enough coverage from third-party media sources. The article sources at least one non-trivial source. hateless 22:25, 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, funny but clearly complete bollocks. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Ritzakstahn[edit]

Soviet Ritzakstahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A non-notable, fictional place made up in the online game Nationstates.net does not merit an encyclopedia article. In fact, I would argue it merits speedy deletion per A7, except the author repeatedly has removed the speedy tag so here it is. - Aagtbdfoua 13:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not a {{db-web}}, but definitely falls under the bounds of WP:NFT. MER-C 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Soviet Ritzakstahn, Article Deletes YOU! -Toptomcat 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ EdBoy[c] 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, bad joke, nonsense or for that awful attempt at adding a Karl Marx beard to the picture in the article! Keresaspa 16:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Punkmorten 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Just because they remove the tag doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. SchmuckyTheCat 19:22, 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 speedy deleted. - brenneman 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stickman Legacy[edit]

Stickman Legacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

That Page is Propably Advertising. The Forum has got only 68 Members, and I think, the creator wanted to gain some Members via Wikipedia. Pascal40 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 13:31, 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 per CSD:A7. ---J.S (T/C) 06:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surwyn Enterprises[edit]

Surwyn Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

fails WP:CORP SpikeJones 23:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CSD:A7 There's no assertion of importance here. Mereda 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete even with re-writes/additions by creator, it still does not pass WP:CORP. SkierRMH 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 04:30, 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 08:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Porter (New Media Pioneer)[edit]

Mark Porter (New Media Pioneer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

no references or verification, no evidence of notability, google search turns up nothing Xorkl000 13:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M.E.G.O.[edit]

M.E.G.O. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism (My Eyes Glazeth Over), no references. Deizio talk 14:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only actual discussion of the term appears in a blog. -Amarkov blahedits 15:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Amarkov. Not many people have probably heard of this. ~ EdBoy[c] 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense Guy (Help!) 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - ubernonsense and O.W.T.F. SkierRMH 03:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. -- Satori Son 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:37Z

The Adrenaline Vault[edit]

The Adrenaline Vault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod was contested a few months ago. I don't see any assertion of notability made, article fails WP:WEB. RWR8189 15:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moderate Keep. It's got a lot of history for a Web site of its type, or indeed any Web site. -Toptomcat 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd suggest that this site is easily in the top ten, perhaps top five, general video gaming websites out there. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toptomcat. It just needs more info and sources. ~ EdBoy[c] 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I would venture it was in the top ten at one point. hateless 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep only for historical purposes - once notable... SkierRMH 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found showing its notability. WP:IVEHEARDOFIT is not a keep criterion. Eluchil404 08:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like one of the editors voting keep to explain how the article satisfies WP:V WP:RS and WP:WEB--RWR8189 10:26, 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 No consensus - I'm closing this early as the discussion has no hope of reaching any sort of consensus, plus half of it is not relevant to the article anyway (and some is not even in English). Please continue any relevant discussion on the talk page. Yomanganitalk 16:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Genocide (Turkey)[edit]

This article seems to be about the historical opinions of one lecturer. "Desmond Fernandes" isn't a major historian, and the article treats what he says as consensus. It is my opinion that this article (whose title misleads as to the consensus around this issue) will never be able to avoid being either a soapbox or a PoV-fork, and is in any case a non-notable term for the event. I know this doesn't mean much, but searching for the "Kurdish Genocide" on google gives 50k links (compared to about 1 million for "armenian genocide" and a whopping 40 million for "Holocaust"), nearly all of which talk about Saddam's, not this. The accepted content (i.e. people died and it wasn't by accident) is already in the relevant articles. Otherwise, take your pick between deleting, merging, redirecting and keeping the article... yandman 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No. The impression is given that the genocide is accepted fact, and this one scholar is only breaking it down in a certain way. -Amarkov blahedits 15:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic and give it a chance to expand. //Dirak 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And shall we also give a chance for votestacking Dirak? Is votestacking also notable? Baristarim 07:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. --A.Garnet 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added several references. There is a wealth of published material on this topic, and the article can be further improved beyond the comments of one lecturer. The topic is very important: Turkey genocide Kurd gets 24 articles in the New York Times alone, and I see 21 more in Proquest. Naturally some say the actions arre genocide and others say they are justified. The article should perhaps be retitled Alleged Kurdish genocide (Turkey) since the other side says the villages were bombed to get rid of guerillas. Deleting it because the Holocaust get more Google hits does not make a lot of sense. Any genocide is notable, and the stats might reflect the relative paucity of Kurds with blogs. Edison 19:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an excellent point.
    In WW2 some say the German bombing of London and Allied bombing of Berlin were justified. I'd be uncomfortable calling it "genocide" because some don't feel it was justified.
    The United States assimilates (naturalizes) any immigrant. They too 'genocide' Kurds and others as they immigrate. I'd be uncomfortable renaming the US naturalization process as a genocide.
    The original source is the 'Armenian Forum'. I do not see it as a neutral source. Article talks about a 'violent repression of any Kurdish resistance'. That Kurdish resistance is considered as terrorist attacks by the NATO and EU nations as well as others. Just trying to put things to perspective in the light of WP:NPOV. I cannot comment on the NYT links since I can't access them.
    This article is a pov fork of Human rights in Turkey article.
    --Cat out 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There may or may not be many references on this topic but between the Kurds who live in the Anatolia the Kurdish genocide and political restrictions are common sense. Ozgur Gerilla 22:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. We can't just throw out WP:V because you think it's common sense that it's genocide, heck, we can't throw out WP:V no matter what. -Amarkov blahedits 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actualy it is also a WP:NPOV violation. Your comment is a WP:OR violation should you put that common sense to the article.--Cat out 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse my strong language, but what the hell are you talking about? -Amarkov blahedits 23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My response was to Ozgur Gerilla, I am in agreement with you. Article in its current state is a NPOV violation. --Cat out 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant if you was to do a research on people's experiences who lived in Anatolia they'll be more than happy to tell you their stories and academics who do the research and became the "reliable sources" do not do much more work then what I've mentioned; but of course "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". I know such research hasn't been done but the results are obvious to me because I've interviewed many people in many Kurdish communities on the same matter for various projects and non of them contradicted the issue so I didn't hesitate to say it in my previous post. Once again thanks for the uninformative, ugly and senselessly contradicting advice coolcat (I hope you don't take this as a personal attack:). Ozgur Gerilla 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like, if Saddam tries to eliminate the Kurds, it is genocide and BAD. If Turkey, a "Democracy" and NATO member and European Union candidate, uses the same tactics to eliminate the Kurds, it is GOOD. Seems nonsensical. Edison 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever find a source of chemical weapons being used against Kurds in Turkey, pls bring them in and share them with us. Otherwise this is your POV and violates WP:OR.Baristarim 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a confusion as to the meaning of the word genocide. Take for example, the German occupation of France. Lots of French people were killed. A few were guerillas, but most were not. Entire villages were burnt to the ground. Torture was common. But this was not genocide. There's a difference between brutal repression and genocide, and from what I've read in the various links provided and googled, the consensus on this is that it was the former, not the latter. yandman 08:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. POV or POV-title is not AfD reason. All articles start from a specific POV and end to NPOV with the intervention of other editors. Deleting it is wrong, as the particular POV is adequately sourced. We should expand it and then seek if we need to rename it. One side's POV in this cannot be punished for the lack of work from the other side (attributed IMO to the concern that it would legitimize the article). As the article stands now, content is verifiable and title is correct. I would definitely like to see those points regarding terrorist attacks etc, sourced and included in the article. Until, then... NikoSilver 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't clear enough. I'm not proposing deletion because the title is PoV. I'm proposing deletion because this article is about a non-notable theory backed by very few scholars. yandman 10:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    NikoSilver, the artile itself is a pov-fork. The title is the least of the worries. Topic is almost always covered under the window of "Human Rights" and even then "human rights" organizations themselves are often criticized by themselves (there is a famous recent case but I do not want to bring content dispute to the afd). --Cat out 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yandman for clearing that out. As I said, I'd like to see the scholars/countries/groups/organizations etc and their arguments that contest it. I think 40k in Google means notable enough, and the scholar sources provided are something. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the existing POV, I just find it adequately sourced. NikoSilver 11:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Niko, you cannot contest something which is an extreme pov. We cant create a fictitous debate on whether Kurds suffered genocide in Turkey when there is no such debate. You employed the same argument on the Pontian greek "genocide" article, it has the convenience of confirming the extreme pov as 'unchallenged' when in fact it so minority that there exists few people to counter such claims. The problem is the claim still lacks authoratitave and verifiable sources. --A.Garnet 12:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alf, no other view is different than minority view. It is completely legitimate to have a sourced view. You have to cite another view in order for the existing one to be minority view. NikoSilver 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There would be a chaos of articles if Wikipedia followed the minority view policy. The Spanish or whatever professor's opinion can be mentioned in the context of a History of Kurds in Turkey or -whatever we have- article.--Doktor Gonzo 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, those sources have to be authoratative and verifiable in the first place before you ask for counter-claims. If i created a sourced article on a genocide of Turkish Cypriots, and asked you to show me sources explicity claiming otherwise, would you be able to do this? No you would not, because there is no such academic debate, which in your view, would somehow mean my article is representative of academic consensus. --A.Garnet 13:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not let this turn into yet another regional argument. As an academic view, it should be presented. I'm just not sure that it merits an entire article. The previous gSearch was flawed, as it gave mainly links to Iraq. "kurdish genocide in turkey" gives 47 hits, all of which are dodgy (either "Desmond Fernandes" or "cultural genocide" allegations or Kurdish sources). I'd say that a redirect and a paragraph in "Human Rights abuses in Turkey" is enough, but then again maybe this academic view has more proponents than my (admittedly crude) research has shown. yandman 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - it gets hits in Google Scholar [54], ergo as far as I'm concerned it merits an article if sources can be found. //Dirak 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It gets eight hits, half of them from the same site and two of them from this Spanish guy whose thesis is presented in this article as confirmed fact, thus breaking WP:OR Baristarim 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you want a good Google search, try this one [55]. There are, after all, more ways of saying it (be creative...). According to A.Garnet however, Google searches are irrelevant (or does this only apply in selective cases?). //Dirak 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the amount or quality of the information that matters? Most are Kurdish operated websites, some mention some seminar given by the Fernandes person in London, some are blogs and most of the rest are nearly irrelevant that somehow have Kurds and genocide in the same page.--Doktor Gonzo 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos, it doesn't write "stupid on my forehead. I know exactly what this is about. I would like to inform the other readers and closing admins that this page was created by a Greek user when there was a big debate going on in Pontic Greek Genocide and that, personally, I sense some attempts per WP:POINT to deflect the attention from that debate to something else. "Getting back" if you like. Please take a look at the relevant talk pages. Most of Nikos' points clearly remind me of arguments raised in that article. Nikos, your argument that "IMO to the concern that it would legitimize the article" reflects the arguments you raised in that article's talk page. I am sorry to be digging this deep, however other editors need to know about this since it is not possible that ten Greek editors can show up in the AfD of an article, created only two days ago, in the space of a couple of hours. Really good work Nikos, thanks a lot after all that talk about cooperation, good faith after I launched the Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board. Great work and keep it up. Top class work that is.Baristarim 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no general acception of the term "Kurdish Genocide".--Doktor Gonzo 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per aboveMustTC 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per NikoSilver.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hesitant keep to neutral. 'Hesitant' because more information is needed. 'Keep' because for over 20 years there has been constant criticism in the media about the fate of the Kurds in Turkey. There are reports that over 3,000(!) villages have been emptied, of armed campaigns by the Turkish army, pictures of Kurdish refugees fleeing, cross-border attacks against refugee camps in Iraq, etc. 'Neutral' because the term genocide seems to be evolving; also, because there seems to be a cross-over between understandable Kurdish resistance and outright Kurdish terrorism (against innocent Turks and tourists) that has to be rooted out. So... Politis 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    So human rights issue. There is an article for it. A Kurdish terrorism article would be a pov fork when we have PKK and etc. --Cat out 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is in need of expansion, not deletion. I'd like to see more about what others, including Turkey, have to say about it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first find the reliable sources and any mention or recognition of this by a sovereign, US state, then the article can come back up..Baristarim 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. POV is not a reason for deletion. If you regard it as POV, improve its content or propose a change of title. But the article is indeed notable.--Yannismarou 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is. That's why the article Native American genocide REDIRECTS TO SOMETHING ELSE.Baristarim 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then change the title and expand the article about the history and general status of the Kurds' human rights violations in Turkey. Redirect or not a seperate article is needed, and the current article is a good basis for that.--Yannismarou 09:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem here is mainly WP:V, not NPOV. As noted by yandman, an article about an actual genocide (as opposed to the more common phenomena of large-scale oppression, murder etc.) needs a lot more reliable sources than the work of one academic. Sandstein 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no problem with verifiability because one can find literature in newspapers and periodicals. Many villages have been destroyed by the Turkish army for what purpose? Please stop the genocide denying.(UNFanatic 22:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • And you better watch for civility and stop accusing others of being some sort of Nazis. Closing admins should remember that nearly all the keep votes are coming from editors who have been edit-warring over Turkish related articles for ages, not from impartial editors. WP:POINT? Baristarim 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not denying any genocide that I, in fact, know nothing about. What I know is that there are no reliable sources being cited in this article that do call these killings a genocide, apart from the writings of one single academic. There may or may not have been genocidal intentions behind these actions, but we really need very good sources on this before writing an article with this title. Sandstein 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein this is not just a rename poll. It is a wipe out of the face of the planet at all costs poll. NikoSilver 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since half the article is a POV FORK of the Human Rights in Turkey article. There are no mentions of this by any reliable news organizations, except from some extremely biased sites that "claim" that there has been such thing. Where are the strong sources to support the gravity of this article's title? Baristarim 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but include more verifiable sources or we will be back here in a month Alf photoman 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with more sources--Kalogeropoulos 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: This is this user's contributions list [56] He has not made any edits since November 11. I put a note on his talk page when I launched the Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board on November 26, he added his name on December 14 and, except those, his only edit since November 11 has been his vote in this AfD. He should explain how he learned of this AfD, considering that this article was only created three days ago.Baristarim 07:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the very reason that this is a balanced poll shows it is an issue with strong supporters either way, hence worth mentioning in Wikipedia.--   Avg    23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WRONG. Wikipedia is not a gang. Just because, "somehow", ten Greek editors turned up in here in the space of couple of hours to vote keep is not a sign of "strong support" from both sides.Baristarim 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the basis for this article? There has never been any referrance to this "genocide". Are you crazy? There are millions of Kurds who live in Turkey, when did this genocide happen??!! Turkification, yes. Not genocide. Can you show me one reliable news organization that has referred to as so? One country? One measely US state? There are none! There are more referrances to Native American genocide, however that's not what the article's place is. I would like to remind the closing admin that all the keep votes seem to be coming from Greeks, and I am utterly disappointed and disgusted after all that talk of goodwill and good faith. Whatever...Baristarim 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OR is clearly an issue here. The gravity of the subject matter implies that it will be able to provide extensive sources and reliable and serious research to back up the large claims of the article's title. Baristarim 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some Turkification circumstances, sadly, imply a genocide like those events in maras, sivas, diyarbakir, hakkari. These things happend ask people and you'd find out; labeling Kurdish people's doors to killing them in groups. Turkey did a good job in hiding its dark sides but we need to present this information to the future specially when we have enough reliable sources. Ozgur Gerilla 01:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to add a few notes. Baristarim there are some references on this issue, some which are already in the article, some which are not and are waiting to be added and for you to note that no huge research has been done mainly because of the corruption of Turkey's higher education system. You say there's millions of Kurds still living in the Turkey, as if how could this be, after a genocide; well look at Germany there's still millions of Jewish people living there after the Holocaust. I also find it ignorant for you to mention some voters ethnicities and say that it reflects their opinion on the matter. Please let's remember Wikipedia does rely on realible sources and books but we write those books and it's time to understand that this issue has been restricted long enough, let's be open about it. Ozgur Gerilla 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forget it Baris, no matter how good your intentions, you just cannot reason with these people. --A.Garnet 02:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ozgur, of course I will mention the ethnicities, since it seems to me quite interesting that ten Greek editors turned up here, in the AfD of a page created two days ago, in the space of a couple of hours. It doesn't write "Stupid" on my head, if I didn't mention it, then I would be really ignorant as you claimed. And you are wrong again Ozgur, there are not millions of Jewish people living in Germany after the Holocaust!!! Are you OUT OF YOUR MIND? Did you just take that number out of the air or do actual research on this? And your claims about the lack of research is completely off the charts. Where were the Europeans? They could have done research.. Half the article is a POV FORK of Human rights in Turkey in any case. You are confusing the meaning of genocide with something else. Turkification does not imply genocide, I am afraid. Ozgur, you are living in a completely dream world! What genocide? Do you even know what that word means? The whole article is riddled with Wp:V, WP:FORK and WP:OR issues.Baristarim 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That some events imply genocide is your personal POV btw. This is not a forum, we cannot create articles based on the POVs of their editors.Baristarim 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Baristarim, if we was to decide these things depending on peoples ethnicities then we couldn't decide anything because we will be stereotyping; which means that we nor the greek nor the turks nor kurds could give an opinion on this matter. You're complaining about the amount of greeks voting for an article considered for deletion which is completely not logical when we think about the amount of turks that have voted here, how about them? is the turksish opinions always right ha? is this what you're going to say next? Check on your sources again there's millions of jews in germany and EU. Of course we aren't a forum but we are here to discuss matters and decide and stop accusing me of not knowing the meaning of words please. I'm here to do research and put some useful information backed with reliable sources on an issue that has, in my opinion, happend, with many Kurds backing it. You have your opinions I have mine, here's the arena, let's prove it with academic sources if we can't, don't be angry and sad about it we'll be here in one month. Ozgur Gerilla 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • What non sense. This AfD was proposed by an Englishman, and there have been editors of other nationalities that have voted for delete. Take a look at the votes a second time please. There are not millions of Jews in Germany, that is FALSE. You don't seem to have an adequate grasp of the subject matter, therefore I see no reason to continue my debate with you. This is not about our opiniong my dear fellow. So don't you feel even a bit used considering the fact that this page was created in the midst of an edit-war and dispute at another article between Turkish and Greek editors per WP:POINT? Yani ben olsam kendimi gerçekten kullanilmis hissederdim. Onlarin Kurtlere deger verdiklerini mi zannediyorsun Ozgur? How can you think this?! Cok yanlis dusunuyorsun.. Baristarim 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ozgur, I agree with Baris. The turkish editors vote here because Turkey is a side in this genocide allegations, therefore they are voting for it. It is probable that Turkish writers have a better understanding of the issue. For you, due to your ethnicity, you are also at a side and you have a greater knowledge on the issue, therefore you vote in this discussion. Greek writers are not directly related with the topic, but interestingly numerous editors from Greece vote here. I do not want to conspire on the issue, both Baris and me might be wrong, but the ethnicity of the voters seem funny to me. Caglarkoca 03:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm blad both of you didn't group me with those "Greeks" you talk about because I've lived in Drama for 5 years. But, if I was to go with your mentality boys I'd definitely go for the people that started or boosted subjects like philosophy, art and science and not with the people like mine who restricted art and science because "IT WAS AGAINST ISLAM!" :) please they are people, just like us, let them vote their opinion. Hem, banane onlardan, herkimlerse, ben bu soykirimi olmus biliyorum ve cevremdekiler bunu boyle biliyor; konu bu, kalaslik yapip konuyu saptiran sizsiniz. Arastiralim bulalim varmi yokmu! Turk askerin Kurtlere yaptigi zulmlari siz benden iyi biliyorsunuz. Ozgur Gerilla 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Ozgur, you are seriously confusing concepts! That's not "genocide"! Sanki ben Fransa'da hiç PKKli gormedim. Anlattiklari hikayelerin ve olaylarin hepsini biliyorum. Yuz metre ilerimde Marasli bir Kurtun restorani var. Kimse bu konular tartislmasin demiyor, ama soykirimin farkli bir akademik kavram oldugunu sana nasil anlatabilirim? -ification is different. What is this deal about arts? Have you seen the Blue Mosque? Tabi canim Kurtler çok uysal insanlardir tabi. Ermenilerin çogunu KURTLER KESMISTIR. Bunlar bilinen gerçekler. Tabi bunlarin hepsi Turklerin uzerine yikilinca bir tek ses yok, ama birisi Kurtçe konustu diye dovulunce "Turkler soykirim yapti" Hadi canim sende. Sen bunlari kime anlatiyorsun? O kadar Ermeniyi Suryaniyi Turkler mi kesti? HAYIR, onlarin topraklarina goz diken Kurt asiretler kesti. Bunlari da bil canim benim. Tabi Kurtler butun soykirimlarini Turklerin uzerine yikinca tek bir ses bile çikmiyor nedense, hadi sene.. Baristarim 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Özgür ve Özgür gibi insanlar hayal aleminde yaşıyor, uyandırılmayada pek gelmezler. Kürt toplumunun o kadar çok sorunu var ki Türkiye'de ve o kadar çok boş şeylerle uğraşıyor ve uğraştırılıyor ki bu insanlar. Bizim de Türkler olarak hatalarımız var tabi ama her nedense Kürt toplumunun hiçbir zaman özeleştri yapmasına imkan verilmiyor, Batıda vermiyor, insan ister istemez artniyet arıyor. Mesela bakıyosun doğuda adamın kıçında donu yok ama 4 karısı 40 çocuğu var, şimdi Avrupalı gelsin önce bu adama uçkurunu tutmayı öğretsin, bu adam daha çocuklarını okula göndermiyor, karınlarını doyuramıyor, Avrupalı gelmiş diyor bunlara kendi dilinde okuma yazma imkanı verin, hadi canım sende Hans ya, uyan da kahveye gidelim.--Doktor Gonzo 15:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper Baristarim. It may be called Turkification, but genocide has a completely different meaning. Caglarkoca 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per yandman. --Free smyrnan 05:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This should be a redirect to Human Rights in Turkey article, with any reliable and salvagable information merged into it, with appropriate interpretation of sources after discussion in the talk page. This is truly a Fork of that article. Baristarim 06:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Baristarim. This article is an original research done by Desmond Fernandes. He is not a well-known historian, and the article focuses only of his claims and treats all these as a world-wide consensus. The title is also gives the impression of an internationally accepted case which in fact misleads the general user. On the other hand, there is a wikipedia article Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict which reflects the issue. E104421 08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - basically a POV fork of Kurds in Turkey, Turkish Kurdistan, and Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, and Baristarim's suspicion of a POINT motivation with respect to Pontic Greek genocide is, unfortunately, not quite baseless either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - reads like an essay, poorly referenced POV essay at that, even the title has implied POV, Wikipedia is not for things your lecturer at University told you one day. Moreschi Deletion! 10:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Deleteper Neurobio. This utter nonsence is a waste beyond comprehention. People with political agenda are endlesly creating articles against Turkey without any knowledge other than bias. Your effords to defend this article in respect to Wiki guidelines are unconvincing. Despite documentation and international concensus we dont call terorist to several organisations. But when it comes to the ultimate crime Genocide and Turkey people use it recklessly. when I see people coming up with the works of a single "scholar" and creating a Genocide article in an Encyclopedia I cant assume good faith anymore.neurobio 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I must admit I'm quite surprised that the question of keeping is even being discussed. Honestly, it seems a big joke, with a Mr. x leaving a declaration that a "genocide". And the best part are his arguments for defining genocide: "Forced assimilation program", "banning any organizations opposed to" assimilation, "violent repression of any Kurdish resistance", "assassination of various journalists and intellectuals". Now let this be clear: is such standards are accepted for defining a genocide, hundreds of "cultural genocides" articles will end being created by editors, and every single act of organized persecution or opression of a population will risk being renamed "genocide". Give a look also at Genocide; the article completely fails to awnser the standards exposed there.--Aldux 12:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despicable tactics and votestacking by the "so-called" "pseudo"-members of the cooperation board

I am not stupid, neither are other people. I know exactly what went down with the article that Dirak created, and most importantly, also know why it was created. It was created two days ago, it was AfDed by an Englishman, with even a Swiss editor voting for delete, and BOUM ten Greek editors show out of nowhere one after another and vote keep. There is no way that so many Greek editors would be aware of that page since it was created only three days ago. That's not possible. This is despicable. I would kindly request that all those editors strike their names out of the cooperation board participants list. There is no need for editors who engage in such charades for such blatant attempts at disruption of Wikipedia to use that board as a smokescreen. That's not why it exists. It is not the roll call of every Greek and Turkish editor on Wikipedia, it was created for a purpose. I am sure that those with self-respect and dignity will heed my call. What is even more disturbing is the reason for the creation of the article in question. It is blatantly obvious: The debate in the PGG article has been heating up for the last week after a two month sleeping period and BOUM this article comes. Real class. We are not at a carpet store: if there are those who envy carpet-selling techniques, they can open a carpet store. When the AfD is completed, you can be sure that there will be a report filed at ANI, and a probable RfC. Baristarim 07:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Greek users appear from nowhere?!!! Hmmmm ... Well, for about a year (speaking for myself) I'm somewhere in Wikipedia. So, I return to you expressions like despicable, and I express my sorrow for your improper and insulting comments. Try to respect other people's opinion.--Yannismarou 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When I said "out of nowhere", I meant to this AfD, out of nowhere. I know very well that all the contributors to this AfD have been in Wikipedia for a long time. Baristarim 09:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then try not to slander or islult other people and not to make assuptions.--Yannismarou 09:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With a little research and rational thinking anybody would assume plenty after seeing all the same people giving the same vote in Turkey related sensitive articles. This is where I have a problem with Wiki's assume good faith policy, it prevents from saying King Midas has a donkey's ears.--Doktor Gonzo 14:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was not referring to anyone in particular. I cannot change your opinions, but if a simiar thing had happenned with Turkish editors, ie if a Turkish had created a Albanian genocide article, then ten Turkish editors who had signed up to the coop board jumped in (some who had not even edited since November 11 [57], then I am sure that you would have felt the same way. Especially, if the article in question was created per WP:POINT because of a dispute in another turco-greek page. Of course you have the right to browse any page you want in Wiki, but it might be nice if you explained how you actually learned of this AfD. I really would like to know what you would have felt if the situation was inversed between Greeks and Turks. Have any Turkish coop board members created an Albanian genocide article, emailed each other and all showed up in the space of ten hours to vote keep? Are you honestly telling me that there isn't anything fishy? How did all those users learn of this so quickly? Personally, I was contacted by a non-Turk over this after ten Greek editors suddenly showed up and voted keep. This user emailed me because I was at the coop board and also because he thought that there was something "extremely fishy" going on (his words). Baristarim 09:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that I decline to answer to your unfortunate assumptions.--Yannismarou 10:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then my "assumptions" are the best guess out there. Particularly this [58], so there is definitely one incidence of emails being sent to unrelated users. If it has been done once, then the common sense rule is that, it would have been done again. It doesn't make sense that whoever woke this user from his sleep of 1.5 months would only email him, now does it? I already explained how I learned of this, and the history of the article will show when I joined in the debate.Baristarim 10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But let's call it off. This issue has been extensively talked about, there is no need to delve into it anymore. Baristarim 10:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.--Yannismarou 11:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's cool it[edit]

Could everyone calm down, please? The main argument here seems to be that most people think that the content of the article is important and needs to be discussed. Well, to be honest, the main argument seems to be about Greco-Turkish relations, but let's pretend it's not, mmmmokay? I've merged the article here, and I propose redirecting this page to that specific chapter. Does anyone have a valid argument against this (i.e. a BBC article calling it a "genocide", or a Nobel Prize given to this Fernandes guy, etc... not an article talking about Fernandes' views or Kurdish sources)? Thanks. yandman 07:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur Baristarim 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strongly opposing the merger. Why not a seperate article, which will include:
  • The present status of the human rights of Kurds.
  • The history of violations of their human rights.
  • The alleged genocide.
I think that this is a very important issue, deserving a seperate aricle (maybe under a less POV title).But merger as a sub-sub-sub section?!!! No!--Yannismarou 09:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article already exists: Kurds in Turkey. Maybe a merge to there would be better? yandman 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No! This is about Kurds in general. I propose an article orientated towards the human rights status of Kurds in Turkey with a title like Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. I think this article deserves a seperate article, since the human rights status of Kurds in Turkey is a major issue towards Turkey's accession in EU. The current article we discuss could be renamed as I propose and expanded, inlcluding the 3 bullets above I mentioned. The section Human_rights_in_Turkey#Kurdish_people could link to this article like that:Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. Since you volunteered to intervene, would you like to initiate that, if we achive a consensus here?--

Yannismarou 10:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, half the article already falls into the scope of the Human rights in Turkey, and such allegations of genocide etc are always talked about in the human rights sections of countries. "History of human rights abuses also falls into the scope of that article. Human Rights in Turkey article is not even a "long" article, you cannot expect another article to be created that incorporates two paragraphs of a Spanish guy's thesis. As for the current status of Kurds in Turkey, there is an article at Kurds in Turkey. Huamn rights of Kurds is not a major issue in TR-EU accession, have you been following the subject closely? There are already four articles: HR in TR, Kurds in Turkey, Turkish Kurdistan, Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, why do we need a fifth article except for POV:FORK? Are these articles filled to the brim already? Baristarim 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, my friend. It is a major issue for EU and for Wikipedia, unless you close your eyes to the violent manifestations in Turkish Kurdistan concerning the human rights violations of the local population, the manifestations against Erdogan, the incident in the local police station involving the current chief of staff of the Turkish armed forces, the restrictions concerning the use of Kurdish language in Turkey. These issues definitely deserve a seperate article, including also:
  • The history of violations of their human rights.
  • The alleged genocide.
If these issues don't cover the criterion of notability, then no article in Wikipedia fulfils this criterion.--Yannismarou 10:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to mention every single event, Wiki is not a newspaper. Can I add all sorts of incidents to the HR in GR article? EU doesn't care at all about the situation of Kurds in Turkey, you should check that again per realpolitik. The restrictions on teaching another language as a first language other than the official one is also banned in many EU countries, and the HR in TR article also covers this issue, and I was the only one who actually dug up the references and rewrote the section, btw. There is no need to move it to somewhere else, since it is only two concise paragraphs to begin with. There is no such official thing as Turkish Kurdistan, so cut down on the political overtones. There are already four articles that relate to this, what is the fifth one for? The other articles are not even half-Long. If you were so interested in this, then why am I am the only one practically to have edited the HR in TR article in the last two months? I have never seen any of the voters above to have actually matched their statements of "i think this is important!" with any sort of act on the ground, so why should I believe that this is not just an attempt to create a bastard POV fork that will lay there for ages right after the AfD has closed? Am I wrong? There is no such thing as alleged genocide. Does the article Cyprus include "Turkish cypriot genocide allegations"? Baristarim 10:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only an editor of an article has the right to be interested in it? Of course not! The fact that there is a section somewhere else does not mean that we cannot add another article providing further analysis. You argument does not outdo notability. And, in order to prove my interest in this topic, I can be the one who will create this article. And, say if I'm wrong, but the problem with the Turkish language is not just teaching, but also use of language in public places.--Yannismarou 10:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
?Again, an insufficient grasp of the subject matter: what public places? on what are you basing this? There are tons of music stores in Turkey that sell Kurdish music, in Istanbul there are many people who speak Kurdish in cafés or in the streets! Are you joking? It seems that none of the keep voters are not even sure what the subject matter is! Ozgur, for example, tried to prove that this was a genocide by saying "there were millions of Jews in Germany after Holocaust!!" (twice), to counter what I said about there being millions of Kurds in Turkey! That statement was utterly false, the same way with the relation of "public places" in languages. The notions are so confused, I might as well be arguing that Pyramids were built by Martians. I suggest to follow Yandman's version: the relevant text of this article has already been incorporated into HR in TR, let's redirect this to that article. However, keep in mind that the inclusion of genocide thesis in any article will be carefully scrutnised by WP:V, WP:POV and WP:OR no matter what zombie article it goes into. In any case, this won't be a healthy discussion if people who are participating will not reveal how they came across this AfD. It is relevant.Baristarim 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Kurds:"Until 1991, the use of the Kurdish language — although widespread — was illegal. As a result of reforms inspired by the EU, music, radio and television broadcasts in Kurdish are now allowed albeit with severe time restrictions (for example, radio broadcasts can be no longer than sixty minutes per day nor constitute more than five hours per week while television broadcasts are subject to even greater restrictions)." Do you understand now what I mean? Can the Kurds create a channel broadcasting 24 hours a day in Kurdish? Can they form a party advocating autonomy in Turkish Kurdistan? Are the Kurds officially recognized by the Turkish governent as a seperate nation and a minority? I do now what I'm speaking about. And I do now that a judge who tried to reveal the truth in the "fiasco" in the police station in Kurdistan is no more a judge.--Yannismarou 13:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a Kurd in Turkey says: "I am a Kurd - not a Turk", will he be legally persecuted or not?--Yannismarou 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITELY NOT!! If you are asking such a basic question, I wonder how you are even closely qualified to nominate yourself to expand this article. Where the hell is this coming from? This is simply insulting! What do you think Turkey is? Some sort of Saudi Arabia? Yasar Kemal has said many times that he is Kurdish, he was never ever been prosecuted, in any case. I am in law, and I know the jurisprudence very well. If you are asking such a question, how can you come and participate in this debate by making such large claims as "genocide", "abuses" etc!!!!!! What the hell do some people think Turkey is??!! Is this A JOKE? The only thing you can be prosecuted is for actively (physically) supporting PKK et al. That is normal since it is recognised as TERRORIST, and such prosecutions have also happenned in Turkey. STOP! If the keep voters in this AfD are asking such basic questions, how can their comments even be considered as serious?! First it was Ozgur who tried to prove that this was genocide by saying "There were millions of Jews in Germany after the Holocaust" and now this? Are there any arguments out there that come this close being serious?! Yannismorou, if you do not know the answer to this, why are you asking this after voting? Why haven't you asked this to me before the vote? I could have easily told this you! How would you like it if I asked you "would I get prosecuted in Greece for saying "I am an Albanian - not a Greek""? as if Greece was some sort of Talebanic shithole. Please tell me, how would you have felt? Particulary after I had volunteered to write the "Human rights of Albanians in Greece" article! Please! Baristarim 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not joking at all. After all, I'm also a jurist. If you are right, then on what grounds was Pamuk prosecuted? And all these Kurdish members of the Parliament, who lost in the past their seats and were put in jail? And what is the nature of the crime of "seperatism", based on which many many human rights fighters and Kurds proud for their national identity have been persecuted (and not just prosecuted). And you still don't answer the other issues I mentioned, especially the freedom of use of the Kurdish language.--Yannismarou 14:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@Yeah whatever. Are Basques recognized as a minority in France?
  • No, but they should. You are right.--Yannismarou 15:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Corsican language thought in schools as a first language?
  • No, but it should. You are again right.--Yannismarou 15:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a private complaint and a sentence. Baristarim 15:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You also had some interesting points in the parts of your edit you deleted, with which I agree (the prohibitions of movement in Thrace until 1997 were indeed despicable) and I would like to discuss them with you. But not here. Let's end it. If you want, we can continue this discussion in our user pages or in anywhere else you want.--Yannismarou 15:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay guys, this is really not the right page to discuss this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank yandman for his productive suggestions. I am inclined to accept Yanni's proposal. NikoSilver 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not as part of Kurds in Turkey? To Yannismarou: contentious topic areas have an unfortunate tendency of getting ripped apart into ever more and more articles. In my view, that's a trend better to be avoided. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can have both a sub-section in a bigger article (let's say Kurds in Turkey) (so that the bigger article remains comprehensive and is not ripped apart into ever more and more articles) and a seperate smaller and more detailed article. Where is the problem? I think my proposal is absolutely encyclopedic.--Yannismarou 12:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Nikos: Yeah, I am inclined to expect an explanation on as to how ten Greeks suddenly showed up in this AfD. There are already four half-long articles about this, there is no need to create a fifth fork bastard.. Baristarim 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I replied where you first posted the same question. NikoSilver 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with yandman and Fut.Perf. This very brief article is basically about acts of violence apparently committed against Kurds in Turkey that one writer apparently calls a genocide. To prevent a WP:POVFORK, it's absolutely sensible to include this in another article that already deals with these subjects, such as Human_rights_in_Turkey#Kurdish_people or Kurds in Turkey. However, a redirect is pointless, as this is not a likely search term. Sandstein 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are related articles such as Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, Human rights in Turkey and Kurds in Turkey which already covers the Kurdish resistance and its consequenses. The resistance should not be restricted to PKK. This prevents the discussion of the problems of Kurds in Turkey on neutral grounds. This kind of genocide allegations just causes provocations. It's obvious that there is no reliable sources, no data, no consensus among the mainstream of historians but just the baseless claims. It's no more than content forking. E104421 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of this article speaks in particular about the notable topic Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. And that is how a seperate sub-article of a bigger main article is justified.--Yannismarou 13:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added three academic sources in the article (for those interested in expanding it, that is). NikoSilver 13:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these claims and sources given in the article reflect the opinion of the mainstream of scholars? That's the point. There are also articles claiming the contrary. The mainstream of scholars support the view that there is nothing as Kurdish genocide. This article is just a content forking original research. E104421 14:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who are interested, I also included above how some "so-called" "pseudo" members of the Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board deliberately attempted to disrupt Wikipedia by creating such grave articles per WP:POINT and engaging in blatant votestacking campaigns that led to ten Greek users voting in this AfD in the space of ten hours. An AfD for an article that was only created three days ago. ALL THE KEEP VOTES HAVE COME FROM THESE USERS, WHEREAS MULTIPLE ADMINS, ALONG WITH MANY NON-TURK EDITORS HAVE VOTED FOR A CLEAR DELETE. This despicable campaign included bringing back a Greek user who hasn't edited for 1.5 months. If some people have some fantasies that they actually want that there was a genocide inflicted upon the Kurds, this is not the right forum. I will definitely file a report at ANI. This article was created per WP:POINT because of disputes in a similar article. This is unacceptable behaviour. None of these users have explained how they ran into this AfD at the same time. As I have said, if some people cannot fulfill the criteria required for the coop board membership, then they SHOULD REMOVE THEIR NAMES. Nikos's response to my question as to where he heard of this is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia. I am sorry folks but this failed coup attempt (no pun intended) is not going to succeed. Won't these users be warned to cease playing with this AfD? Have they been warned at all? There is no rational explanation as to how a Greek editor came back from a sleep of 1.5 months to vote in this AfD, along with the fact that so many Greek users all voted at the same time, out of nowhere. This attempt to portray a whole nation as genociders is simply racist, if any Turkish users tried to do this for some other country, blocks and ArbComs would be flying off the bat. Baristarim 14:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is becoming easier and easier to attach the legal term genocide next to every ethnic group who has beef with Turks. Armenian, Assyrian, Kurdish, Pontic Greek Genocides, I've heard Bulgarians claim genocide by Turks, I am sure Serbian and Ionian Greeks will folow. These accusations and misuage of "genocide" is becoming harder and harder to take seriously. Of course it finds support from the Greeks -who in my opinion are better off dealing with their own minority problems: Albanians, Macedonians and Turks who they call Muslims- and from other interest groups and those who have little knowledge concerning the subject and its depth yet like to be the good guy. You may not like what I am saying but I sure am behind what I wrote and believe in its truth.--Doktor Gonzo 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that you think "we are better off dealing with our own minority problems", but I think we still have a lot to learn from the way you treated the Greek minority of Turkey. You are great teachers and models to emulate!--Yannismarou 14:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get to learn a little about how genocide became a part of our terminology[59]. Today UN is discussing redefining it and making even the execution of a single person an act of genocide.--Doktor Gonzo 14:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The End[edit]

OK. This is an AfD, not an RfC. I've moved the page to Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, mixed it with some of the content taken from Human_rights_in_Turkey#Kurdish_people, and made it clear that only one academic believes it's a genocide. However, this article as it stands is still absolutely awful, and I hope that all those who have participated so virulently in this discussion will help bring it up to standard, lest one think they were just engaged in petty nationalistic disputes. I'd suggest continuing the discussion on the relevant talk page. Thankyou all, and That's all folks. yandman 14:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy my proposal was implemented. And I feel vindicated, although I'm afraid the Turkish friends here will never accept this was the best solution. I nevertheless invite them to co-operate, in order to make this article better. And they can add as many tags as they want.--Yannismarou 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to see that good sense has at the end prevailed; and article on the human rights of the Kurds is sensible, as it's an important topic.--Aldux 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. The term Genocide is a tricky one and it is probably best that this article should be moved. However, what is happening to the Kurds in Turkey is more than just a question of Human Rights. The scale of killings brings to mind the word massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politis (talk • contribs)
Politis, let's stop it here. You may be right, but there is no reason to continue this discussion here. I understand how you feel especially because of some improper and uncivil comments (some of them expressed in user pages and not here - at least Baristarim is straightforward) against you, me and other Greek Wikipedians by some of the reviewers here, but, let's call it off right here right now.--Yannismarou 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah similar to what's happening when residents of Athens revolted because they didn't want those 'filthy Muslims praying in their neighbourhoods'. You would be surprised at the horror stories Albanians who have lived in Greece have told me. Beating by the police, by the populace which the police doesn't do anything about, racist comments even by grocery shop owners etc. Not to mention the Neo-Nazi groups that regularly beat immigrants up. Oh, wait a minute, the Greek Navy does that too: by dumping them into the sea. Baristarim 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah whatever. In its current state it is a fork of TWO articles. It looks like some sort Frankestein that has been sewn from the wildest information out there. Not to mention THE DESPICABLE DISRUPTION OF WIKIPEDIA BY CREATION OF ARTICLES BY WP:POINT and VOTESTACKING CAMPAIGNS. I have nothing against the title of the article, however I know that this was only by POINT, and that this article will stay as a bastard POV fork for years to come.Baristarim 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, everyone who read the discussions in this page know that what I had said about the disruptive POINT and votestacking campaign was right There is no way that a Greek editor who hasnt edited for 1.5 months can come here without any prior notification. None of you have revealed how you were informed of this AfD. Talk of good faith! It has become obvious to everyone to what the problem is. This is it for me, I am not going to spend any more time with this charade. Out! Baristarim 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::Hmmm... Barristarim, I except you never heard of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, or WP:AGF? Or that one can get blocked for violating such policies? I'm sorry to say this, but I have noted a constant pattern of uncivility on your part, please mend your behaviour.--Aldux 15:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry for this outburst (which is alone a "horror story"!), but I can justify it as a product of extreme frustration. Baristarim, I repeat to you once again my proposal to co-operate for improving the new article and for continuing this interesting dialogue and exchange of views somewhere else. And I also urge Politis not to continue that, although I know that he (and me as well) could say a lot as a response to these unfair and inaccurate comments.--Yannismarou 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find User:Baristarim's anti-Greek hysteria on this page rather amusing, especially considering his championing of the the ill-fated Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Judging from his inflammatory remarks, one must wonder why he bothered in the first place. Smokescreen, indeed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL and also one of the membership criteria is:
The most important is probably Assume Good Faith. Every wikipedian who wants to participate on this board is expected to assume that other wikipedians (not necessarily of this board) are acting in good faith, until otherwise proven.
Perhaps this case in an exception. /Dirak 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AGF means we assume you do not have evil intent. It doesn't mean we are to allow problematic stuff which vote stacking qualifies. Politically motivated biased voting is unacceptable and is disruptive. Weather or not vote stacking is the case for this afd remains to be seen. I intend to get to the bottom of this charade. --Cat out 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

I've been away and haven't been active much. I couldn't imagine that my humble and interesting creation would be so controversial... to the Turkish users (particularly Baristarim), if it means that much to you, then just get an admin to speedy it (you have my [the creator's] consent), just stop screaming (or should I say "STOP SCREAMING"). //Dirak 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural suggestion

Now that the article has been moved and merged and is actively being developed, may I suggest the following compromise about process: give this discussion an early close provisionally, without prejudice; and let's again review the article in a few weeks time, with an option of a renewed AfD or of merging back into one of the existing articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree!--Yannismarou 15:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. However, if there are going to be any editors who will wake up from their months old sleeps to come and vote, we might as well play tavla instead :) Baristarim 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No response[edit]

Not the end. I have contacted you Baristarim about edits and you repeatedly failed to respond. So please, a change of tune would be welcome :-) User:Politis
Dirak a solution was found, so I also urge you not to continue commenting on this page. Let's regard it as closed case. And, Politis, the best place to express (if you still want it) your complaints to Baristarim is his user page I think. After all he has been warned by Aldux for his uncivil expressions.--Yannismarou 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded 'repeatedly. And an explanation as to how you all dropped by this AfD in the space of ten hours for an article that was created three days ago would be welcome as well. Baristarim 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Fut Perf answered that. //Dirak 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are talking about. //Dirak 15:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baristarim, your question has been indeed repeatedly answered by Fut Per. In any case, this is not the right place for such a discussion. If you still think that you have a case against particular Wikipedians, proceed to your due actions.--Yannismarou 16:03, 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 nonsense Guy (Help!) 16:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond sims[edit]

Raymond sims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I know nothing about Morris dancing but this looks very WP:BOLLOCKS to me. It could be an attack page of some sort, but I'm not totally sure. Dina 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. Check out the infobox on his alleged presidency of Norwich. Fan-1967 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense or disparagement page. No ghits for Raymond Sims as a Morris dancer at all. Another clue: he's in East Anglia, Morris dancing is a west English thing. Tubezone 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Fan-1967. Completely ridiculous nonsense. ~ EdBoy[c] 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make It So -it's crap. Deletion fairies? David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 16:11, 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 Speedy delete, CSD A7 / G12. Deizio talk 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Wilson[edit]

Elizabeth Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is simply a list of quotes, and does not assert notability --Lost tourist 15:57, 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 08:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Command[edit]

Christian Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:PROD contested post-facto. Does not seem to meet WP:WEB, no sources. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This software had an impact on the formation of many popular IRC servers that still exist and the software is actively used. The page was fun, but I think the old administrator thought that this software was no longer used after hastily reading the page. Wyatt 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete may have had an impact, but when & where? As it stands, it doesn't pass WP:WEB or WP:RS SkierRMH 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Existence of the software isn't being questioned. The notability of the software is. The Kinslayer 10:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elaragirl. Danny Lilithborne 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elaragirl also. — SeadogTalk 00:07, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:35Z

Jenni Olson[edit]

Jenni Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

User:Rossami prodded the article, and whilst clearing the backlog I disagreed and removed the tag. But fair play, I reckon both positions should be heard and afd is the best place for that. Rossami prodded it with the reasons:

The article does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies.

  • The article claims that the subject is "one of the world's leading experts on GLBT cinema" but does not substantiate that claim. No sources are provided to allow any other editor to confirm the claim.
  • Authoring a book with a current Amazon sales ranking of > 300,000 is not considered sufficient to meet the inclusion standards. (Note: This author has published a second book but its sales ranking is even worse, currently standing at > 877,000.)
  • Producing a single movie is also not generally considered to be sufficient to support an article.

Now I think the biographical details listed at this bio are probably enough to merit inclusion. I take Rossami's points, but I think once you consider that whilst each individual claim itself seems minor, their sum is greater and allows more merit. Note the above linked bio claims the subject has been "profiled, interviewed, photographed, and reviewed in scores of periodicals including The New York Times, The Village Voice, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, Out Magazine, The Advocate, The Los Angeles Times, and Time International." It also claims the subject has written for "such periodicals as Out Magazine, The Advocate, Filmmaker, Girlfriends, Curve, and The Bay Area Reporter". Anyway, that's the cases for and against so far. It'd be nice to have someone with US newspaper access chip in on whether the press coverage is substantial and would allow the article to be improved. The best I get in a British library search is a usage of the book The Ultimate Guide to Gay and Lesbian Film and Video as a source: "A recent book calling itself The Ultimate Guide to Gay and Lesbian Film and Video, by the American Jenni Olson, ignored Pasolini's films altogether, yet included Ostia" ("Dangerous liaisons" The Independent (London); Jun 5, 1997; Roger Clarke; p. 10.) I also think the incoming links to the article merit a look, they indicate to me that there is some substance to the subject as an article. Thanks for reading and appreciate the thoughts. Hiding Talk 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hiding did an excellent job of explaining my rationale. I have nothing to add to the above except a thank you to Hiding for the polite notification of the debate. Rossami (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of Rossami's original prod reasons, as well as for having no WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Valrith 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article contains material which is verifiable and can be sourced in reliable sources. Hiding Talk 22:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands, tons of claims - no citation/verification of them. The listing in IMDB is nice, but doesn't vouch for notariety. SkierRMH 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I'm pulling down a rewrite, halfway there, so I hope people will revise their opinions in the wake of this rewrite, which I hope addresses all concerns. Hiding Talk 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Okay, Olson has been noted as writing an historically valuable book, her film has received good reviews and three awards, as well as having cultural impact with regards the Golden Gate Bridge, whilst her roles as a festival curator and founder, website founder and maintainer, collector and her importance to her field have all been established through verifiable citations in reliable sources. I would hope people will now reconsider their opinions. Hiding Talk 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of references now - however the massive amount of red-links should really disappear. SkierRMH 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a mainstream director/producer but has caused some notable head-turning Alf photoman 22:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the rewrite, I'll change my opinion to an abstain. It still seems like a borderline case to me but it's clearly well sourced now. Rossami (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at the article in the state it was before the AfD, I think a case might have been made even though she had two non-vanity press books and a film at Sundance. Now, I don't think it's even a question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 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 Speedy delete a7, zine with one issue so far. NawlinWiki 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gash (magazine)[edit]

Gash (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

somebody's zine ccwaters 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. ~ EdBoy[c] 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per "It has been in existance since December 2006 producing an issue roughly one a month". This has a long way to go before it can ever be considered notable. Article doesn't even remotely assert notability, meets requirements for speedy as blatant spam. Neil916 (Talk) 17:39, 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 to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional places in G.I. Joe[edit]

List of fictional places in G.I. Joe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wiki:NOT -- Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate things. Dstanfor 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep How is a list of places in a fictional universe indiscriminate? Could use improvement as an article, but your reasoning is highly unsound. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (keep) into G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. That article already has numerous lists that are quite similar to this one. Length is not an issue --- RockMFR 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RockMFR. No need for separate article on the subject. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero; would be more useful there, no need for separate article. SkierRMH 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep prevents clutter in the main GI Joe articles, prevents creation of endless GI Joe location articles. 132.205.93.89 00:16, 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 08:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Zuchter[edit]

Joshua Zuchter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Void of notability. Punkmorten 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable per WP:BIO, very few external sources that are not promotional. - Justin (Authalic) 16:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet notability requirements of WP:BIO, WP is not an avertising service. Neil916 (Talk) 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCT. Caknuck 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete passes the fails everything test. SkierRMH 03:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I would say remove all that does not sound like advertising, but then only the name would remain Alf photoman 22:49, 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Eve[edit]

Tour Eve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The 40th highest building in the Paris region. Nothing makes it outstanding or encyclopedic. The relevant information is already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region anyway. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour Gambetta. Punkmorten 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article offers no notability. Nuttah68 18:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, this article offers a picture of the building, which is not the case of the list mentionned, and its content may be expanded later, I see no reason to remove it. Metropolitan 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing especially notable about this particular building. Eusebeus 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 40th tallest? non-notable. Having a picture of something doesn't make it notable either. And, it's already included in another article. SkierRMH 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, I don't see anything notable about this place. Redirect it to La Defense. Terence Ong 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's actually the 49th tallest, if you count the equalled rankings. Nothing particluarly notable in the article. Ohconfucius 06:03, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Initiale[edit]

Tour Initiale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The 40th highest building in the Paris region. Nothing makes it outstanding or encyclopedic. The relevant information is already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region anyway. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour Gambetta. Punkmorten 16:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - it's old enough and visible enough to justify an article if more information was provided. Right now the article is short enough to be merged into a longer article. Hatch68 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, this article is about one of the oldest skyscraper in Paris, which used to be the tallest of the city once built. It offers a picture of the building, which is not the case of the list mentionned, and its content may be expanded later, I see no reason to remove it. Metropolitan 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing especially notable about this particular building. Eusebeus 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe top 10, if 4-10 have independent notariety, this is nn all the way. SkierRMH 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the oldest buildings in La Defense. Isn't that notable enough? It doesn't mean that a building is the 40th highest building in Paris makes it non-notable. It really depends, the facts of the building etc. Terence Ong 05:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Terence. Jean de Mailly is a very famous and prize-winning architect in France. Ohconfucius 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came across this article from La Defense. This is the only article with a picture of the initial organic skyscrapers in the region. David s graff 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important example of late 20th century "purpose-built" Parisian architecture. --Oakshade 06:26, 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 - tagged {{db-afd}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Manhattan[edit]

Tour Manhattan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The 37th highest building in the Paris region. Nothing makes it outstanding or encyclopedic. The relevant information is already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region anyway. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour Gambetta. Punkmorten 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article - this article offers a picture of the building, which is not the case of the list mentionned, and its content may be expanded later, I see no reason to remove it. After all, its height is similar to the one of the Grande Arche, do you want to remove that article either ? Metropolitan 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above, nothing especially notable about this particular building. Eusebeus 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per prior arguments... non-notable, and having picture thereof doesn't make it worthy of an article. SkierRMH 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to La Defense. Terence Ong 05:30, 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. Tagged {{db-afd}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Aurore[edit]

Tour Aurore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The 37th highest building in the Paris region. Nothing makes it outstanding or encyclopedic. The relevant information is already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region anyway. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour Gambetta. Punkmorten 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article - this article offers a picture of the building, which is not the case of the list mentionned, and its content may be expanded later, I see no reason to remove it. Metropolitan 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, again - nothing notable about this building. Eusebeus 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability is asserted in the article. Eluchil404 08:28, 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. Tagged {{db-afd}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Neptune[edit]

Tour Neptune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The 35th tallest building in the Paris region. Nothing makes it outstanding or encyclopedic. The relevant information is already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region anyway. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour Gambetta. Punkmorten 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article - this article offers a picture of the building, which is not the case of the list mentionned, and its content may be expanded later, I see no reason to remove it. After all, its height is similar to the one of the Grande Arche, do you want to remove that article either ? Metropolitan 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing especially notable about this particular building. Eusebeus 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per prior arguments. And there are lots of thigns that I have pictures of that aren't worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia - and no, I'm not making articles for them :) SkierRMH 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nothing makes this particularly notable, height certainly doesn't. Having a picture, as has been said, confers absolutely no notability. And in response to Metropolitan (who I believe is the article's creator), the Grande Arche isn't kept because of its height, it is notable for other reasons. If its height was the only reason it had an article, we'd AfD that as well. --The Way 07:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : No reason to delete. --90.3.164.125 14:26, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:31Z

Tour Super-Italie[edit]

Tour Super-Italie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The 34th tallest building in the Paris region. Nothing makes it outstanding or encyclopedic. The relevant information is already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region anyway. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour Gambetta. Punkmorten 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Fails both WP:NOT and the laugh test. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a building. So? WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Moreschi 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep the article this article is about the tallest building of the 13th arrondissement highrise district. You may not care about it as a general knowledge article, but this article has undisputably a significative value for people interested in architecture and urbanism. Its content may be expanded later, I see no reason to remove it. Metropolitan 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing especially notable about this particular building. Eusebeus 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing in the article that points to notabliity in architecture and urbanism. Yet another nn building. SkierRMH 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yet another non-notable building. In its present state, don't see any reason why it should be kept. Terence Ong 05:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline Keep. Buildings of this height in Paris Intra Muros are not common (La Defense is another matter), this is the 5th tallest building inside Paris. Added the design and the edict by Giscard to stop Italie 13 makes me believe it notable. Ohconfucius 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unique to this arrondissement and important in Parisian architecture. --Oakshade 06:22, 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 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Winterthur[edit]

Tour Winterthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The 29th highest building in the Paris region. Nothing makes it outstanding or encyclopedic. The relevant information is already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region anyway. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour Gambetta. Punkmorten 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Oppose' The artcile contains information specific to the tower as well as information off topic in List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France such as the tower's history. Articles do not have to have more than a couple of lines of content for them not to be a stub anymore nor do all articles have to contain tens of lines. This article certainly needs to be expanded but not deleted, its hight not baring on its importance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain scarlet (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the article stands a non notable, non remarkable building. Nuttah68 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing especially notable about this particular building. Eusebeus 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, non notable, non remarkeable, #29 <> notable. SkierRMH 04:14, 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 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Mysteries[edit]

Rune Mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Single Quest in an MMORPG, never anything but gamecruft. J.J.Sagnella 16:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Cliffs London[edit]

White Cliffs London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Advertisement; recreated after it had been speedied. Lupo 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can come up with actual citations for the statement "has been featured in leading media such as ITV's This Morning Show, The Daily Mail, Ideal World, Glamour Magazine and others.". Google says no. Seems like a blatant ad to me, which is why it was speedied before. Neil916 (Talk) 17:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP. It's a small wig-making company. I only see multiple pieces of trivial 1-sentence mentions, like [60] and [61]. --Mereda 18:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really low ghits for this - and none that are linked to the "features" it's theoretically been part of. WIthout V, I'd also salt the earth for it. SkierRMH 04:16, 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 11:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Benjamin[edit]

Elliot Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. In order to pass the notability standard, author must be the subject of multiple independent reviews or the recipient of significant awards, no assertion of either has been made in the article. Neil916 (Talk) 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, can't find links referring to citations. SkierRMH 04:18, 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:50Z

Thierry Ehrmann[edit]

Thierry Ehrmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, promotional. Original speedy-delete was contested. See also Abode of Chaos. Tom Harrison Talk 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 3 non-promotional articles currently on Google News, meets notability standard of WP:BIO. Neil916 (Talk) 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the company he runs should be notable for its uniqueness Alf photoman 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with a re-write to make it sound less like a bio. SkierRMH 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWanted to reply on the talk page but since whoever claimed to be fostering a debate can't sign ... It still looks like a promotional page; there is no information under Detractors and the Abode of Chaos is covered (poorly) in a separate article.FasterPussycatWooHoo 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep not really a notable business man unless sources commenting on the uniqueness of his business plan can be found. The house controversy, on the other hand, looks like it should have enough coverage to pass WP:BIO, even if it will be mostly in French. Eluchil404 08:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sh!te how is one meant to add to this page? i say delete. if possible, delete thierry ehrmann as well. spammer. dingcb 25 December 2006
  • Weak Delete Full of POV problems and needs a lot of expanding. Seems to be a spam article from a known UBE spammer. Pogo 15:15, 25 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 11:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael David Murphy[edit]

Michael David Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

autobiographical article of a NN photographer, any media reference is about his blog, not his photography. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Flash Corner ccwaters 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO as there is no assertion of multiple independent reviews or awards for his work. Neil916 (Talk) 17:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with comments above -- article fails WP:BIO, no assertion of notability, and inadequate documentation. SteveHopson 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... fails WP:BIO, appears that a goodly portion of ghits are to one or two (McSweeney) sites. SkierRMH 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a lot of the above. -- Hoary 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent sources can be found and re-written in encyclopedic format Alf photoman 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 10:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Erotic Film[edit]

French Erotic Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable flash animation, fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEB. Several claims of notability but nothing to back them up. ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No reliable sources, no article. Fails WP:V - badly. Moreschi 18:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTE. Maybe creator likes it, but it is not a sufficient reason for being listed on Wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was going to suggest a redirect, but apparently we don't have an article on French pornography, and Cinema of France doesn't cover the topic. So delete per above. Shimeru 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTE --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Animutation. This is supposed to be one of the most popular of this ilk (It's apparently part of some big "trilogy" about Colin Mochrie), but I don't think it deserves an article. Wavy G 02:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEB - merge possible, but if it's supposed to be part of a trilogy, you'd probably want all three parts there, right? SkierRMH 04:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but this is, as I am to believe, one of the most popular ones of this genre. It would be easy enough to find information about the other two, if necessary. Wavy G 08:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom-DESU 23:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or at least give it a major rewrite, doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. Also not notable. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:12, 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 a 5star delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5star Fallout[edit]

5star Fallout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to assert notability per WP:BAND, but I don't know enough about New Zealand music to be confident in speedying this. NawlinWiki 17:51, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:30Z

Thomas J. McFarlane[edit]

Thomas J. McFarlane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO for the writing or the acting. Neil916 (Talk) 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability standard. Eusebeus 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO both as actor & writer. SkierRMH 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable per WP:BIO as a published author who received multiple independent reviews of their work. Einstein and Buddha was independently reviewed, e.g., by Publishers Weekly, Dec 2001; NY Spirit, June 2002. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.209.151 (talk • contribs) 17:47, December 22, 2006 (UTC)
But it doesn't meet WP:BIO, which states "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". The reviews you mention are of the book, not the person. The proposed guidelines for WP:BK (still in development), put a notability threshhold at "The book has been the subject[3] of multiple, independent, non-trivial[4] reviews in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. Reviews in periodicals that review thousands of books a year with little regard for notability, such as Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal and Kirkus Reviews do not meet this criterion. " Neil916 (Talk) 20:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines in WP:BK, however, apply specifically to articles about books, so they are not applicable to articles about people. Regarding the guidelines in WP:BIO, it says that "people who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles." One of the items listed in WP:BIO is that the person is a published author who received multiple independent reviews of their work. Since this criterion is met, it is not clear why the article allegedly fails the notability standard for articles about people. (If it should fail, then it would seem the guidelines WP:BIO need to be updated.) 67.171.209.151 23:47, 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 Speedily deleted as {{db-nocontent}}. This article cannot grow in to something encyclopedic as the scope is too limited. (aeropagitica) 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real damage[edit]

Real damage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not real notable and not real accurate. Thousands of hits on the phrase "real damage" but very very few seem to be used in the way described in this article. Glendoremus 18:04, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Bisson[edit]

Casey Bisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

May not meet WP:BIO. The lone award cited for notability does not have a wikipedia article and thus it is likely other winners do not have wikipedia articles. TonyTheTiger 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The Mellon Foundation's press release about the award in question doesn't mention this person by name; rather, the award was given to the university he works for. I can't see any other claim to notability in the article. Geoffrey Spear 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Notability not significantly more than average professor. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. SkierRMH 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 04:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with some regret. I found this via a watch I have on PSU's website. Known Casey for about 12 years or so; great guy, quite deserving of the Mellon Award, but it doesn't confer notability per Wikipedia standards. Sorry, man. Tarc 00:44, 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 speedy delete. Copyvio and advert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABD Insurance & Financial Services[edit]

Advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Also seems to be at least a partial copyvio of this (at the bottom). Localzuk(talk) 18:51, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 04:50Z

NHL Results October 2006[edit]

NHL Results October 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Way more detail than necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia; this is not a news archive. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

NHL Results November 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NHL Results December 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dsreyn 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For future reference, pages that are so closely related can usually be listed together.--Kchase T 19:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and nominator, please combine (you will have to change the links in the articles). --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The AfD links in the articles for November and December now point here; I changed the nom above to indicate this. Dsreyn 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 and others. Punkmorten 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete all per precedent. SkierRMH 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, seems to fall into the domain of indiscriminate information. General information about notable games can be included in the season/team articles, if and only if appropriate. This level of detail borders on unencyclopedic and is best left to a site like retrosheet.com (or whatever its hockey counterpart would be). --Kinu t/c 05:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, because exists FA Premier League results August 2006 etc. I do not see a difference. Spy1986 16:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The existence of one article does not justify that of another. This is considered a very weak argument in an AfD discussion. Indeed, it suggests that perhaps the FA article(s) need to be reconsidered for deletion as well (cf. the centralized discussion noted on its AfD page). Please explain why you believe the article should be kept, citing policy/guidelines, and by responding to the issues noted by those recommending deletion. --Kinu t/c 17:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Also, it is generally considered good form to identify yourself as the author of the article in question. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 17:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of hockey deletions. Resolute 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Especially for lacking context. I'd prefer to see game results in team season pages rather than a league page. Resolute 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per Spy1986. Canadianshoper 06:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. If it were all one one page, such as NHL Results for 2006-07, then maybe look into keeping it, maybe. But this is pointless and a waste of energy. Kaiser matias 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All, yeah this is a much better example of indiscriminate information than the transactions article(s). Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 09:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Wikipedia is not paper. This is interesting information. Just H 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All; Wikipedia is not waste paper. This information is contained on numerous sites, including the NHL's and those of most weekly newspapers. RGTraynor 07:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. This information can be retrieved on the individual team's season's page. You can check out those teams on this template. In addition, all of this information is organized and can be better understood on the NHL's official website [62]. Ksy92003 20:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All as per Ksy92003. Skudrafan1 02:16, 25 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 closure. Make comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006. Thanks.--Kchase T 21:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Results November 2006[edit]

NHL Results November 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Way more detail than necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia; this is not a news archive (see related noms for NHL Results October 2006 and NHL Results December 2006). Dsreyn 18:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD has been combined with NHL Results October 2006. Dsreyn 21:49, 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 speedy closure. Make comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006. Thanks.--Kchase T 21:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Results December 2006[edit]

NHL Results December 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Way more detail than necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia; this is not a news archive (see related noms for NHL Results November 2006 and NHL Results October 2006). Dsreyn 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD has been combined with NHL Results October 2006. Dsreyn 21:49, 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 Speedy delete. -- RHaworth 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEvin Satzinger is a sexy man whore[edit]

As I am not allowed to do any speedy deletions, it's required that I bring this here for review for five days since I am obviously not doing deletions in good faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:40, 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. Conscious 14:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Army Officers (WW2) (2nd Nomination); List of Japanese Navy officers (WWII)[edit]

List of Japanese Army Officers (WW2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Japanese Navy officers (WWII) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The List of Japanese Army Officers (WW2) was previously nominated for AfD in August 2006. It survived by virtue of there being no consensus, thus defaulting to keep. In the four months since, absolutely no attempt has been made to verify any of the information on the list or to provide any sources. Without verification or reliable sources, this compilation is essentially original research. I have since discovered the companion article, List of Japanese Navy officers (WWII), which suffers the same fatal flaws as the army “article”. Both articles fail all three essential content policies of wikipedia. I could also add that wikipedia is not a directory or memorial. These are indeterminate lists that do what a Category:Japanese Army Officers or Category:Japanese Naval Officers ought to be doing. Agent 86 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Lists and categories are separate animals and can work in tandem. That said, I see no need for listing all officers below the rank of General or Admiral respectively. Below that, it should only be notable officers with blue links or reasonable red links. This seems more like a tag/cleanup issue than one for AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and cleanup — Agree with Dhartung, although Captains would also be acceptible. Many of these entries may never have an article, so better a list than a category. That being said, however, it'd be good to have more information than a simple list on this page. — RJH (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this were a matter of cleanup, I'd have tagged it with {{cleanup}}. However, these articles are contrary to the main content policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. As those have not been addressed over the lifespan of these articles, and as it does not appear that it will be addressed, these articles cannot remain. Agent 86 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we've been through this before. Not only an unmaintainble list, but also vague listcruft of the worst sort. Where do you set the bar for inclusion? And by whose standard? Eusebeus 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As there is no "bar" for inclusion, this would be a totally unmanagable, and probably unverifable list. Make it a category - not a list. SkierRMH 04:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Huwe 6 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let it get cleaned up. There is no deadline. Fg2 07:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Making it a category and not a list does nothing to address verifiability, except spread the problem out. Categories and lists co-exist peacefully in most cases, and I don't know what makes these two lists particularly unmaintainable. The bar for inclusion is probably set too low for these two lists, but AFD is not for cleanup. Neier 07:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not advocating cleanup. I am advocating deletion based on the paramount policies of WP:V and WP:OR, among other things. I am also not advocating moving all the listed names into categories; the suggestion is merely that the very few verifiable people on this list can be categorized as such. Unless and until the content policy issues are addressed, these articles simply cannot exist. Agent 86 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, I am not arguing against cleanup either. I'm arguing against deletion. I don't see how WP:OR applies to this list at all. From that page, original research is any of the following:
        • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
        • It introduces original ideas;
        • It defines new terms;
        • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
        • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
        • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
        • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
      • As for verifiability, history books are awash with the names of generals, etc. Yasukuni Shrine probably has a list by rank of every soldier who fought for Japan. If there is a questionable name on the list, then tag it with {{cite}}; there's no need to delete the entire list. The higher the inclusion bar is set, the more sources are likely to be found. That's why I agree with a couple of others above who recommend deleting names from the lower echelons of the lists. Neier 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:V requires those wishing to keep the article to provide the verification (please refer to "Burden of evidence" in that policy). The article provides no verification or reliable source. As for tagging with {{cite}}, it was simply more efficient to tag the whole article with {{verify}}, a template that has been there since August 15. In fact, the better alternative is to delete every unverified name from the list (again, see "Burden of evidence"). As for WP:OR, as far as I can see from the lists, they appear to be unpublished data or a sythesis of information from unverified, uncited sources. Agent 86 19:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list was created just for the sake of having such a list, the list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the content is unverifiable, the list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, the list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category, and the list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia. This statement concerns me: "Yasukuni Shrine probably has a list by rank of every soldier who fought for Japan." It seems very much like an advocation for a data dump. This type of thing would be great for Wikisource or Wikibooks, but not for Wikipedia. To quote the founder "An encyclopedia is not a data dump. It serves to give readers a quick essential summary of what they want and need to know. In order to do this effectively, we must exercise careful and thoughtful editorial judgment, and one part of editorial judgment is an understanding that treating irrelevant data as on equal footing with the essentials, is confusing and a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC) link" While the original argument was about notability, I believe his argument applies to this case as well. Certainly creating an article or mentioning the name EVERY Japanese military officer from WWII is counter to Wikipedia's notability goals. --Kunzite 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think WP:OR or WP:V apply, but this list is about as discriminate as List of bakers in Osaka. ~ trialsanderrors 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neier. --- RockMFR 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per trialsanderrors and WP:NOT. These lists are borad and indiscriminate. Eluchil404 07:50, 28 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 11:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Hampton[edit]

Despite the tragedy surrounding her death, Wikipedia is not a memorial for every serviceperson who died in Iraq. Or anyplace else. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't believe this. Fails WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:BIO, and WP:V. Doesn't even try to make an assertion of notability aside from having a public library (!!!) named after her. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability isn't sufficiently established. Leaning keep in light of new information brought to light by AnonEMouse. Heimstern Läufer 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: very sad, but I must agree with opinions above.
Weak keep per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above every soldier killed in Iraq is mentioned in some newspapers article. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:INN. We're not discussing James Kim. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but why be hypocritical? Edison 05:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was also the first female officer killed in Iraq. Until this month, she was also the highest-ranking woman killed in Iraq.[65] With references meets notability. Note, I don't think getting something named for you is notability. It's more of a correlative factor. --Dhartung | Talk 20:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not assert any notability. I fully understand you should be involved, but from neutral point of view it is really not notable. There are 24,456,700 military casualties during World War Two, you can't create 24,456,700 articles. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not put words in my mouth when making your arguments. It violates good faith. You have not said why the assertion of notability fails, except to say "it does not". --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that Wikipedia is not edited by native-english speakers only. I do not put any word into your mouth - I do not care about your mouth. it does not is nothing against good faith it is a simple statement that what you said is not enough for satisfy notability, that's all. Do not look for double meaning. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair is fair, then. Please do not argue that because I said this subject is notable, I am extending notability to 24 million other subjects. I am not. You are presenting a straw man. I would appreciate that you do not do that again. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not take it personally please, I really did not want to insult you in any way. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if subject's death gets a modest amount of coverage and a gov't agency decides to name something like a library in the subject's honor, it's just notable enough. hateless 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you not understand how many libraries, highways, bridges, etc. are named after nonentities? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dryly You were expecting people to vote on policy and logic? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never saw that. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, things seem to get a bit personal around here. But if you want policy so badly, from WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Then check Google. Please argue against that. hateless 01:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, while I appreciate the rationale for the delete comments and the desire to maintain standards of notability, but we also need to bear in mind that in a case like this, the article may very well have been created by people who loved and cared about the subject. They understandably won't have been familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards, and while that doesn't mean we have to keep non-notable articles, it does mean that comments like "I can't believe this!" could please be phrased differently. On the merits, agree with AnonEMouse. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete clearly and should be removed by closing admin by WP:IAR if necessary since it is bad bad precedent! This is not a memorial and conflating brief press coverage with larger notability is erroneous and wrong-headed. Eusebeus 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note James Kim and Jessica McClure as precedents. Edison 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was going to stay out of this given the circumstances of the AfD, but props to AnonEMouse on the extra research. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article will require rewrite to meet appropriate tone and style and to incorporate information revealed by AnonEMouse, above. However, especially given the social and political issues relating to women in the US military and in combat situations, the "first US woman pilot killed in combat" is adequate to meet notability requirements. Furter, all Iraqi casualties get a newspaper article; not all of them get coverage on MSNBC. Many (although not all) will have libraries and other local building named for them; few will even be considered to have a highway named after them. This does not presage a slippery slope that mandates the inclusion of 24 million WWII casualties, nor are all pages for dead people memorials. Serpent's Choice 03:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I shall not offer input as to delete or keep, as it appears this AfD is headed for a default rule. I see for the most part good conversation, which brings my comment here. These type articles sometimes get heated, and I just ask everyone to consider that this woman’s family is possibly now watching, or will possibly see this conversation in the future. Please, let us remember that not only are we as editors human, but we ultimately have an audience who will see our work here. Thanks. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tragic loss of young life, but subject was ordinary casualty of war, and there's nothing notable about her in the article. not a memorial. Ohconfucius 06:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse's arguments. Being the first female pilot to be killed by enemy fire is a record of sorts and establishes notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, see below. Delete, just another victim of war, nothing special. Unless we are also making articles for the first killed muslim pilot, the first killed vegetarian pilot and the first killed male pilot. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Below comment notwithstanding, I should note that while Speicher was the first pilot (presumed) killed in Iraq, Hampton is the first female pilot killed in combat at all. The ongoing political debate regarding women in the military, and, specifically, women in combat situations confers notability to this event, and verifiability and reliable sources have already been demonstrated. Serpent's Choice 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at all the source more closely, I agree. But I am very sorry that no one of all the people in favor of keeping this article took the job upon them to actually add those sources to the article (I just did that myself). Therefore, I changed my vote to abstain rather than keep. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So I expect that for consistency, Zoel and Reinoutr will get busy today deleting the Scott Speicher article, which has only blogs to support his notability. Edison 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is certainly not a key feature of Wikipedia. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficient notability has been established. Mikemoto 12:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being first at something that made the news will be kept alive by the local historical society until her hometown vanishes from the map. We aren't a memorial, but we do keep biographies of notable dead people, and she meets the WP:BIO tests for the enduring historic record. GRBerry 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has verifyable coverage in reliable sources. Not hugely notable but notable enough. Eluchil404 08:42, 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 deleted, no sources, no assertion of significance. Friday (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grundle fever[edit]

No independent sources, no claims of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:51, 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.

Weffriddles[edit]

The result was 'delete' There's a clear consensus for such closing, the only opposing are the multiple new sock accounts (with Weff related usernames) that keep popping out), the article can't be unprotected without the hordes of sockpuppets editwarring again -- Drini 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weffriddles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

the spoilers keep getting added back so might as well delete the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleteweff (talk • contribs)

above user has only 2 edits. -- Drini 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No use in continually trying to fight someone like this. Axe the article and protect and empty page to prevent it from being recreated. -DynSkeet (Talk) 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CSD#A7. No references or citations. --Richmeistertalk 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but feel free to merge with NotPron as well. 20000 members isnt what a normal site can go so keep it!Jason the N 19:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has been indefblocked for editwarring with sockpuppets -- Drini 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To release their pain? There is a thriving forum to ask for hints. If you can't get through the riddles without cheating, JUST STOP PLAYING THEM. If you want to post spoilers under "freedom of press" or whatever, like they suggested above, get your own web hosting. -DynSkeet (Talk) 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • note: I'm not leaning to any side, but wikipedia is not a webhost, so this must stop, and I'll be blocking at sight further edit warring over this. I?ve blocked all the new sockpuppet accounts -- Drini 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan-1967. The template just got speedied as well. Dina 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There's a nasty editwar with sockpuppets over this article. People coming here should check the history as well (template:Weffriddless) was got deleted as we don't need a template for a single page. -- Drini 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note A new sock has recreated Template:Weffriddles again. Fan-1967 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt I do NOT agree with the reasons for starting this AFD, however I do think that this pages should be removed for other reasons, Specifically, it failed WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS. Wikipedia is NOT here so people can use it to post hints, cheats, or answers about games. Delete the article, and lock to prevent it being re-created. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page was not created with the intent to post hints, cheats, or answers about Weffriddles. It was meant to inform people about Weffriddles, and the socks added the spoilers later. 216.68.126.125 19:52, 18 December 2006 WeffJebster(sorry, first time posting like this on WikiPedia, apologies for 'forging' the signature)216.68.126.125 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was posted by 216.68.126.125, signature was forged. WeffJebster is a nonexistent user. -- Drini 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split it into 2 articles and delete the main one.
  • CommentSomething that is a bit enlightening about these unwanted edits is that all the usernames for the sock puppets have Weffriddles-related usernames. This is pretty indicative of a personal attack, no? 216.68.126.125 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brian. The AfD was poorly crafted but there are other reasons to delete this article. JDoorjam Talk 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, disregarding for a moment the somewhat odd reasoning that has led this to AfD, I don't see any indication this website meets the WP:WEB criteria. If someone can show some evidence it does meet the core WP:WEB criteria, I'd be willing to reconsider though.--Isotope23 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it meets notable standard. this website has been visited by Ayumi_Hamasaki. in a show ayumi said it was the most visited site of hers of all time. Wrfour 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, can this be verified? -DynSkeet (Talk) 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, let's break down WP:WEB and see if this website and article meet the critria.
From WP:WEB-
Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1)The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

Nothing sourced in the article. Non-Trivial works are like articles which report on only the site. Trivial works are 'in-passing' mentions, or mentions where another website shares the news article or a group of pages share an article.


This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

Again, nothing cited to prove this is true.

except for the following:
Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
2)The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization.

Nothing I can find with a search

3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Obviously this site does not meet this critieria

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

And no, the article does not provide proof of this.

A user above posted "this website has been visited by Ayumi_Hamasaki. in a show ayumi said it was the most visited site of hers of all time." First, what show? When did it air? What channel? Next, even if that was answered, it wouldn't matter. Just because someone famous says they visit the site (in an interview via newspaper, magazine, online, radio, or TV) it doesn't matter. That is an 'in-passing' mention and does not qualify as a valid, Reliable Source. --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sure a celebrity or two has visited my own website, and even I know that my page is not notable as content for WP. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a surreal AfD. Anyway, no reliable third-party sources, WP:WEB, you know the drill. Sandstein 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I missed this comment before but "20,000 registered members on the Weffriddles forums" does not mean a thing. I like to use the "World of Warcraft" forums which have over 2 million registered members, and the "Eve:Online" forums which have 200,000 members. Neither have an article because neither pass WP:WEB--Brian (How am I doing?) 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The debate over whether or not this article is notable quite astounding. The article definitely fails WP:WEB and therefore I agree with the AfD. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB- no third party sources to assert notability. Membership alone does not confer notability, neither does popularity with a celebrity or two. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brian et al. Caknuck 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails unwavering requirements of WP:V, which leads to failing WP:WEB as well. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - fails WP:V, WP:WEB. And, pull the eyes off the sockpupets and show them to be the true socktrolls they truly are. SkierRMH 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As keeping a extra page won't take so much space either. so just pretend it's deleted k? and let's not talk about this and have a coffee k? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del weff (talk • contribs)
the above is the account's ONLY edit -- Drini 05:18, 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:28Z

Elfwood[edit]

Elfwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Entirely unsourced. Not notable. Facts such as the type of PC and which Lunix distro the server uses is absolutely non-interesting. SchmuckyTheCat 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The site is substantial and has a large user base. It may require a rewrite but it should not be deleted. --J-Star 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you can reference those assertions to a reliable source? SchmuckyTheCat 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Visit the site and see for youself. The mount of material added and teh activity should speak for itself. --J-Star 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. You can't use the site to support its own inclusion. See Wikipedia:No Original Research. You have to cite reliable third party sources. Also, because "substantial" and "large user base" are a very subjective (what is the threshold for "large"? What does "substantial" mean?), it cannot be used as an argument for inclusion either. ColourBurst 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just Google it then... [66]. There's your source. Counter-argument to the rest is that "not notable" and "non-interresting" are also subjective. --J-Star 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not a source. What does it say about the subject? That it has X webpages that contain the word "Elfwood" which may or may not be related. The hits that I can see are to personal webpages, blogs, and forums, which are unreliable. ColourBurst 05:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No third-party sources means it fails WP:NOR and WP:WEB. "See for yourself" is original research, not a reliable source. Sandstein 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Claims "Elfwood is the largest science fiction and fantasy art site in the world" which would make for a notability argument. This is not OR, but autobiographical statement. See WP:Auto for inclusion criteria. Also found in books here [67]. I'd say any site that makes it into a top list of sites on the internet is a keeper. And frankly see for yourself is NOT original research. It's called examining the subject and seeing what is known about it. And hey, if you think that facts such as the type of PC being used, or the software distro, maybe we should delete Google platform or the software and hardware section of Wikipedia. Of course, you could just recognize that one sentence that is part of a larger article is not something you should throw on the AfD. FrozenPurpleCube 07:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a bit of news coverage [68] FrozenPurpleCube 07:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "see for yourself" not being OR. It requires a user to make a subjective interpretation about the significance of a site. The claim that it is "the largest science fiction and fantasy art site in the world" is also a claim that needs to be sourced (that's not a trivial assertion). ColourBurst 05:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it is sourced. To them. Was what I said not clear to you? That's what I meant by autobiographical statement. Besides, looking at a subject is important in making a determination about an article. That's not OR, that's called being informed. If you reject the idea of doing your own examination to see what there is to know about a given subject because it's original research, then I'd say we've got an entirely different concept as to what things mean. Now certainly, a simple google search won't reveal the good sources from the bad, that requires some real effort, but as the link above shows, they can be found. FrozenPurpleCube 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here's another one: [69] Apparently, they won an award from SFcrowsnest, which claims to be Europe's most popular science fiction and fantasy site. FrozenPurpleCube 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it has sources to build an article, then rebuild the article on the sources. As it stands now, the article is unsourced. SchmuckyTheCat 15:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, sources are a good thing, and more would be better. I don't see any reason to outright rebuild the article though. It's not that bad. Even the part about the servers it used was hardly of great concern. I'm still troubled that you thought that was a reason to argue for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the site's Alexa [70] ranking is in the 6,000s, which often serves as a useful benchmark. FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And hey, here's the San Jose Mercury: [71]. Yeah, you need a subscription for the full article, but it's still a valid source. FrozenPurpleCube 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to Weak Keep with the Gamegrene and the San Jose Mercury articles. Again, claims like "popular", "one of the first", etc have to be sourced in the article itself but that's not an AfD issue. ColourBurst 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Here's an article published in one of the largest newspapers in Sweden back in 2003 [72]
Keep Wired Magazine published a note about the founding of a new web site called "Lothlorien" in October 1996, which later on changed name into Elfwood. [73]
  • WTF. (Note: I do not hand this sort of Deletion Recommendations lightly. Not lightly at all.) Obvious keep. The site has been around forever and is one of the best known art galleries on the web. I'm highly surprised if this is not mentioned in some source or other. And please keep arguments that can be fixed in cleanup out of the nomination - deleting boring content is not an issue that needs a sysop bit. AfD is not Cleanup®. (But since I was around, I deleted the bit about hardware anyway. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think we've established that mere popularity, or notability within a limited community, isn't enough to warrant an article for this sort of site. Tevildo 13:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think any such thing has been established. Not that I'd consider the fantasy art community to be especially limited. FrozenPurpleCube 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fantasy and SF are quite mainstream genres these days. Not just for us computer geeks anymore. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The site's size, user-base, community and vast collection of user-created content means it is very well known and it's an excellent example of what the online fantasy community get up to. I would say it's similar in many ways to deviantART, which we certainly don't seem to have an issue with writing an article about. I would be confused if Wikipedia represented deviantART but not Elfwood, even if the latter is obviously not as large or as all-encompassing as the former.--StoneColdCrazy 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeviantART has severe sourcing issues as well. SchmuckyTheCat 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has. However, if the site is popular enough, it's the duty of people who know anything about the site to research sources and write about it. If people say "This site is more popular than that famous religious figure, why don't you have an article about it?" and we say "We don't have an article about it because we don't trust anyone but honest people, plain and simple", we're on dangerous waters. When people think of "No information is preferred over unsourced information", they regrettably think of the Nuke instead of Getting Rid of the Dubious Stuff. Verifiability is not a deletion reason in case of deviantART; at worst, it'd be time to trim away anything that's completely unattributable. Stub about a famous website is better than no article at all. Likewise here. Why is it that people really don't seem to want unsourced material to live in the article history? In closing, AfD is not Cleanup and in 90% of cases, lack of sources is a cleanup issue, not a deletion reason. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is all a load of nonesense, Elfwood deserves a place, simply because it was the first and largest, does it matter what's occured since then. Besides in my Book, Devart is not a fantasy site, it just allows fantasy along with all the rest of the content.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.11.222 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Epilogue is another Fantasy site, but that is in another category entirely, and excludes all amateur artists so it will never get as large as Elfwood. So what is the fuss about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.11.222 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom-DESU 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates WP:WEB. --Neverborn 08:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The AMW.COM source is completely irrelevant - Elfwood is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and the only page that even talks about her kidnapper only says they met on "the Internet" - NOT on Elfwood. Her Elfwood page is also not a source. I went back to review my Delete vote and found it's worse than I thought - there are NO sources establishing notability, and as such, flagrantly violates WP:WEB. --Neverborn 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are good sources then re-write the article based on them. SchmuckyTheCat 15:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the way to get people to re-write an article. Articles don't get deleted because there are no sources present in it. Articles get deleted when there are no sources at all, which is obviously not the case here. Please keep that in mind in the future and search for sources yourself before you nominate something for deletion. --Conti|✉ 16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A very old and well established site- it has many many artists, many people may want to read about it on Wikipedia, there are third party sources available as was displayed by Conti... Also, I came across this deletion debate because I was checking some info on the Elfwood article, and I had heard of it before I came to Wikipedia. Ok, a lot of what I said isn't Wiki Policy, but it is certainly reasoning for this article to be kept. Frankly, I think it is ridiculous that this has been nominated for deletion. J Milburn 02:33, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Archive[edit]

The Simpsons Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

does not meet WP:WEB, and the site itself contains numerous copyvios. Here's a small sample list:

  • Speedy Keep The publicity section of the article is a claim to notability. If the creator of the longest running animated series in television history says you're a better continuity resource than his own writers, well... And, we don't really expect other web-sites to maintain Wikipedia's copyvio policy. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep snpp.com is one of the oldest still-operational sites on the Web. While it's true that the article, in its current state, does not correctly provide references to demonstrate that the Archive meets WP:WEB, the Web site itself clearly is more than notable enough. I would prefer to see this article be tagged as needing work on references. Deleting it, given the notoriety of the site, seems absurd IMHO. Seventypercent 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SNPP+"The Simpsons Archive" gets over 20,000 Google hits, and over 500 of the first 1,000 are unique. The BBC lists it as the unofficial Simpsons web site. Of the 44,600,000 Google hits when simply searching "Simpsons", snpp.com is third, only following the official sites of the film and the TV show. Smaller claims of notability: This college course apparently uses SNPP as a source (sidebar: I want to take this class!). For a WP-worthy subject, it has a rather low Alexa ranking, but note the 2,462 sites that link to snpp.com. A scholarly paper on JSTOR uses the site as a reference. -- Kicking222 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above- and the fact that they have copyvios is irrelevant. You may not like it, but you can't AfD every article you find because you dislike the subject. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting because the subject contains copyvios? Holy shit, kids! We better delete Youtube! --- RockMFR 20:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in its own right. Enough said! --SunStar Nettalk 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per ShmuckyTheCat. Danny Lilithborne 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. No indication that this meets our inclusion guidelines. Liking a website is not a good argument to "speedy keep" a good faith deletion request. Jkelly 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ShmuckyTheCat and RockMFR --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep received best of the Net award from about.com [74]. Publicity section also asserts notability. Also cited in numerous books here [75]. FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - the copyvio can be taken out - no problem. And, it does need ot have some of the awards and citations added to it (see above arguments).
And a Speedy delete for every article that cites Youtube :)SkierRMH 04:37, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dot[edit]

Blue Dot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Reasons: (1) Not Notable - does not meet the criteria for a notable software company and (2) spam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs).

See also recent DRV discussion here - crz crztalk 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think that the citations in the article shows that the company does satisfy WP:CORP. --Karnesky 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the notability criteria of WP:WEB, specifically "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Originally, there were some WP:COI concerns with this article, but I see no WP:SPAM or WP:POV issues with the current content. -- Satori Son 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:WEB passed. --- RockMFR 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:WEB, and it's not blatant spam in any way, shape, or form. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't read like spam, passes WP:WEB. SkierRMH 04:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not spam, and is notable enough for a WP article.
  • Keep - It certainly seems notable under WP:WEB and is most certainly not spam. Philip Gronowski Contribs 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per all the above DelPlaya 03:39, 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 Redirect to OPAC in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:26Z

WPopac[edit]

WPopac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFT and WP:NOTE ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an award is not a criteria for notability, either. Neil916 (Talk) 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Neil916. I also have some WP:AUTO concerns as suggested by the creator's username.// I c e d K o l a 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO and given creator name, I'd guess Vanity of vanity, all is vanity. SkierRMH 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 04:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: I know it's vain to post articles for one's own projects, but WPopac did win one of the first Mellon Awards for Technology Collaboration. From the press release:

The ten recipients were selected from among more than 200 nominees by the MATC Award Committee, which included Berners‐Lee, Mitchell Baker (CEO, Mozilla Corporation), John Seely Brown former Chief Scientist, Xerox Corp.), Vinton G. Cerf (Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google, Inc.), John Gage (Chief Researcher and Director of the Science Office, Sun Microsystems, Inc.), and Tim O’Reilly (Founder and CEO, O’Reilly Media).

$50,000 to the Plymouth State University (Plymouth, NH, www.plymouth.edu), for the development of the WPOPAC online public access catalog (http://wpopac.blogs.plymouth.edu). Plymouth State University was recognized for its development of WPOPAC, an innovative online public access catalog system that allows any library to make its online catalog interactive, by turning each library record (e.g., each book or serial) into a blog page onto which users can post their own comments and content. The Committee noted WPOPAC’s ability to enable online library access in libraries of any size, as well as the project’s potential to engage patrons more deeply and interactively with libraries and their offerings. Plymouth State plans to use the award to purchase catalog content from the Library of Congress and make it freely available to all, thereby eliminating a substantial cost barrier to the online publication of catalogs by small libraries.

Misterbisson 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Vanity aside, your involvement here violates our Conflict of Interest guidelines. I know it is tempting to use Wikipedia to publicize a project, especially one as well-intentioned as this one, but WPOPAC simply does not meet our standards for sufficient notability, and this article will likely be deleted shortly. If and when WPOPAC does receive coverage by reliable sources, please allow the article to be recreated by someone who is unrelated to the project. Thanks, Satori Son 16:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Just H 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete WPOPAC has been gaining momentum in the library community and has generated much conversation since the Mellon Award announcement. It is poised to become a player in the world of online access provision. Possible facilitating libraries' presence in the social web - libraries have long been stewards of social capital and, so far, have lacked the tools to participate in this forum. WPOpac could help that. Let's give it a chance! — 71.233.252.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do Not Delete WPOPAC is a substantial open source project in the realm of libraries, especially small libraries. A simple Google search will show you how many people are talking about this. It is important. Zbtirrell 04:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC). — Zbtirrell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Test Icicles (note capitalization). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:48Z

Test icicles[edit]

Test icicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Well, actually not deleted, just moved to a page with the subject's name. This specific page should be a redirect to the band. —ScouterSig 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable individual and group, fails notability criteria in WP:MUSIC. Neil916 (Talk) 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close I'm going to simply make this page into a redirect and change the bandmember's name into his article (from a redirect). However, I'm not in the mood to really edit the article, and it's in somewhat bad shape. But the point is that the band is highly notable, and this should just be a redirect. -- Kicking222 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heheheh. Redirect to testicles. Good name, though. I hope they become notable one day. Anomo 12:32, 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 Redirect to The First Duty (TNG episode). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:44Z

Joshua Albert[edit]

Joshua Albert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unnotable Trek character Philip Stevens 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Trekcruft, although note to nom: the bar for inclusion when it comes to Star Trek/Wars is microscopically, mind-blowingly low. Vivat vox populi. Eusebeus 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, excessively crufty. Alternatively redirect to The First Duty (TNG episode). --Kinu t/c 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The First Duty (TNG episode) - no need to keep. SkierRMH 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change, who is and isn't "notable enough" is entirely subjective. If the idea was to limit Trek content to only the major characters, I'd say it's a little late for that because the toothpaste is already out of the tube and picking on poor Cadet Albert is rather arbitrary.Gotham23 20:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Point noted, but Wikipedia is not Memory Alpha, and it's not Wikipedia's job to duplicate everything that can be found there or any of the other Sci-Fi wikis. This is a character who didn't even appear on screen. At best, the apocryphal information about him mentioned in the episode article is a reasonable compromise, per a redirect. --Kinu t/c 07:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that we seem to have Nova Squadron (Star Trek), Kolvoord Starburst, and Yeager Loop articles, which are also one-shot concepts mentioned only in this show, and therefore are prime candidates for redirects (which i have done). Poor redlinked Nick Locarno may be worth an article, though, since he was the antecedent for Tom Paris. Morwen - Talk 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I first saw this AfD I figured that the subject was Cadet Locarno who had a large role in the episode and might be considered notable (as the antecedent for Tom Paris). But this fellow is pretty clearly clearly below the threshold. His death is a major plot point and is apropriately covered in the episode article, but there is simply nothing else to say about him. Eluchil404 08:52, 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 11:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Banks[edit]

Adam Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Banks (a character on B&B) appeared on the show for less than a year. NOT notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgh (talk • contribs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and others below: nn tv character. Eusebeus 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - really non-notable character.SkierRMH 04:42, 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 no consensus. Conscious 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Douglas[edit]

Ann_Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

STRONG delete: Douglas is ONLY slated to appear for 10 episodes. B&B airs about 200 eps per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 December 2006

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia is to include pages about soap opera characters, then I would say that this page needs to stay. Although the character appears in only a limited number of episodes, she is important to understanding Stephanie Forrester, one of the central characters of the soap. I have done a lot of refinement to the article with the intent of making it more concise and readable.Dbart 22:40, 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 11:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Logan[edit]

Hope_Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

STRONG delete: This character is far from being NOTABLE. Hope was only 4 years old. Does NOT meet Wiki standards. Yrgh 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)user:yrgh[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 19:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other People Exist[edit]

Other People Exist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Prod read: "No notability asserted, and none found through a Google search (two hits outside of Wikipedia). If you don't want it to be deleted, please provide WP:V sources showing it to be notable." Removed with notice that the magazine is included in the Denver Zine library, which turns out to be a volunteer driven library of zines donated through mail and other means[76]. In other words, everyone who makes a zine can send it to the Denver Zine library and will then be included. Hardly an indication of notability... Current Google hits[77]. Fails WP:V beyond its existance Fram 20:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Neil916 (Talk) 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Slp1 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SkierRMH 04:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:21, 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 keep (after cleanup, which addressed all valid issues raised). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Americans in Hong Kong[edit]

Americans in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not a notable topic. No notable or reputable sources of information found either. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Once again I'm humbled by User:CaliforniaAliBaba's contributing edits. I'm retracting the nomination. This article should definitely be kept. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — At best the content discusses very minor demographic trends, with no citations to back it up. I'd at least want to see some major demographic trends to make the page notable. (E.g. Illegal immigration to the United States.) — RJH (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a totally impossible list to maintain, verify, etc. And, what would be the use? SkierRMH 04:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - not a list, never was. cab 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one demographic trend I can think of off the top of my head is the reverse-migration of American-born Chinese to Hong Kong; their influence on the entertainment industry has been noted in several reliable sources. (Also, Bruce Lee was an American in Hong Kong for some time ...) cab 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see the use of this at all ArchStanton 07:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article is expanded somewhat and has a copious listing of sources for further expansion. Request nominator to review. More suggested reading for everyone: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. cab 07:29, 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 Redirect to Royal Holloway, University of London. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:21Z

The Founder[edit]

The Founder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN student paper ccwaters 20:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 23:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Royal Holloway, University of London; nn student paper. SkierRMH 04:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's questionable whether SURHUL itself is notable, so a student newspaper certainly would not qualify except in special circumstances. In any case, some info has been placed on the RHUL page, so there is no need for this article. Zverzia 16:09, 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 11:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chips UK[edit]

Chips UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a bizarrely titled mini POV fork of French fried potatoes. Everything is copied from there, and then slightly rewritten to put all the emphasis on Chips instead of French fries, going as far as removing all the history except for the British part. Many other sections are remomved, no info is added, so there is nothing to merge, the name is not a likely search term, and the page seems to have no purpose but to replace "French Fries" with Chips (see e.g. the related changes to the disambiguation page Chips by an IP address [78]. I see no reason at all why we would have this page... Fram 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no Redirect per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being an obvious POV fork. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom "Chips are not French Fries but French Fries are Chips". What on Earth does that mean??--Anthony.bradbury 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was hoping this would be a BBC version of CHiPs, starring Ricky Gervais as Ponch and Clive Owen as Jon. Caknuck 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete persnickety British rant about American terminology. Although I must say, if Caknuck's TV show ever came about, I would totally support it. Wavy G 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly becuase it doesn't address the central issue of necessary toppings, such as mustard, vinegar, catsup, & mayo... mmmm... mayo.... SkierRMH 04:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork. Terence Ong 05:55, 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 11:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April Knight[edit]

April_Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

STRONG delete: This character appeared less than a year; not notable per Wiki standards. Yrgh 09:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no need to have an article for every single minor character. Unless they come with fries & mayo.... sorry... ;) SkierRMH 04:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small mention needed on Amber Moore, nothing more. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Divine[edit]

Knights Divine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Online game, no indication of notability, no reliable sources (only one is the game's website) and 100 total unique google hits, which don't include anything that would confer notability. Long article, but it only tells about the game's history from the author's point of view. Contested prod so it's here. - Bobet 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - less than 100 ghits, nothing giving independent coverage of the game. Terrible POV problems. SkierRMH 04:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Also a vanity page more about the author than the game. Koweja 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable.OriginalJunglist 00:58, 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 merge to List of child actors. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:13Z

Trevor and Preston Shores[edit]

Trevor_and_Preston_Shores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

STRONG delete: The Shores are not notable per Wikipedia standards. They were nominated for deletion a few days ago, but someone REDIRECTED their page to the T AND P Shores. Very sneaky. Yrgh 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)User:yrgh[reply]

  • Comment: Previous AfD is here. It was closed as no consensus after very little debate. No opinion here. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:20, 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, Agent 86 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Granted, age is not a reason for deletion, but being notable is. Having 3 bit parts in TV shows doesn't quite reach the bar. SkierRMH 04:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge => List of child actors and convert the article to a redirect tagged with Template:R to list entry. This would be a suitable solution for the current status of borderline notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They've appeared in two network television series and a major motion picture. They are obviously notable. --- RockMFR 14:56, 25 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. Punkmorten 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Seidman[edit]

Anthony Seidman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Originally tagged by me as WP:CSD {{a7}}, however a google-search yielded approx. 400 hits, and there is one book at Amazon. The article itself needs some work, but does the subject warrant an article? Oden 01:04, 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, Agent 86 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google searches for his published works yield 20 (On Carbon-Dating Hunger) and 17 (Where Thirsts Intersect) hits (fewer once you subtract WP & the publisher's page), seemingly none indicating reviews from credible sources. Caknuck 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, doesn't warrent article. SkierRMH 04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Person has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:19, 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 11:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot rod (magic trick)[edit]

Hot rod (magic trick) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Children's magic trick that only appears to be referred to by magic dealers that are selling it. Psychonaut3000 20:30, 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 11:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Olson[edit]

Gary Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Seemingly no distinguished research or publications or influence in his field Free-world 20:53, 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 Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:07Z

Erik Möller[edit]

Erik Möller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The secretary of a charitable not-for-profit company, who once self-published his own non-notable book. Of course, expect a wave of 'keep' votes as this is the exec secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation! If Moeller were on the board of trustees of any other NPC, the article would have been deleted within five minutes of creation. We should be striving to avoid self reference, not ignore our own policy because the NPC this guy is secretary for happens to be the one that is behind Wikipedia. If anything, we should have higher standards. Please, look beyond the fact that this man is an editor of Wikipedia, and consider that whether or not you believe the assertions of notability - secretary for a charitable not-for-profit company, and a book that appears nowhere except for buried in a website for the German National Library (not bookstores, not amazon, nothing). note, it's on amazon.de The article has been deleted in a previously AFD found here, but was recreated after Moeller attained the secretary post, and despite being tempted (as it's not significantly different from before) to delete it under CSD G4, I brought it here instead. Applicable policies seem to be WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:ASR. Strong delete, as I don't believe this article would exist if Moeller were secretary of any group other than Wikipedia, and so is a clear pooping all over avoid self reference. Proto::► 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 74,000 (though only 269 of first 1,000 unique) Google hits for "Erik Möller"+Wikimedia, but so many of the hits are for Wikimedia-related sites (i.e. Wikipedia user pages of various languages) that I can't sift through them to see if there's any notability asserted by outside sources. -- Kicking222 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for not G4ing it. I'm going with keep as one of those WP:BIO "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted" situaitons. It may be a borderline (or blatant) self-reference, but it's not really self-referential, which is what WP:ASR is about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikimedia is not "any other NPC", but a fairly significant one. It's not a self-reference; any secretary of a similarly significant NPC should be kept as well. Bramlet Abercrombie 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC) By the way, I get over 20,000 Google hits for the book title, and it is on Amazon [79]. Bramlet Abercrombie 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll hold my hands up, I didn't look on amazon.de. Proto::► 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although my feelings here are quite mixed, I think it ought to observed (which observation Bramlet himself probably makes) that the proposition of Proto that this article would exist if Moeller were secretary of any group other than Wikipedia and that of Bramlet that any secretary of a similarly significant NPC should be kept as well need not to be understood as contradistinct; it is quite possible that the Möller article exists principally because of our knowledge of and familiarity with him but that an article about any similarly-situated secretary/board member ought to exist as well. I wonder whether it might be useful to remember the oft-repeated injunction of Monicasdude that the absence of articles apropos of a given topic ought not to be construed as evidence of the non-notability of such topic (I recognize, though, that Proto doesn't make such argument here, but others may). Joe 19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only reliable source simply states that he published that book. We speedy deleted an article over that. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 22:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The interview seems good, so I'm neutral now. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless outside sources are provided to show notability which we could use to write a verified, NPOV article about him or his publications. A Lexis-Nexis search shows exactly one result: a single quote from him in the NYT. The Wikipedia article links to "Works by and about" him -- but no, it's only 2 works by him. We need works about him or his publications. Pan Dan 22:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Precedent established in the AfDs of other board members. 1ne 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A precedent is not always correct, plus it's not exactly the same situation. The other board member articles (and note Brad Patrick became a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation) assert notability, due to mentions of the subject in reliable media sources etc - this does not. Proto::► 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A precedent isn't always correct. I never said it was. 1ne 19:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto's well made points. Eusebeus 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am tending towards deletion because I cannot find any reliable third party sources indicating notability. If those could be found, I would favour retention. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet Professor test. Wikipedia is no more or less notable than anything else on its own. Just H 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've found some other press on him - [80] - and this New York Times article about Wikinews (with a gigantic photo of Jimmy Wales) cites Mr. Möller and his concerns about the project in the middle of the article [81]. He appears notable enough for inclusion. --Oakshade 03:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Theser are not articles about him - these are articles about Wikinews and/or Wikimedia, not Erik Moller, containing only passing mentions of him. Proto::► 09:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's in most of the first one and quoted throughout most of it, not a "passing mention". I trust editors read them and judge for themselves. --Oakshade 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. The substantive content of the article is already included there, and so a redirect is more useful than a redlink. Should Möller become independantly notable through his actions or publications at a later time, the article may be split back off. Serpent's Choice 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above - it's almost all there in one shape or another. SkierRMH 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Executive Secretary role is largely irrelevant in practice; it's the Board member role which I spend most of my volunteer time on. By now we have 7 Board members and we'll probably have 9 soon, so being a Board member of the Wikimedia Foundation is no longer as significant as it used to be e.g. when Angela and Florence were elected to the Board. NB: This is all volunteer work. And yeah, my book is available in stores of course, but its total print run so far (two editions) is only 4,000 copies.--Eloquence* 09:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As he is not the primary subject of any of the news coverage found. He is a primary source for one piece, but that is different from being the primary subject. And WP:BIO says that we need coverage wherein the individual is the primary subject. GRBerry 02:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That appears to be splitting hairs in attempt to discredit his interview. That almost the entire article is him being interviewed makes him the subject of it. I'm beginning to wonder if ther's an unspoken agenda in deleting this article. --Oakshade 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the criteria requires coverage about the subject for a reason. The article is supposed to be about the subject, and coverage about the subject lets us write an article about them. (I'm sure this is discussed somewhere in the archived history of WP:BIO's talk pages, but WP:BIO was established before I became an editor. It is also visible in essays like Uncle G's one on notability and WP:INDY.) A publication where they are a source lets write an article about whatever they are talking about, assuming that they are a decent source. (Being a decent source discussed at WP:NPOV and WP:RS among other places). GRBerry 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In this interview, the subject is he and what he has to say, not just what he has to say. If he wasn't there, there would be no article. I've never seen a reference attacked like this. I'm suspecting something else here. --Oakshade 16:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Mr. Möller is a great contributor, but I have not been able to find sufficient news coverage to justify an independent article.-- danntm T C 18:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Serpent's Choice and Danntm above. Chick Bowen 05:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep his books (see [82]) and his position as a board member are both not enough by themselves, but together they pass the bar in my view. I would not strongly object to a redirect untill and unless more independent, non-trivial coverage is found, but would be just as happy (or happier) with a full article. Eluchil404 09:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've written one book (which appeared in two editions). The other hits you get are either articles I wrote for Telepolis and c't, citations, or works by a different person.--Eloquence* 11:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the detail; I did understand the results for the most part (though I didn't realize the top two hits were different editions of one book), but I couldn't find a better way to filter them. While the book and articles don't appear to meet WP:PROF for academic notability, they are enough, IMHO, to make your notability broader than just the Board membership and thus worth more than a redirect. Eluchil404 13:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also thought I should mention that the book is held by three college libraries in addition to the German National Library[83]. Certainly its obscure but not quite as obscure as implied by the nomination. Eluchil404 13:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the decision makers at the world's most important source of information. That alone is sufficient, but there are also enough press mentions and personal accomplishments to justify an article. It would be nice if we had bios on the board members of every corporation/public organization worldwide. That will take time, but for now there is nothing in WP:ASR that precludes this type of article. Wikipedia has nothing to be afraid of. Our standards are fine, the problem is getting people to write/edit articles (as opposed to longwinded AFD nominations + comments and other assorted blah blah). --JJay 13:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per arguments above. --SandyDancer 01:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sachiko Murata[edit]

Sachiko Murata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn teacher Nekohakase 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think this person meets WP:BIO. A google search turns up numerous references to her works, particularly in the context of "recommended reading." She seems to be notable in her field. Deli nk 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Akihabara 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as she does seem notable in her field and has published and translated numerous works. Article could definitely be expanded, but is acceptable as a stub right now. I added a link to her bio at Stony Brook U. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:17, 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, Sandstein 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nihonjoe. Bigtop 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, besides well known scholar (cite) was the first woman to enroll in the graduate program in Islamic jurisprudenc (/cite www.al-islam.org) at Theheran University Alf photoman 22:33, 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. Sandstein 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Kramer (B&B)[edit]

Jerry_Kramer_(B&B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

STRONG delete: Kramer will only be seen in a short term role- less than a month on BB. This is NOT notable. Yrgh 21:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)User:ygrh[reply]

  • "Footballer?" That is a term for a frolicking soccer player, not an offensive lineman. Return the tag line for the former American football player to just "Jerry Kramer" and get rid of the future short-term soap opera character. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glacier109 (talk • contribs)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:12, 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 Speedily deleted as an unsourced, non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brinda[edit]

Brinda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Listed for deletion because no verifiable information could be found on this person. --Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 09:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --Sable232 23:47, 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 21:12, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Thanabalan[edit]

Stephen Thanabalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page has some WP:HOAX/WP:VANITY issues. The name Stephen Thanabalan has been invoked in Wikipedia articles as the author of sources in well-known publications. However, these sources appear not to exist and look to me like very clever vandalism. This article seems to be part of the hoax or a vanity page by the creator. Search the wiki for about 50 examples of what I'm talking about. MrFizyx 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Probable hoax, but in any case with only 54 GHits, nearly all, it would appear, added by him, definitely fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Here is an example: this edit to Ellis Paul claims to take a quote from Thanabalan's writing in Rolling Stone. Those with access to the IIMP can search the full text of all RS issues since March 1995. There appears to be no reference to "Thanablan" nor "Ellis Paul" in last 10 years! (This is actually unfortunate as Paul is very talented and deserves better coverage.) -MrFizyx 22:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:V. -- Satori Son 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good job in identifying an apparent hoax, and obviously a spam. Are you going to remove all the references from the 50 articles after this afd? Let me know if you need a hand. --Vsion 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: I was hoping one result of posting the article on AfD would be that others might pitch in on the clean-up. Help would certianly be appreciated. It would take me a while to do it alone. This needs to be done with some care since in some cases the editor who adds the name seems to mix his/her own commentary into text that is already present. -MrFizyx 01:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started a clean-up list at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephen Thanabalan. It would be great if editors could remove or strike articles that they clean-up so that we don't need to duplicate each other's work. (Assuming general agreement that this is a hoax, etc.) -MrFizyx 01:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above.--HamedogTalk|@ 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. In addition, I just removed all instances of his name except the article in question. Many edits referring to Thalaban come from Singapore IPs, including
Most IP edits adding Thanabalan appeared to have been added in May 2006. Finally, it looks as if this is a real person who reports out of Singapore, but many of the alleged articles cannot be verified. Jokestress 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del as n-n, per my belief that the arguments above are not an elaborate hoax to embarrass WP via inducing us to personal attacks on the bio'd person. [wink] Thanks for the thoro work by at least MrFizyx & Jokestress.
    --Jerzy•t 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jerzy has a good point. It now seems Mr. Thanabalan is a real journalist, and since it is quite likely the fake references attributed to him were added by a misguided fan (as opposed to him personally), we should be careful in not accusing him of anything unethical. Sorry for paraphrasing, but I this is important and I agree wholeheartedly. -- Satori Son 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V, WP:HOAX. Terence Ong 09:48, 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 a7 (no assertion of notability) and borderline g10 (attack). NawlinWiki 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virumgade 3A[edit]

Virumgade 3A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN ccwaters 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Certainly WP:NN. Borderline {{db-attack}}--Anthony.bradbury 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No context, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. -- Satori Son 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Should have been speedied for attack (see last line) - marked as such. SkierRMH 05:01, 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 12:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Dirleton[edit]

Baron of Dirleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Delete. Stuff and nonsense. - Kittybrewster 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This and the Barony_of_Fulwood are *feudal* baronies yet ever so carefully manage never to say so giving the impression to an average reader they are peerage baronies. Both titles are genuine but very minor and such titles are not otherwise covered on wikipedia presumably because they are not considered notable. This and the other article are uncited or verified from good sources (something that the last deletion nominated asked) and are written in large part by the person who owns the titles and appears to wish to publicise the fact. Alci12 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly non-notable vanity. Why has it taken from Summer 2005 to come to AfD?--Anthony.bradbury 22:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Feudal, manorial baronies are non-notable. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems in this nomination some parts are missing, see Wikipedia:AFD ~~ Phoe talk 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
Taken care in the meantime ~~ Phoe talk 08:34, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:05Z

Azriael (wrestler)[edit]

Azriael (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Person does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While not a top carder, wrestles in two notable independent wrestling federations, Jersey All Pro Wrestling and Ring of Honor as stated in the article. Meets notability requirement. SirFozzie 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just working for those two doesn't mean you're notable. He hasn't held any championships or been really notable in ROH. Even some ROH Tag champions aren't really notable, and he hasn't even been that. ↪Lakes (Talk) 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To the best of my knowledge, he doesn't wrestle for JAPW much anymore. (Preciding comment was added by a sockpuppet of User:JB196)
  • Keep I think he is notable enough, even though he has not won any championships. 83.233.58.34 13:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually he is a multi time JAPW champion feuding with Jay Lethal and Teddy Hart. Multiple relatively recent title reigns in a notable fed has to count for something. NegroSuave 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 Speedy Delete A7 (three times) by User:NawlinWiki and User:Cbrown1023. ColourBurst 04:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Dark Hearts[edit]

Dark Dark Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This band is non-notable, failing WP:BAND and I suspect that it's a vanity article. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:47 18/12/2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Torah Jews Against Zionism[edit]

True Torah Jews Against Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I suggest speedy delete because it was already deleted once: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll do it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:04Z

Novelty theory[edit]

Novelty theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Impenetrable pseudoscience. No sources to show its notability. Leibniz 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest Possible Delete This is absolutely meaning-free jargon, and should have attracted an immediate {{db-nonsense}} tag. Garbage.--Anthony.bradbury 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Terence McKenna, the author of this theory, was very well-known as a professional wierdo - we have Time Cube, after all, which is far more eccentric. Nonsense it may be, but it's notable nonsense. Tevildo 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Only crackpots can believe it, but there are enough crackpots in the world to make it notable (books, web pages atc.) Wikipedia is not about truth, but about notability, Leibniz and Anthony.bradbury.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why exactly is this notable? Crackpot blogs don't count. Leibniz 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least in current state. This kind of content must be properly referenced. Time Cube, whose place here I grudgingly accede to, was at least (mockingly) discussed by MIT and Georgia Tech. But here, there are no references outside of self-published sources and extreme fringe web publications. Bizarre pseudoscience ideas that are publically mocked or derided can be notable. Bizarre pseudoscience ideas that are simply and completely ignored are not. Serpent's Choice 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (very strong keep) Timewave Zero definitely qualifies as pseudoscience or bullcrap, and Terence Mckenna qualifies as a bit out-there, but seeing as how popular and widely read he is makes this deletion suggestion completely baseless. References would be easy to come by, they are just ommited out of laziness (as in most wikipedia articles). I see his books all the time in Borders Books which meanse this passes the Pokemon Test with flying colors. This "theory" is one of his most popular, especially among the type of people who are into 2012 crap (which is a significant number of people). The article does not endorse the theory and efforts have been made to treat it in an NPOV manner. A good argument could perhaps be made to MERGE the article, but a deletion is completely basless (keep in mind, this is coming from someone who thinks Terence Mckenna is full of crap...see the discussion page for the article to see my efforts to make sure it hasn't been treated to lauditorily.) Gene Ray I don't think even has a published book. Lots of people, read Terence Mckenna and take him seriously--albeit few scientists. Before you nominate a article for deletion do a little research to make sure it really is not notable. Terence Mckenna is inarguably influential in certain circles. Full of crap, but definitely influential to many people. Brentt 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The popularity of McKenna's writings is documented. His books are sold in Borders, and lots of other places. Plenty of independent sources make mention of him (often to say he's wrong, but that's fine, too). That's all why he has an article, and why it is not up at AFD (as an aside: it needs some work, though!). None of that means that any given idea of his meets the standards for its own article unless independent, reliable sources have addressed the idea. Without anything verifiable, there's nothing we can even merge, although a redirect should remain due to the value as a search term on the topic. Serpent's Choice 05:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this is utter bollocks - but it's popular utter bollocks.SkierRMH 05:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Certainly not science, but interesting and notable as a product of its time and as the work of a fascinating individual whose books are still in print. Wikipedia is not an encylopedia of science, it is a general purpose-encyclopedia, and should default to inclusion rather than exclusion. The article itself seems balanced, and does not present the "theory" as fact. To disagree or disapprove is fine; that's what discussion pages are for. To remove it is completely unnecessary. If for no other reason, the article should be retained for historical and literary reasons. -- DaveSeidel 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um. Keep I guess, as long as we can guarantee that it reminas crystal clear that the theory is twaddle. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep. I can't comment on its scientific validity, but it has been culturally significant. Let the reader decide and the scholar use the page for research, even if the scholar is opposed to McKenna. Alpheus 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough noteriety/interest to make it a reasonable point for look-up. Voideater 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure this "theory" is unscientific by its very nature, which is an attempt to quantify the ratio between that which conforms to the scientific universe versus that which is outside of (or in paradoxical relationship to) science. I think some confusion arises because of the scientific-sounding presentation of the theory itself. If Wikipedia was a purely scientific or mathematical journal, then any accompanying social phenomenon would be irrelevant and the unverifiable and unscientific basis of novelty theory would warrant deletion. In my opinion though, what's important about the theory is that it exists, it has a following, and it's a significant part of a much larger social phenomenon around the belief in a major approaching event in 2012. You don't have to subscribe to these ideas to acknowledge that there is a social movement that does. As such, I find it very interesting, and I'm glad you didn't delete this article before I found it. Also, I just looked and there are articles about both warp drive and the christian rapture, both of which are spoken of by their respective followers as if they were scientifically and literally true, and neither of which would withstand scientific peer review. Walksintwoworlds 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem is not that it isn't science (unquestionably true, but a great many things aren't science). My problem is that there is no verification of the topic from reliable sources, and I was unable to locate any in a reasonable effort. As it stands, the article does not show that anyone independant has written about the topic. Perhaps we should merge to its creator's article instead? Serpent's Choice 13:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know what Mr. Choice, you do have a good point. I found the article because I was searching on the general topic. I had not heard of either the theory or the author when I started, and I would have been just as happy to have found the two in a single place under the author's name.Walksintwoworlds 19:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact is that Novelty Theory is an idea by a popular philosopher. As such it deserves at least some mention on Wikipedia. If nonsense weren't allowed on Wikipedia, what would happen to all the articles about religion? I have to agree with DaveSeidel; it should at least be included for historical purposes. Judging an article (and by extension, a particular idea) to be irrelevant just because you don't agree with it is nonsense. --Kooky (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Novelty Theory is not specific to Terrence McKenna, Timewave Zero is. Robert Anton Wilson, author of 26 books, has what he calls The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon which is also a theory of novelty, and he never mentions Terrence Mckenna throughout his entire hour and a half long explanation of his theory even though they are very similar in aspect. I think that not only is novelty theory psudoscience but fringe psudoscience and so the availability of information on it is scarce. That being so, actually making an all inclusive page on it would be difficult but should be attempted. I have a recording of the Seminar that Robert Anton Wilson gave on his novelty theory, and will use that as a basis to form a section on that. If at least 2, possibly 3 separate but similar novelty theories can be accounted for and referenced The title of the article and basic overview should be changed, and separate sections for each persons theory should be formed.
Also Wilson mentions novelty theory in his book, "Prometheus Rising".WombatOnslaught
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom withdrawn. Eluchil404 09:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Masterton[edit]

Steven Masterton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No sign of passing WP:BIO. Unreferenced besides. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep didnt know that was a professional leauge --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to a professional soccer player in Scotland see Google News Archive. [84] Meets WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So he is. I didn't realize Clyde FC was a professional team. Withdraw nomination. Pan Dan 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:BIO professional athletes competing in the top tiers of their sport (ie. First Div in Scotland) are sufficiently notable. Caknuck 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Caknuck. Just H 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - note the nomination was withdrawn. SkierRMH 05:07, 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 a3, empty list. NawlinWiki 14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who have Directed Superhero Movies[edit]

People who have Directed Superhero Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

If it were populated , it'd be listcruft, but it's not ,because the editor immediately next made a list page of the same idea here. This editor has a long history of creating bad, redundant or bizarre categories with superhero themes[85], [86] for two of many examples. ThuranX 22:26, 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 trim and merge. Conscious 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have died of Lyme disease[edit]

List of people who have died of Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)/includeonly>


List of not individually notable people. PROD contested by original creator, hence now on AFD. Delete. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Merge specific enough for an article for notable people. Possible merge to Lyme Disease as incubator. Just H 22:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD isn't cleanup. Remove the non-notable people. -Amarkov blahedits 22:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment afd can help facilitate cleanup by sparking discussion and interest in article. Just H 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but its purpose is not to be used as a sword to force cleanup now. -Amarkov blahedits 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • People do seem to use it for that though...Just H 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is one case where you can do that. One. When there are no sources, and there are reasonable suspiscions that no sources exist. You can then say "Delete this, unless someone finds sources". But the people saying "This has remained POV for a month, time to delete" are wrong. -Amarkov blahedits 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If there's only "one" case where you "can" do that, why do people keep on doing it, hmmm? Why isn't it "stopped"? Quite frankly, I wonder if there are any real rules to this place other than those people just make up out of the blue sometimes to be honest with you. Just H 03:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "source" is a memorial page on an unreliable source on Angelfire. Since none of these people are otherwise notable, the list should be deleted. —ShadowHalo 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can only find two notable people on the list: Scott Brazil and Diane Varsi. I can find nine notable people that Wikipedia claims have ever had Lyme disease (but haven't died). I have had a look in national newspaper obit. pages, IMDB, NNDB, FindAGrave, etc. Nothing. I don't believe this list can expand beyond a few (well sourced) names. A wider "List of people who have had Lyme disease" probably wouldn't be long enough to warrant its own article either. The author's purpose would be better served by finding reliable statistics for mortality and contributing those to Lyme disease. Colin°Talk 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/merge: Per Just H. Ombudsman 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable people. Should be in a database somewhere, but certainly not a wikipedia page. As for the notable people, they can be added as a (short) paragraph in Lyme disease. Ksheka 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All non-notable people should be deleted from it. That will leave 2 people apparently. There is no point in having a list of two people. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There might be more out there, but for now an incubator merge is more appropriate, I think a keep won't work with 2 only, and I concur with WJB on that this list isn't notable heavy. Just H 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of mostly obscure people. Nephron  T|C 03:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pare down and merge as above. Non-notable people dying in a fundamentally non-notable way does not make them notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. That said, it is not unreasonable for the article about the disease to discuss notable people who have had the disease and those (apparently two of them) who have died from it. Should that section become disruptively large in future, it can be split to a daughter article. Now is not that time, however. Serpent's Choice 04:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above - unless someone's going to go out and collect death certificates?! SkierRMH 05:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is nothin in here needed for a merge, and the sole cited source is unreliable. No objection to cited and verifiable inclusion of notable individuals in the article on Lyme disease. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of notable people, lack of sources, lack of point. --Folantin 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright - pure listcruft, pointless. Not encyclopaedic, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What next - List of everyone who's ever died of cancer? Also unverifiable and unmaintainable - what about people who died of this disease 400 years ago? Moreschi Deletion! 15:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE save svae!!! I DO have death certificates for some of them and Obits for the others. The important thing about them dying of Lyme disease is how many *different* wAYS they died yet all died of Lyme disease- the way they died IS NOTABLE- because they died in SO MANY different WAYS!!!! From the ALS presentation- from the MS presentation- from anoxic encephalopathy to the dilated cardiomyopathy presentation- from the sudden heart attack presentation- from the suicidal presentation- from the lupus presentation- from the Alzheimer's presentation- from the ARDS presentation- !!!!!!! It is a beautiful example of infectious disease!!! That is the point- it is why there are all the autopsy reports included! It puts forth the myriad presentations in SUCH an illustrative way-- Sarah aka CaliforniaLyme
    Creator of the article. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. CaliforniaLyme is apparently using this to promote original research (a personal study into the way people die from Lyme disease). The list itself is not encyclopedic, and the promoted viewpoint in the introduction paragraph may suffer from POV problems (such as the comment on how Lyme disease is connected to suicide). Dr. Submillimeter 12:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was bold and started to clean-up the article. I'm sure there are others than Scott Brazil out there. Gzkn 14:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, agree entirely -- Samir धर्म 22:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As above. Tonytypoon 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete these lists are blightDroliver 21:47, 25 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 04:53Z

Zac Poonen[edit]

Zac Poonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy-tag and prod-tag have now both been removed, still no real assertion of notability outside the subject's own website. Article is also in my view promotional of subject. StoptheDatabaseState 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does have notability on several counts. Contact me for more information. I am currently gathering more material. Feel free to edit, if you feel a particular subject is being promoted. --Loaves 23:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete as nom. I don't see any notability. For an individal to be notable they need to be renowned outside their immediate locality, and/or the subject of more than one independent published work. The guidelines are at WP:BIO. StoptheDatabaseState 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking into this I can see why you might have an argument that he is notable as a result of his 'customer base' in South East Asia. You need to source it in the article - I shouldn't have to do your sourcing for you by Googling its subject. I change my vote to Weak keep with sourcing, but prefer to leave the AfD open for consensus on this. StoptheDatabaseState 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Yes, from what I know, subject has notability per the specifications. Subject is renowned outside their immediate locality, including the U.S., Canada, Finland, and throughout the world. Subject has been published by independant publishing houses, including Tyndale House, GLS, Charity Gospel, etc. I believe this article fulfills the guidelines. If you need any information please contact me, and thanks again for your tips and your help. I will begin to source some of my findings. Loaves 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this thing totally needs to be re-written into an encyclopedic article. As it stands, it reads like a fundamentalist tract. SkierRMH 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Original version of the page is copyright violation from www.cfcindia.com/web/mainpages/about_us.php -- ReyBrujo 13:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources. I'll be happy to reconsider if someone finds some. -Amarkov blahedits 23:29, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 04:51Z

NBA Results November 2006[edit]

NBA Results November 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Way more detail than necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia; this is not a news archive. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

NBA Results December 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dsreyn 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as indiscriminate information; maintenance of a game log is best left to the folks at Yahoo!, ESPN, Sportsline, and so on. My rationale here is similar to that at the related hockey game results AfD. --Kinu t/c 05:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both on the condition that FA Premier League results November 2006, UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Group Stage standings & results and all other similar pages are similarly deleted. --Howard the Duck 08:37, 25 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, patent nonsense. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dice Creep[edit]

Dice Creep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod-tag removed. No sources, no notability (a handful of Google hits mainly on forums), seems to be something made up one day. Strong Delete. StoptheDatabaseState 23:02, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 04:48Z

Roger Israni[edit]

Roger Israni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Many people have aced their college entrance exams. Many people instruct other people on how to take exams. Many people interview others as part of the college entrance process. Roger doesn't appear to be notable at all. Bkkbrad 23:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article fails to assert notability. Plus, article's author is Bellaire cardinal (apparently named after the subject's high school), which could be a COI issue. Caknuck 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bellaire Cardinal is probably a alumni of the school or something like that since, if you look at his contributions, he has added alot to the Bellaire High School page. It is not very likely to be a COI issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.254.167 (talk) 11:50, 19 December, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No coverage of article subject by multiple, reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. -- Satori Son 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. SkierRMH 05:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strong keep Anyone who went to school in Houston, Dallas, etc. knows Roger Israni. Anyone searching for Bellaire High -- would be interested to know that Roger is an alumni of the school. He's been featured in the Houston Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1998/09/14/smallb1.html)and the Houston Chronicle, honored by the city's mayor....These alone should satisfy the "multiple independent reliable sources" criteria of WP:BIO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.254.167 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
If this is the case, then please add the citations to the article. --Bkkbrad 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Roger Israni is popular in Houston. He is responsible for more perfect SAT scores from students than any other instructor. He was recognized by Mayor Lee Brown of Houston in front of the Houston City Council for this acheivement. He has been interviewed on ch. 11 in Houston (KHOU) and NPR. If you walk down Maple street, two blocks south of Bellaire High School, his name is carved in the sidewalk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.98.247 (talk) 08:58, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 04:44Z

Mission year[edit]

Mission year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable youth group. Speedy-tag deleted, but no outside refs produced despite request on talk page. Claims some 106 members. Delete. StoptheDatabaseState 23:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 04:37, 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 12:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Befouling[edit]

Befouling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dicdef + essay. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-18 23:09Z

  • Delete. I don't understand. Why do we have a bloated, unsourced essay on a word which was used like in the 1500s? -Amarkov blahedits 23:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN? The Train Defecator is real BTW [87], though probably not notable enough for an article. StoptheDatabaseState 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete doesn't appear notable. Just H 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse status quo, soft redirect to wikt:Befoul Guy (Help!) 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry about accidentally deleting the AfD tag, I was editing an old diff. I agree that this unsourced page should either be deleted, or redirected via {{wi}} to Wiktionary. --Elonka 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; look like an OR essay to me; even if verified/sourced, it's still just a dicdef. --MCB 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:12, 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 Redirect to Supertask#Some_interesting_supertasks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 04:42Z

Bank and mermaid[edit]

Bank and mermaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I nominate this article for deletion on the grounds of a lack of verifiability. I tried to look up some sources for it on the Internet, but the only sources I found are on Wikipedia, or on mirror sites of Wikipedia, with only one (which is a blog) that wasn't related to Wikipedia. I know that a person on the article's talk page said that the story came from a 1980 magazine, but this search leads me to suspect that this topic has very little, if any, significance in the field of paradoxes (so little notability).

Furthermore, the Balls and vase problem article appears to be a more well-known variant of this infinity paradox. It deals with the same topics: a specific number of numbered objects put in one place, then one taken out, over an infinite amount of time, and the question on how many of these objects would be left in that place after infinity. A Google search on the vase or urn problem turns up much more results and verifiable (aka professional) sources than the bank and mermaid problem does, so I believe that this article covers everything the bank and mermaid article says, in a more familiar context.

Breed Zona 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The three solutions, and their treatments (all in one, all in the other, countably infinite in both), don't even appear at the balls and vase article. I'd be happier seeing this article deleted if the information appeared in both places. Until then, I favor weak keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like this is one person's example, not used by others. As noted above, essentially zero Google presence outside of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As much as I'd like to see this incorporated into Ball and Vase or Ross-Littlewood Paradox, etc., there's really no way to legally slide it in without bringing this example up. The example itself is non-notable. --Alksub 09:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that Bank and mermaid and Monty Hell problem both have no sources other than newsgroup postings. From purely the standpoint of references, these are both on the same footing regarding verifiability. To my knowledge, at the present time all the content on Monty Hell problem for example, however clever and well thought out, was worked out by frequenters of Wikipedia and a newsgroup thread. --Alksub 09:52, 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, WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choujangles[edit]

Choujangles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod emoved without comment by IP. Three 13-year-olds invented a comic book. They claim they've released 26 issues since they started on October 26, yet google's never heard of it. No Sources, not Verifiable, not Notable. -- Fan-1967 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (WP:NFT). --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The article itself even admits it's non-notable. —ShadowHalo 23:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as likely WP:NFT, violates WP:V, totally non-notable. --Kinu t/c 23:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. -- Satori Son 05:36, 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. --210physicq (c) 01:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vortex[edit]

The vortex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy delete - ordinarily I would tag this for speedy delete as spam, but there is a twist to this case. Before this article was hijacked, it was a redirect to Oregon Vortex because of a paragraph added to the end about a Sam & Max Hit the Road game feature. What I'm suggesting is that the article isn't worth reverting to the original redirect, it is best to delete it and remove the off-topic material from the Oregon Vortex article. JonHarder talk 23:43, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 04:35Z

Further Confusion[edit]

Further Confusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Totally not notable. A conference/convention with 1900 participants? That happens every weekend in several major hotels in any major city. Also, unsourced except an external link to it's own advertising page. Anything worth salvaging from this article is probably already in the parent article for the category. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quite notable within the genre - the second largest of its kind, in fact, second only to Anthrocon. Compare BayCon, a "large" science fiction convention at "two thousand attendees", for example. I can't find any reliable statistics for Philcon - one of the oldest SF conventions, having been established in the 1930s (!) - but one source says it was somewhere around 800-1200 in 2003. I don't know what you're comparing against, but whatever it is, it's probably an excessive standard. (Sourcing is a separate issue which can be handled without AfD.) Zetawoof(ζ) 01:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and clean up. This con has had a bit of press here and there, so head count here isn't the qualifier. Zetawoof also raises good points there. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is not up to standards, but that's not what AFD is for. Significant, long-running genre conventions are typically considered to meet WP standards. This particular convention in San Jose, California at least got a mention in an article from the Orlando Weekly[88] (which does, for the curious, have print-media distribution [89]) There's probably more out there. Serpent's Choice 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If news coverage is what you're after, there was a front-page article in the San Jose Mercury News as well. It no longer appears to be in their archives archives; however, the title was "Furry Friends Flock Together" and the date of publication was in mid-January 2005, during the convention. A copy was posted to Usenet and can be viewed here. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone tell me why Google News and Factiva find nothing for "Further Confusion" +convention or Furcon? What search terms find the reliable sources for this? Guy (Help!) 13:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps because you were searching the current Google News, and not the archives? "Further Confusion" furry, "Further Confusion" convention GreenReaper 13:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's worth keeping in mind that the convention doesn't go looking for news coverage - unlike most professional conventions, media representatives are not generally welcome. (Attendees were highly incensed about the 2005 article, which they viewed as an intrusion.) The fact that it's been covered at all says something. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and verifiable, even though not currently verified. "Needs cleanup" is not a reason for deletion. Shimeru 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Improve. Notable as second largest furry convention in existence. Sci-fi conventions with less attendance have articles, so there's no reason to single this out just because it's a furry convention. At least three news articles exist that reference it. Recommend adding additional information and improving the article. —Xydexx 04:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the largest and longest-running conventions in furry fandom. Are you also proposing deleting all of the other conventions in the SF/F/Comics/Anime/Related genre, such as BayCon, which until last year was in the same hotel and was only a bit larger than FurCon? Kevin Standlee 06:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In looking over other convention entries, I see no reason this article should be deleted. It should be fleshed out and filled in with more complete information and since I am on the Board for the organization, I have put the wheels in motion to have that happen as well. David Cooksey
  • Keep Its certainly more relevant and notable then Qi_of_Xia, Shadowrun_timeline or Community_Consolidated_School_District_54, the question I always ask myself when writing an article is "Will someone want to read this in 10 years?" and although the Further Confusion Article is of dubious quality, its still something someone might wanna look up in 10 years.--Alohawolf 09:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While a generic con of 2,000 people has arguable notability this one is notable because of its nature. People and the meida are quite interested in the "furry lifestyle" and this is the second largest gathering of those folks. I'd say this is worth mention but I was thinking of merging this, along with the other furcon artilces, into the Furry convention article because they are only notable within the context of the furry lifestyle and most of these articles (this one included) don't have enough independant sourcing and content to really make quality articles. NeoFreak 18:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A quick [search] shows that Further Confusion has been written up the Sunday Telegraph of Australia, Fox News, Oakland Tribune, and San Jose Mercury News. It has been the subject of an NPR interview (sadly, no longer on the Web), and even a rant by Rush Limbaugh (available on request.) It's significant. Chip Unicorn 05:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chip, I actually have the NPR/PRI interview archived on my website: [click here]. I don't know the details of the date it aired, however. Found it. —Xydexx 06:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the cites, Xydexx. --Dennisthe2 00:08, 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 Speedy delete this blatant vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bury the Needle (film)[edit]

Bury the Needle (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article does not assert the notability of the film. It looks as though it has been written with the intention of promoting the film. Chovain 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "It caused uproar when it was released as the world was not ready for it. Many felt trapped by its awesomeness and others ran towards it like moths to the flame." Riiight. Let me guess: another group of kids with a digital camera and a Youtube account. Also consider Have a Balloon (film). Wavy G 03:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, noting edit conflict. Major COI for an obscure film that does nothing more than self-describe its "awesomness" as its assertion of notability. --Dennisthe2 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable; no coverage whatsoever by reliable, third-party sources. -- Satori Son 05:34, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_18&oldid=1081094708"