Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 27

< December 26	December 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 13:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aarcover[edit]

Nominate for deletion This article consists of a whole two sentences and has nothing on the significance of this font. Seems not to meet notability requirements.Sumoeagle179 23:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs to be expanded, but this is a reasonably well-known typeface, and appears in most type sample books. —Chowbok ☠ 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 24.169.255.232 01:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can tell, it is one of many type faces created out there. If it is widely used, then some form of documentation in the form of reliable sources would be in order. I was unable to google up any, but it's a tough slog through a huge list of links to font archives. Perhaps one of the above editors wo are more familiar with the typeface can assist. -- Whpq 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pending source to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Chowbok. Ford MF 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are basing their rationales on the fact that it "needs to be expanded", without showing that it is actually possible to expand this article from stub state. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, articles with no possibility for expansion and that will only ever be perpetual stubs may be deleted. Please cite sources to show that there is a possibility for expansion. Not a single source has been cited yet, either in the article or in this discussion. Uncle G 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Chowbok to provide some sources in response to Uncle G, please give him a few (3?) days to respond. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable typeface; WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". "Wikipedia is not a directory".--Jeff 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if expandable, per Mgm. And if it is expandable, please expand it, or add sources to prove notability. TheQuandry 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I held off on this one, but while this isn't an ideal article due to it being source-less and stubby. What I would like is an article on the Intecsas industry, and it seems like it has made a lot of fonts. That being said, it doesn't look like a company that is that well-known. I'm torn on the delete/keep thing. (Only 589 results for aarcover and under 1000 for Intecsas make me want to say delete, but I'm a keepist so it's hard for me to say it for some reason on this one). --Wizardman 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No particularly valid reasons given to delete, does not look like original research. Do not bring your disputes here, please. Proto::► 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antihomosexual propaganda[edit]

Delete. It is original research of user:Rombik. --Nikolay Kolpakov 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nikolay Kolpakov, can you please prove that it is an "original research"? Why do you call it "original research", if it explicitly cites so many sources? :) And more than that, I can easily prove that you regularly voted in Russian Wikipedia for deletion of just ANY LGBT-related article, calling any of it "original research", irrelevantly how many sources were there, about what was the article, etc. So I'm not surprised with your activity in deletion of this article there :) You also tried to remove LGBT flag from many articles, too. rombik 12:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rombik, what do you mean? Is Nikolay Kolpakov a homophobe? :-) --the wrong man 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean exactly what I said. Not more not less. rombik 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. References are just irrelevant. Term homophobic propaganda is only mentioned in first one. Some are about homosexual discrimination in nazist Germany, some about anti-discrimination (homosexual and common), but not about propaganda. — Vovanium 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They ARE relevant. And the discrimination in Nazi Germany didn't came alone and suddenly, it was the result and culmination of organised Nazi anti-homosexual propaganda. And the anti-discrimination laws are also relevant there as they explicitly prohibit hate speechs, defamations and alike, which constitute anti-gay propaganda. rombik 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are relevant only to discrimination. Moreover, article is just reword anoter articles, like History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so I have no idea, why sould exist another article. And... why article is not named Heterosexual propaganda? - Vovanium 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are relevant not only to discrimination, as the discrimination itself results and arises from prejudice and stereotypes, which are widely distributed and supported by this same propaganda. And there IS material about 1) propaganda; 2) its relation to institutionalised homophobia; 3) the connection between discrimination, homophobia and propaganda. And this article ISN'T "just reword of another articles", it's spectrum is MUCH broader than, say, just History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so there is no need and no reason to merge these articles. And as to "heterosexual propaganda" - are you joking? :) It is NOT "heterosexual propaganda". At the very minimum, it is heterosexist (heterosexual supremacist, heterosexual chauvinist) propaganda. At the maximally radical end of this spectrum, it is homophobic hate speech. The article is NOT about "propaganda of heterosexual love" or what do you mean under the label of so-called "heterosexual propaganda". Nevertheless, heterosexual propaganda probably exists (not more not less than "homosexual propaganda", which is an usual accusation towards LGBT activists), but it is a distinct phenomenon from heterosexist propaganda. rombik 08:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Propaganda of illness (which is any phobia) is nonsence. — User:Vovanium
1. The term homophobia is NOT related to phobias, and you should read first what it does mean. Homophobia is NOT an "illness", and this term means negative, intolerant attitude towards homosexuality. And anyway, your argument is void now, because the article is renamed to antihomosexual propaganda. And also, the term "homophobic propaganda" really exists (and antihomosexual propaganda, anti-gay propaganda too) - just look in Google. More than that, the term "homophobic propaganda" was used in scientific works, for example, in the work of historician Stefan Micheler. And also, there are people who at the same time consider that "homosexuality is an illness" and consider that "homosexual propaganda" exists :) So how is it compatible with your words? :) rombik 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case there's no noticeable difference with any other propaganda or specifics (just like we will not write articles, named red cars, blue cars etc.) Article consist mainly of common words, which aplly to any propaganda though, like this template: «* propaganda — organised social and political activity (public speech, public behavior, meetings and actions), based on negative and intolerant attitude towards *** ...». Some specific facts is not enough to article, so I now vote to join material with homosexuality, homophobia and propaganda. — Vovanium 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is a LOT of material, which just waits to come into the English article. Your own language is Russian, so you can easily check how much material is there in ru:Пропаганда гомофобии. So there's no reason to "join" any material with any of these aforementioned articles. Article does not "consist mainly of common words", it cites many sources and will cite more. And there are not just "some specific facts", there are a lot of facts, really. And there IS a difference and specifics. Religious propaganda or Communist propaganda, for example, CAN be different articles, while blue car and red car - not. rombik 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant cited material into propaganda. CyberAnth 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This idea sounds strange for me. If the article about a distinct form of propaganda should be merged with the article propaganda, does it mean that the article about homosexuality, a distinct form of human sexuality, should also be merged with an article about sexuality? :) rombik 12:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per CyberAnth. Quadzilla99 04:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer to CyberAnth. rombik 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely original research.-- danntm ^T _C 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say why do you think that it is an original research? rombik 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely original research. Vlad2000Plus 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say why do you think that it is an original research? And I should say that I'm not surprised with your vote. rombik 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vovanium. Edward Chernenko 07:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "argument" of Vovanium became void for now, as the article was renamed. And also, see my answer to Vovanium, see sources, which use the term "homophobic propaganda". And I should say that I'm not surprised with your vote. rombik 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is NOT "original research", and there will be translated much more material. The article has many sources. Many users who now try to delete it, are well known in Russian Wikipedia for their very strong anti-homosexual bias and their regular gay-bashing plus their regular voting for deletion of just ANY LGBT-related article. So their motivation is not encyclopaedical in nature. rombik 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this term is used SO frequently: [1], so there should be the article about it in Wiki. --AndyVolykhov 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rombik and AndyVolykhov. OckhamTheFox 09:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Homophobic wars from russian wikipedia should not be transferred to english part! --Varnav 10:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer to the nominator, Nikolay Kolpakov. rombik 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Homophobic wars from russian wikipedia. --Barnaul 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody check it for originality? I have glanced over it and now there is too many material there for merging with propaganda (if only the half of it wasn't invented by author). In this case I would advise to create in propaganda a subsection with a brief description and {{main|Antihomosexual propaganda}} --D.R 11:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced and verifiable, also please note huge amount of links mentioned by AndyVolykhov. Plainly bad-faith nomination. MaxSem 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some work but otherwise is a valid and timely topic. Haiduc 15:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is Homosexual propaganda. Wikipedia is not tribune. Belomoeff 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you argument why the article which is well-sourced, verifiable and based on facts, is called "homosexual propaganda" by you? :) And also, again, I'm not surprised with your vote. And you should remember that it is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and unsourced ideological statements like "it is homosexual proparanda" are NOT valid arguments there. You and your ideological friends from so-called "APE" regularly make such statements about just ANY LGBT-related article in Russian Wikipedia. rombik 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Bekker told me by ICQ about this article's advantage. I vote to keep this article. Belomoeff 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article is well writed. But it must be expand and correct, but not to delete. Homophobia is illness of our days and someone must write about it, to do people more loyal and tolerant --Gavriil 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has not edits in articles, he may be meatpuppet of User:Rombik [2].--Nikolay Kolpakov 19:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and there only arguments count, not votes. And as to convicted "meatpuppetry", I can very easily prove that most of these Russian-speaking users, who voted to delete this article, are actually YOUR meatpuppets, because YOU directly called Alexey Belomoeff and instructed him to vote to delete this article :) And he doesn't know English so well, and didn't have any better arguments than just a gold standard for ruwiki discussions - an accusation of "homosexual propaganda" :)) So... what? Wanna me to prove that? I can. And also, most of them are from so-called APE, to which you belong.. :) rombik 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as the reason for nomination seems, well, let's be charitable, seems suspect. Otto4711 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nom; however, the article itself raises some serious and legitimate POV concerns, so relist under appropriate designation. -Toptomcat 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any POV concern means that the article should be improved, made more neutral, more balanced (and it WILL be, I've just started to work on it), it does not mean that the article should be relisted for deletion. rombik 17:48, 28 * December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Vovanium. Serebr 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "argument" of Vovanium is already void, as the article is renamed. See also my answer to him. And also, I'm not surprised with your vote :) rombik 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is an original research (see Google Scholar). --the wrong man 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this user, as like as User:Evgen2 is also placed under half a year probation under ruling of our Arbitration Committee: ru:ВП:ГОМО due to his very strong anti-gay POV-pushing, regular gay-bashing, edit-warring, harassment of certain users (mostly me, User:Barnaul and ru:User:ID Burn), personal attacks and incivility. rombik 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-gay POV-pushing, gay-bashing, harassment? Are you kidding? You're liar, rombik. According to ru:ВП:ГОМО,
В месте с этим Арбитражный комитет не умаляет вины участника The Wrong Man, систематически допускавшего в сторону других участников хамские реплики, личные выпады, а также прибегавшего к оскорблениям и двусмысленным намёкам, иногда лежащим на грани угроз. И признаёт допущенные участником действия нарушающими принцип недопустимости оскорблений и агрессии и не способствующими созданию дружелюбной психологически благоприятной обстановки в сообществе. Несмотря на то, что подобное поведение в ряде случаев было спровоцировано действиями других ответчиков. Арбитражный комитет особо подчёркивает, что оскорбления и личные выпады, какие позволял себе участник The Wrong Man, в Википедии недопустимы.
So I were found guilty of Wikipedia:No personal attacks violations only. --the wrong man 11:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I can easily prove any word I previously said (about POV-pushing, about edit wars, about harassment on certain users). I also can translate the whole ru:ВП:ГОМО ruling :) rombik 11:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't, little liar. :-) --the wrong man 12:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About edit wars: anyone can just look into your block log - just recently you were blocked twice for edit warring. About POV-pushing: anyone who knows Russian can just dig into your edits in ru:Шепард, Мэтью Уэйн or ru:Сексуальные меньшинства в Третьем рейхе и холокост to check them for neutrality :) About harassment on certain users: anyone can ask Obersachse (member of previous ArbCom) or Vladimir Volokhonsky (current member of our ArbCom) to prove my words. rombik 12:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT an "original research", because Google Scholar is not the only relevant source for any article. There are published books which use exactly such term. Also, I'm not surprised with your vote :) rombik 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your private opinion. As you can see, there is the only one scientific article in which the term "homophobic propaganda" was used. I mean "Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex-Desiring Men under National Socialism" by Stefan Micheler. His article concerns the Nazi period in German history, so you can add this information to the History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. --the wrong man 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also can say that "this is your private opinion" that it is an "original research". And there is NOT "only one" scientific article in which such terms are used. And the topic of the article is MUCH broader than just History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so this article shouldn't be just merged to the mentioned article. EOD. rombik 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not an encyclopaedic reasons for moving off. --Azh7 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Тhis user has two edits in articles [3]--Nikolay Kolpakov 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and there only arguments count, not votes. rombik 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are no convincing arguments for removal. S.L. 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The convincing argument for deletion is that the article is all over the place, and more a mish-mash of anti-gay and hate-speech laws than about anything that could plausibly be termed "propaganda" (e.g. the promotional material of certain Christian denominations asserting that homosexuality is "curable" through prayer). Propaganda is by definition legal in its source country, so if there are laws against it, it's hate speech, not propaganda. Ford MF 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very narrow definition of propaganda, but according to Webster it is:

pro·pa·gan·da: 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions; 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

From this definition, it's absolutely obvious that propaganda includes hate speech as spreading negative stereotypes against LGBT people.--Antanta 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article has been put to delete in Russian wikipedia on 26 Nov 2006 and has been kept later on. The same persons from Ru-wiki voted here to delete it. Also, it should be renamed back to Homophobic propaganda, because the term is much more widely used than Antihomosexual propaganda (792 000 vs 31 500 search results).--Antanta 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Puppet-show? By the way, your search results are incorrect, mr. Soularis. A search in Google gives 2360 results for "homophobic propaganda" and 240 results for "anti-homosexual propaganda". --the wrong man 22:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What show? I don't have time for shows. Your search results still don't prove that the term antihomosexual propaganda is more widely used. You better think harder of other reasons besides this and "Original research".--Antanta 07:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User without contributions in articles [4]--Nikolay Kolpakov 19:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that it is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and there on AfD only arguments count, not votes. So it doesn't matter if he has contributions on en-wiki or not - he can even be an anonymous user, but with arguments. rombik 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. And dare I point out that the reasoning of many who wish to delete this article seems to smack strongly of "Antihomosexual propaganda"? CyntWorkStuff 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good use of sources. The article is interesting and adds to wikipedia. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, worthwhile article which should be given time to expand. Title disputes aren't the purview of AFD. Bearcat 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep En-wiki is not place for ru-wiki`s "homophobic war"Ergil 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reasonable article, seen worse than this on Wikipedia. PatGallacher 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do you want 100k long article as it is now in Russian that is really ~~Anti~~Pro-homosexual propaganda ? --Evgen2 09:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user is well known in Ru-Wiki for his very strong anti-homosexual bias, regular POV-pushing, gay-bashing and accusations of "homosexual propaganda", "homosexual lobby" etc, was regularly blocked by administrators for personal attacks, incivility and finally was placed under half a year probation under ruling of our Arbitration Committee: ru:ВП:ГОМО. rombik 10:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, rombik is well known in Ru-Wiki for his very strong homosexual bias, regular POV-pushing, etc. As well as Rombik is well known liar and cause and/or member of almost all conflicts in Ru-Wiki --Evgen2 10:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe. No comments. rombik 10:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: rombik-related ru-requests for arbitration: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] --Evgen2 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for those who don't know Russian: only one is ruling which issued "warning" against me (and this ruling was issued by very "objective" ArbCom, two of its members were openly calling us words like "fags"). Two are MY requests for arbitration for severe and systematic violations of en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry by some of your friends ;-) And one is my appeal to the new, more objective, ArbCom about this old "warning". And one "request for arbitration" against me is refused by ArbCom, because the user who wanted so, was a sockpuppet :)) rombik 08:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As well, your main purpose is to use wikipedia as tribune as clearly can be se in your words: "I have put interwiki and have started to translate this article to English to beat out last trump from hands of the certain misters." --Evgen2 15:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe, hahaha. Yes, yes. Wikipedia is not a tribune for unsourced antihomosexual bias. Sorry for that. And yes, I ascertain that I am regularly beating out last trumps from hands of certain misters who would like to delete just ANY LGBT-related article or to prevent them from becoming GAs (excluding offensive ones or POV-forks made by themselves) :) If you have better arguments, you have to tell me them. Now "there's no interwiki" became a void argument :) rombik 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete because it's POV fork and original research. Track83 13:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please prove your words? :) rombik 13:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a nice newly registered suspected meatpuppet of well-known Nikolay Kolpakov: [11] :) rombik 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a POV Fork and stems from POV Pushing. Even the very term "homophobic" and "anti-homosexual" is utterly POV. I think homosexuality is grossly deviant behavior that is bad for those who do the action and societies, and I do not want openly homosexual people around my kids. And I openly say all this to homosexuals. Is my view POV? Of course, just like this article. Yet now we have an article that says that when I tell people this it is "propaganda" and I am being "homophobic" or "anti-homosexual". Pure nonsense! I am being intelligent. The very premise of this article is POV and is not a truly encyclopedic article. It needs to be merged into articles without POV premises and titles, such as propoganda and/or Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. CyberAnth 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, the article named Homophobia needs to be deleted immediately. The title is also "utterly POV".--Antanta 06:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because right in Homophobia's Intro it clearly sates, "The word homophobic, when when used to describe someone prejudiced against homosexual people, can be a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always controversial." This asserts right from the get-go that the term is POV. CyberAnth 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can add the same sentence in Homophobic propaganda, however this needs to be proved by relevant sources - and I haven't seen any of those yet. So there's no real need to delete the article only because of absence of one statement.--Antanta 10:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no adequate reasons demonstrated for deletion (and I can't be the only one now seriously fed up with Eastern European feuds spilling onto this Wikipedia).HeartofaDog 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice[edit]

This article is mostly written by me in Russian wikipedia in the form of review which is not an original research according to the rules:

...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Now this article is in the process of translation and adaptation for English wiki with help of user Rombik and others. In particular, the need to translate most of the facts on homophobic hate speech from Russian politics is desputed.--Antanta 07:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hahnch e n 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PangYa[edit]

non-notable golf game. no reference to prove this game is notable. The Uber Ninja 14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)— The Uber Ninja (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep At the very least, PangYa is the basis for the Nintendo Wii game, Super Swing Golf. Super Swing Golf is notable, and PangYa would be considered notable because of that. Furthermore, I find it unlikely that there are absolutely no references available to cite PangYa's notability. Just because the editors have not cited them doesn't mean they don't exist. I do know that PangYa is quite popular, but the references needed might not be in English. 206.213.251.31 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"'Correct'" me if im wrong but does the fact that Super Swing Golf was created, which in fact is an off-line version of albatross12 season 2, not mean that PangYa is itself notable. After reading this i did a quick google search and found quite a bit of infromation pretaining to this game considering it is the only game of its kind. Though most of the sites, as mentioned above are not in English.

Keep Pangya is a popular online multiplayer game, voted one of the most prolific downloads by Cnet in 2006. It clearly hurts no-one by having an article on wikipedia, nor is it irrelevant. Is this deletion discussion actually relevant in the least? Honestly.. --Unidiode

Weak Keep The game is relatively notable, but it's not proven in the article. Fix it, and I say the article stays. -Ryanbomber 01:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do remember Wikipedia's policy is to provide a world view. Just because there's lack of english site, with plenty of Korean sites, it's still relevant. That, and the fact that Super Swing Golf is here, means it should stay. George Leung 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup It needs to have its notability established and a clean-up can easily do this. Kyaa the Catlord 13:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I agree this is notable, especially if Nintendo is making a console spinoff. — brighterorange (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game is hugely popular yet there are few resources of information about it on the internet. A deletion of this article would eliminate one of the most useful and unbiased explanations of the game.

Keep The hell? This game is has thousands of people playing it, why wouldn't it deserve a page? It has even been translated and licensed in other countries. This deletion crap is retarded, seriously.

Comment Everyone says it's notable but do u have any source to prove it? The Uber Ninja 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've saved a copy at Wikiasite:gameinfo:PangYa in case it is deleted from here. Angela . 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a game that is quite popular, and has been growing in popularity over time. Some internet Cafes in english speaking countries are even starting to hold PangYa events. Enigmar 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nom fails to assert why the game is not notable. Research either way by the nom would provide a conclusion. If the article is lacking, tag it as such or fix it. AfD is not cleanup.Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup: I am inclined to believe that TUN has never touched the game itself before when making this seemingly ridiculous (but otherwise quite reasonable) assertion. As thus far there had been no clear explanation to its popularity, that much is noted and is something most of us would concede to. However, that said, it does not mean that this article is entirely worthless and should thus be deleted. As CyberSkull says, cleanup and deletion are two entirely different things. However, the article itself still requires more cleanup than what has already been done, the main thing being that it sounds more like a source article than an encyclopaedic one. Pasonia 11:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is just full of funcraft and what not. there's not even a single reference. I'd say this is a advertisement more then a article. The Uber Ninja 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reality Trip. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 03:50Z

School's Out, Ghoul's Out[edit]

Nomination for deletion Kidstvcruft. This article is about a special "event" on a children's channel to promote the premiere of a cartoon film made for the children's channel. i.e. it's not about the film itself, but about the promotional event. Wikipedia is not the archives of TV Guide. Bwithh 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Make a brief mention of this on the Reality Trip page and redirect this article to it. —ShadowHalo 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Danny Phantom as the program is not notable on its own. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per ShadowHalo --Wildnox (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per nom. --andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 01:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge + Redirect per ShadowHalo; a one-time TV event needs to be a lot bigger before it is notable on its own. Mentioning it on the show's main article would be sufficient coverage. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per ShadowHalo. Certainly doesn't merit its own article. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per nom. TSO1D 04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per ShadowHalo. Jyothisingh 13:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as suggested.-- danntm ^T _C 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 08:20, 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 delete. --Core desat 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 the Ranting Gryphon[edit]

While the article is certainly notable inside the sci-fi and furry fandoms, I think therein lies the problem as well - he is notable only within that arena. Further, the text in the article is direct copy from the same article on WikiFur. Note, this has been deleted before and is accordingly eligible for a db-repost, but perhaps it's best kept in here. I must abstain, but I highly recommend a clean-up if it's to stay. Dennisthe2 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: previous AFD. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETING ADMIN, PLEASE NOTE - there may be additional material. Please keep this open a little longer, I think it may have a chance. See below. --Dennisthe2 01:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted, meaning this will run for at least another 5 days as of writing. See below. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

My apologies to the concerned gryphon, but as it stands the article is sorely lacking in reliable sources. While the WikiFur article established him pretty solidly as notable within the fandom, that doesn't translate into notability in the world at large - hence, it doesn't really work very well in Wikipedia. Delete again (without prejudice against a recreation) unless someone can do a full rewrite, citing sources to show why he's notable outside the furry fandom. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hey, thanks for tweaking the post. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. Yet another WikiGnome at your service. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Weak Delete. The test is WP:BIO, and the phrase is "Widely recognized entertainment personalities"; and precedent shows that "througout the fandom" isn't sufficiently "wide". Evidence is needed - let's hope someone finds it. Tevildo 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Not withstanding the current article status, which is somewhat promotional and would need a vicious copyediting regardless, this comes down largely to how we read the "widely recognized" clauses of WP:BIO (to wit: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" / "Widely recognized entertainment personalities...."). He has been a featured guest (or equivalent) at nearly every convention in the genre and listed as a participant at one (apparently -- I don't know enough about furry to be certain) general-purpose science fiction convention.[12] Those sources are clearly independent of him but not of his subculture. As for wider references, I give up; the amount of Google to search through far outweighs the effort I'm willing to invest in an article that I have a "hunch" might have a source out there. For the hopeful: "2" is of course a worthless search term, and wider media would cite him by his name anyway (Matthew Davis), which he shares with at least two unrelated actors, an unrelated rant-style comedian (so much for using "rant" or "ranting" to narrow), an unrelated semi-professional journalist, an unrelated research scientist, and an unrelated university professor. I'm not convinced that the references available are enough to encourage a keep vote, but I am worried that the (generally justified) desire to purge the largely unverifiable content ported from Wikifur is resulting in a tightening of WP:BIO. For better or worse, we may lose quite a few (non-furry) biographies if we require a citation from outside the field of influence. Serpent's Choice 09:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, he's more or less a fixture at major furry conventions, including Anthrocon and Further Confusion (to cite some larger, better-known ones), and a popular one at that, often filling large rooms with onlookers. However, I'm still not sure that this translates into notability, and I haven't cited any verifiable sources yet. A large part of the problem, in fact, is likely to be that most of the discussion is in uncitable forms - LJ entries, forum posts, and IMs. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was present at ConClave 31, which has indeed been a general SciFi convention, and during his appearance there he asked for those people who didn't know about furry fandom to stick their hands up. About three people at the back did so. Now, there's a difference between "know" and "be a member of", but my opinion is that a majority of those attending his show (I estimate about 75-100, the room was full) were in the fandom, or at least knew 2 from there. His presence was part of an attempt to attract the furry contingent (and goths) to a convention which was faltering in terms of numbers. It should be noted that it was successful in doing so, with a 1/4 to 1/3 rise in attendance and part of this could be attributed to 2's presence. I can confirm that whenever 2 appears at a furry convention to present a show, it is something that people mention on the schedule. He is, in my opinion, the most notable dedicated comedian in the fandom, although I think he'd be in stiff competition with Uncle Kage for the title of "most notable entertainer at conventions" (at least, he would be if they weren't good friends). He has made attempts to break out of this niche into more general comedy but I am not aware of any evidence that he has been successful so far. GreenReaper 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find myself unable to conclusively resolve whether the available material meets the notability criteria. To my mind, that suggests that the guideline may need to be revisited, and so I've outlined the issue at the WP:BIO talk page. Serpent's Choice 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the individual this article is written about. Perhaps I can clear up what it is that I do. I am a stand up comic who performs internationally within many specialized and main stream groups, not only the Sci Fi communities. I have performed main stream comedy clubs, universities, conventions, cruise ships and private parties since 1998. The main issue seems to be if my work is too confined within a specific sub-culture to be noted on Wikipedia. However, I am unsure of why this is an issue since there are literally hundreds of personalities noted here who work within one specific sub-culture. My work is certainly no less noted than any of the myriad of artists from the furry, sci fi or fantasy communities which are listed within Wikipedia. Of course, this does nothing to "prove" my notability. However, if you'll put the single word "ranting" into Google, you'll see my site is on the top of the list.

2 Gryphon 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- 2, you raise good points, and thanks for chiming in on this. I personally will do what I can on this - but frankly, your article needs a good cleaning up into something other than an exact copy of what's on Wikifur. =^_^= See the original statement I give in the AFD post. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked around on google. The one article I can find that might make notability standards is this article, but you only get a fleeting mention in here that briefly describes you. I hate to say it, 2, but as much as I like you, at this time Wikipedia isn't going to hold an article on you - and if it's not me, then it's going to be somebody else putting this article up here. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though I did not start this article (either time it was put up), I'm very happy to be recognized here on Wikipedia and I'd like to do what I can to help keep the article around. I've looked, but I cannot find a description of the notability standards you've mentioned. However, I can say that I've been a guest character in the webcomic "Jack", which has an entry here. I've performed multiple times for 11, been the Guest of Honor at 5, and am on staff at 2 of the conventions which have entries here. I've been interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine, which has an entry here. I've written fiction for publications that are listed here. I've produced 4 full length motion pictures and 2 CDs which are distributed by a company that is listed here. There is even a number of references to me in Wikipedia from other entries. I do admit to ignorance of these notability standards, but seeing the effort Wikipedia dedicates to quality, shouldn't it consider itself a notable source? There are many people listed on Wikipedia who have few online references at all, and they may be entries that will also eventually be noticed and deleted. But doesn't the fact that my entry has been discussed for deletion twice while others have gone ignored indicate that it IS notable? What exactly qualifies a person as "notable" on Wikipedia?

2 Gryphon 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Happen to have the article information for the Vanity Fair interviews? Recognized print medium sources are generally looked upon favorably. Serpent's Choice 06:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If we can get this, that alone will force me to withdraw the AfD.
    - Easiest way to answer the notability standard is to refer you to here. --Dennisthe2 06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
here's my though, the reasons given to delete this article are weak. some one must be bored, because they came up with lame excuses to delete this article. as for that "one specific sub-culture" thing, that the dumbest reason of all. is wikipedia that stuck up? thats not a good reason to delete an article. its about a real eprson, with a real website and who's done REAL stand up. If you take this article off you might as well take off mr. bungle and "hell yeah"(which hasn't even made an album yet). thats my thoughts on this. thank you. have a nice day.Dedman-88 22:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You failed to read the entire AFD statement I gave, above. Read it again and be enlightened. Also read up on WP:ILIKEIT in its entirety, and if you feel that Mr. Bungle should be removed, then put it up for deletion. As for Hell Yeah, looks like user:Zetawoof just got that one for crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, just nominated that. Thanks for the suggestion, Dedman. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another note, you might read up on WP:AFD to understand the deletion procedures, and click around to understand deletion criteria. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish delete with no prejudice against possible future recreation, per Zetawoof (near the top of the page). Samuel Conway is a pretty good model of the sort of thing that would hold up, but as it stands 2's article is not enough. Verifiability is a tough policy ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"), but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think it's right that there's some sort of bar to clear. Also, as pointed out by a couple of other editors above, the fact that a number of other people who don't meet the verifiability standards have articles on Wikipedia doesn't mean that they should have them; it just means nobody's got around to nominating them for deletion! The production of a couple of mainstream news articles discussing 2 more than very fleetingly would change things quite a bit and would probably lead me to vote keep. Loganberry (Talk) 03:58, 23 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, Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted partly due to Dennisthe2's request, partly due to the lack of editors arguing for a particular outcome (i.e. keep/delete) compared to the large amount of discussion. Note that an article can be deleted due to lack of reliable sources available and be recreated if/when they are found later. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of any notability outside of fan videos, self-produced DVDs and appearances at fan conventions. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that we can't build a verifiable encyclopaedia article out of these sources.) Demiurge 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently not verifiable. So delete, but possibility of recreation if more sources appear. --Wildnox (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete `'mikka 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. I have no prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Demiurge. Some of this can be merged to Anthrocon. Caknuck 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Demiurge. Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present state. No prejudice against recreation with sources, especially if something from Vanity Fair actually emerges. Serpent's Choice 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlike the Samuel Conway article, which is very well sourced, this one is original research on a non-notable person (no offense 2). Best left in wikifur and protected from recreation so we don't have to keep deleting it. NeoFreak 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to absence of secondary sources Guy (Help!) 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V -- RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, can somebody give me a good reason why I should not just speedy this right now under WP:CSD G4 (recreation of previously deleted material) and protect it against re-creation? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go {{db-repost}} on this, I'd say don't protect unless 1) it's reposted yet again as a verbatim or near-verbatim recreation, 2) the repost is once again an exact copy of the article on WikiFur, or 3) it's reposted without assertion of notability. In short, delete without prejudice if you must. The article's subject, however, has noted that there's something of a possible saving grace - so I'd say give it the AFD period before nuking it. --Dennisthe2 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Demiurge. Montco 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no independent sources which allows the article, in this condition, to satisfy WP:V and WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is reasonably well written but there is nothing in it which establishes notability. Quadzilla99 04:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Just because someone is well-known only in a sub-community doesn't make them non-notable. I'd conjecture fewer people know about Bremstrahlung radiation than know about Two, does that make it non-notable? I think he may well meet notability requirements based on the number of appearances at various conventions, being a guest of honor is certainly an establishment of notability especially within a subculture. Wintermut3 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) don't include the number of appearances at conventions or being a guest of honor. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are just that, guidelines. I think the real problem with this case is that the subject is probably notable, but doesn't fall under traditional notability criteria, to me that says there's a problem with the criteria, not the subject. It's unrealistic to expect someone in any fandom to be in news articles, ect. That does not mean they are not notable. In this case, I'm not sure if he is or isn't, but I think it's worth looking into. Wintermut3 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that a guideline carries less weight than a official policy. Guidelines can certainly be ignored if there is a good reason to do so. Still, in this case, I don't see any reason to ignore it. Anybody is notable if you look at them with a sufficiently narrow view. The trick is to have done something of sufficient significance that you are noted outside of your narrow area. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wintermut3. Anomo
Delete insufficient notability for an encyclopedia article. DrKiernan 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The delete comments are unconvincing, and this looks like newbie biting. He appears to pass the fourth criterion of WP:PORNBIO. Anyone who disagrees with this take it to WP:DRV. Majorly (Talk) 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Mason[edit]

Contested prod. No evidence of notability. D enni ^talk 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN pornstar. Has only been featured on websites save for one film. --Wildnox (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete `'mikka 01:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable porn actor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, does not comply to WP:CITE wtfunkymonkey 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't some things just stay out of the sum of all human knowledge, he's not notable and he's just some gay porn star who has been in one film. I doubt anyone would bother to look him up so it's just a waste of space T. Kewl the First 03:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:PORNBIO TSO1D 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. etc. etc. Spinach Dip 09:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jyothisingh 13:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Jyothisingh.--Yannismarou 15:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete definitely... who is this person? get him off wikipedia, wikipedia is only for extremely famous people and is not big enough to hold the little ones

Keep. Although passing WP:PORNBIO usually means the actor is notable, failing WP:PORNBIO does not necessarily mean they are non-notable. In particular, this one passes the criteria for WP:BIO in that he has multiple non-trivial articles written about him, as noted in his article (the articles listed are here: Tory Mason Interview and [13]). Although you yourself may not find the actor's contributions notable, be assured that it is not unlikely that someone will want to find out information about him, and Wikipedia is a valuable resource for that. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we are not subject to physical size limitations. If a subject passes WP:BIO there is no reason to exclude him, even if you don't particularly care about him. *sigh* these AfDs always seem to have a bandwagon effect at the start. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If for no other reason than to allow a reasonable amount of time to find additional information and sources.

The article was begun at 22:21 and, 6 minutes later, (only 3 minutes after the most recent edit at the time), User:Denni added the {{prod}} tag at 22:27.
The tag was removed at 22:32 and work continued on the article.
Less than half an hour later and one minute after the most recent edit to the article at the time (at 22:52), the speedy deletion tag was added by User:Makemi at 22:53. The next edit was made a minute later, at 22:54. In other words, the speedy tag was added to an article that was actively being edited.
The {{hangon}} tag was added at 23:02, and active edits continued.
The speedy tag was removed by User:Pilotguy at 00:10 and replaced with the {{notability}} tag.
The very next edit—a whole 18 minutes later, at 00:28—was User:Denni adding the {{afd}} tag.
Although I wrote on the article's talk page that I doubted the article would meet the notability guidelines, I'm reversing myself.
The article meets the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy
Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) and Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) (WP:PORN BIO) are both guidelines.

(Point of information: WP:PORN BIO was intended to help clarify notability guidelines for porn performers, not replace WP:BIO).

WP:BIO specifically states, in bold type:

"This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."

One of the items listed in the guidelines would also appear to be applicable:

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by

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

One of his movies, The Bottoming Desire, is already available as streaming media from NakedSword.com, one of the largest streaming media porn sites.
His Yahoo group, created in July 2006, has 2,057 members. There have been 260 new members in the past week alone.

By comparison, the alecpowersfans Yahoo Group, created in June 2002, has 6,183 members, very slightly over 3 times as many as Mason (3x2057=6,171. A difference of 12.).
The videography at tlavideo.com for Powers lists 47 original films and inclusion in 14 compilations.
So a performer with 7 films whose fan site has been active for less than 6 months has 1/3 the number of fans of a performer with 47+ films and a fan site that's been active for 4-1/2 years.

The fact that he is a model on Randy Blue is quite significant; it is one of the largest online gay amateur porn sites there is. Mason has done three video shoots in the two months he's been on the site; the most recent was on December 6.
WP:BIO also lists a criterion, under the Alternative tests section:

"Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub?"

I would think it highly likely that it will be given the speed with which this actor is moving in the industry.

He made 7 films in less than 10 months—almost unheard of in gay porn.

This was an attempt at an article by a first-time editor. Why in heaven's name would you nominate an article that was actively being edited? How could you judge whether or not there was information forthcoming that would establish his notability while the article was being edited?
Sadly, I notice that the newbie has made no further edits and, it would seem, has given up. Way to go.—Chidom ^talk 00:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not given up - its the holidays and the newbie is busy :) I appreciate all you have done, Chidom. It was my first page and I am still learning the ropes. Joosy 08:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I see no need to delete this article. PLEASE KEEP this article. The information contained warrants its merit to be SAVED. Thanks! Xxx1971 07:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC) — User:Xxx1971 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment about this editor's contributions was added by Oden (talk• contribs), 14:02, 31 December 2006—Chidom ^talk 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable in his field. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Chidom (talk · contribs) Has the right of this, and WP:BITE needs to be watched closer when nominating work in progress. Haste makes waste. Hell, I've had similar starts nominated before I could get back to expand them See for example Arsenal of Democracy that nearly met a similar fate out of the gate. But that editor at least discussed it first. There needs to be a qualifying time limit on any nomination of at least 24 hours after initial starts. Basic courtesy and respect for anothers time, imho. Delaying an nomination a day isn't going to hurt wikipedia! // FrankB 22:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and general consensus to delete. Femto 13:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Balsiger[edit]

del A decent man, but seems to fail notability criteria (even forgetting that it is unreferenced) `'mikka 01:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, he is a well known person in Oregon and think he should remain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 December 2006. — 71.111.81.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then you need very rapidly to come up with some reliable secondary sources that establish his notability, say in some Oregon newspapers or the like. CyberAnth 02:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely non-notable. May be speedyable per {{db-bio}}, as I'm not sure there's any claim of significance besides being a humanitarian. -- Kicking222 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or provide sources that prove his notability. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable failing WP:BIO, does not WP:CITE sources, and Speedy Delete by CSD:A7. Article has been tagged. wtfunkymonkey 01:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable --Kevin Murray 02:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to discern why he is notable enough but just could not. CyberAnth 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantial assertion of notability. Wouldn't object to a speedy deletion. ScottW 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced nn notable bio.--Dakota 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and a bit embarrasing for EOU. This article was written and submitted by Lesb246 (talk • contribs). Lesb246 was repeatedly asked not to spam Wikipedia. After Lesb246 repeatedly violated community norms and Wikipedia guidelines such that he/she was temporarily blocked by Wikipedia, an anonymous editor, 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs), a Verizon user in Oregon, then began editing this article. 71.111.81.43 also deleted an pro-deletion AfD comment. Sadly for Les Balsiger, when all this is over, the only Wikipedia reference left to him when searching Google for "Les Balsiger" in a few days will a be a link to this AfD -- an embarrassing record of this article and its editor, Lesb246. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO TSO1D 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and any reasonable understanding of what an encyclopedia would or should include. -- Siobhan Hansa 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Also consider action against anonymous editor 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs). --Charlene 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS indicating that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute vanity. Close to the most non-notable thing I've ever seen. Spinach Dip 09:57, 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. --Core desat 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V-Squared[edit]

A short lived team that didn't do much. This tag team cruft needs to end. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every team ever. Val Venis and Viscera articles can explain the team, a seperate article isn't needed. RobJ1981 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... maybe merge It'd be great if there was a List of minor WWE teams article that this could get merged into, because it sure as hell doesn't stand up on its own. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to each wrestler's own biography, under its own section perhaps. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and does not WP:CITE sources. Probably could be merged as per above, but I wouldn't be heart broken to see that not happen. wtfunkymonkey 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A list of minor teams isn't what Wikipedia needs at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of useful, notable and known things. A wrestling wiki should get a list of minor teams, but not here. RobJ1981 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a mention of the tag team in each wrestlers bio. --James Duggan 04:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as i know the career section on the two wrestlers' articles already mention the short lived tag team... we just should send it to a wrestling wiki.. i know there are several out their im sure they would like the info... surly we could get in contact with one and tell its admin to take these pages --- Paulley 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy 12:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it's that important then mention it in the two wrestler's article, doesn't need its own. --Wizardman 19:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sect of Homokaasu[edit]

Previous debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sect of Homokaasu

Lots of claims to notability, but no citations to support it. Google news has a single (trivial) hit, and Normal search has "omitted some entries very similar to the 6 already displayed." Searching on the claims in the article:

BBC - [14] nothing
ProSieben - rasterblaster again, trivial.
The Guardian - [15] nothing
The Independent - [16] nothing

I'm always happy to be proven wrong, to see citations that support these claims added into the article, however at this time I can not see evidence that this satisfies the website inclusion guidelines. - brenneman 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:WEB, does not WP:CITE sources. wtfunkymonkey 01:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find the Guardian's reference to it but it is extremely oblique. Rasterblaster is the subject, homokaasu is only mentioned as the website name. Malla nox 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Notability Tests -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 07:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jyothisingh 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stubify it's been covered in JPG magazine (they link to an interview with the creator in a pay issue) and on the google news result you dismissed. That's multiple reliable nontrivial sources right there. It's mostly about the Rasterbator, and the article needs to be trimmed down to a stub of verifiable information, but it's definitely notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the Guardian article you couldn't find: [17] Your exact-terms search turned up few results because the site is mostly known for what it hosts, not its own name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage in MAKE magazine: [18] (needs subscription to view). A google search for "homokaasu rasterbator" turns up over 200,000 hits, including numerous prominent sources like the above. definitely well-covered. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - These examples support the existence of a Rasterbator article rather than Sect of Homokaasu. Maybe rename and stubify might be more appropriate? Malla nox 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. Hello32020 22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Dakota 05:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DD Fine Dining[edit]

Contested prod. No evidence of notability beyond several outlets. D enni ^talk 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:WWIN) - Savant45 01:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, I'm surprise the prod was contested. Malla nox 02:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and an ad. Spinach Dip 09:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam/crystal ball. SkierRMH 11:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs a new member to wikipedia i now understand what is required in an article etc. I have made several changes to the article and have several more to make. So please do not delete the article just yet, and please check the changes before deleting the article.

Changes made so far: Added list of celebrities to have eaten in any of the DD Fine dining

Regards (Johnbarnes 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No reliable sources. Does not demonstrate notability of subject. Reads like an advertisement. Delete. --Slowking Man 03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 03:54Z

The Chord of Humanity[edit]

Delete There are 93 Google hits for "Chord of Humanity"; none of the sites on the first two pages are related to the subject of this article. None of the information is sourced and the article doesn't state who the road is being "proposed" by. This all leads me to suspect that this project isn't notable and exists only on Wikipedia, although I wouldn't mind being wrong. P4k 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - Savant45 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Also delete the associated redirect Global Road. Caknuck 02:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V (where's the official site?). Certainly a nice fantasy, but the Bering Strait Bridge should be nice indicator as to why this will never leave the realms of fantasy. --Dennisthe2 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V; seems like an unsubstantiated fantasy. TSO1D 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find any notability through web searches -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced speculation. MER-C 07:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal ball, non-notable, unverifiable. Spinach Dip 10:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this is planned and wouldn't work anyway: "fast trans-continential transit of road transport" - from South Africa via Europe, Asia, N and S America to Patagonia. Come on!!! Emeraude 12:45, 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 Speedy Delete per A7. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry midget[edit]

Nomination for deletion Operator of a non-notable website -- notability possibly asserted with "runs an increasingly popular website"; orphaned article; cites no sources; unsourced Non-NPOV quotes that are possibly libelous, if they aren't written by the subject himself; all ghits seem to be from his blogs or unrelated; the troll/spam post that appears when you google for the title seems more notable - Savant45 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all. Possibly an autobiography. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. I call autobiographical. --Dennisthe2 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable web site. =Axlq 03:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Dennisthe2. Danny Lilithborne 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete That's website is not exactly notable... or bearable for that matter, I call autobiographical as well. T. Kewl the First 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. TSO1D 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. "Increasingly popular" doesn't count. MER-C 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability tests -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I dunno, I'm going to go with "fanboy biography" over "autobiography" here. I think I vaguely remember hearing this name in some context from some 15 year old at some point. Regardless, non-notable. --Action Jackson IV 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7. Bio has no assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:38, 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 truly WP:NEO, WP:V, possible WP:NOR. Dakota 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ass to pussy[edit]

This page violates WP:NEO, WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Moreover, it has been tagged as having not cited its sources for one year and is still not sourced. CyberAnth 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there also seems to be an Ass to mouth article. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteThere is no reference and quesitonable purpose. Hoax? Perhaps there could be a mention of techniques at a site on pornographic performance techniques, or transfer to such a site. I think I'll go wash up now. ~~(the preceding unsigned comment was added by at 21:59, 26 December 2006 by User:Bwithh~~.the preceding unsigned comment was added by at 21:59, 26 December 2006 by User:Kevin Murray

- Comment The above comment was NOT added by me. It was added by User:Kevin Murray [19]. I'm sure this was just a mixup. I have no opinion on this afd discussion at this time. Bwithh 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot find evidence to support this name for an admittedly common feature of porn. Malla nox 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty obviously a take off on ass to mouth, but while that one is not a neologism, this one is. —bbatsell ¿? 03:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Ass to mouth. Or rename to "double dipping (porn)" or something. The article describes a fairly common practice in porn, so it deserves mention somewhere but perhaps not in its own article. =Axlq 03:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move That's not what I call an encylopedia title, call it.... Anal Vaginal Contact or something. T. Kewl the First 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, RENAME to Anal-vaginal contact to match the similarly-themed Anal-oral contact. Otto4711 04:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above deletes but also seems to fail Notability Test because it also isn't just a porn 'trick' - doesn't everybody do this - on purpose or accidently? -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term never exited before this article was made. Spinach Dip 10:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to anal sex per the reasons in the Ass to Mouth AfD. NeoFreak 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with ass to mouth or anal sex. The term is not so notable (at least not as much as "ass to mouth").--Yannismarou 15:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I think. I say start a new article, double dipping and merge this and the Ass to Mouth articles and redirect them there. These terms seem to be common in the porn community. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as garbage neologism. Ravenswing 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Mhking 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete because it lacks sources to pass WP:NEO, and I'm sorry I read that page.-- danntm ^T _C 04:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that a special compilation page might be a better place for all the stubs related to possibly nonexistant sexual acts. But in any event, this is more of an urbandictionary definition than an encyclopedic article. As such I think it might even be speediable for giving no assertion of context whatsoever: it's simply a definition and a brief discussion of health risks. If there's a discussion of importance, or of context or something else it might be encyclopedic, but as it is, it's not. Wintermut3 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Deckill e r 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hello32020 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Almost totally unsourced, and it failed to assert notability. As this is probably controversial, and you don't agree with this result, please take it to WP:DRV. Majorly (Talk) 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ass to mouth[edit]

This page violates WP:NEO, WP:N, and largely WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Just because a porn film or so was named "Ass to Mouth" does not make it notable enough for an article. Moreover, it has only one source to a dialog in one porn film where "Ass to mouth" is mentioned. CyberAnth 02:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, google hits are very high. This term is in common usage, it does not violate WP:NEO, WP:N or WP:NOR. A cite tag would be sifficient to cover WP:V. Mallanox 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it would not. Actual citations would. But you haven't presented any. Counting Google hits is not research. Nor does it demonstrate the existence of sources. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's nice to be broadminded. But there is a point where our brains fall out. This article is well beyond that boundary. Maybe should be considered for WikiPorn. :( Student7 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mallanox. To Student7, Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on most sexual fetishes; this is pretty mild in comparison to some of them, and it _is_ an established term in the industry. Tevildo 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not, however, documented. Wikipedia is not for documenting the undocumented. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mallanox Savant45 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mallanox. It's definitely not a neologism. (Also, Clerks II is not a porn film.) —bbatsell ¿? 03:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-established term for a common practice in porn films, although I would prefer seeing one big article with these "porn film terms" combined, instead of a bunch of smaller ones. =Axlq 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant we make this a redirect to Anal Oral Contact or something? I know wikipedia isn't censored but.... if your making articles with titles like that, why not just officially change the names of "naughty bits" to their vulgar counterparts? It's not exactly the sort of term you would find such a thing under in sexuality or medical books now is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TehKewl1 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Medical books, no, but it is the term that's used in the porn industry, and we should reference it under its most common name. A2M and ATM aren't options, for obvious reasons - and we'd still need a redirect from the unabbreviated name. Tevildo 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't deny that I find the topic pretty sick, but it seem to satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. TSO1D 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anal-oral contact. Otto4711 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that this practice does not involve anal-oral contact, as anyone who reads the article will discover. It's generally a good idea to read the article before offering an opinion on the AfD. Tevildo 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a good idea not to be condescending. Otto4711 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable -- Jmax- 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cite or Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NN. I'm completely willing to accept that this may be a commonly used industry term, but where is the verifiable citation of that? In it's current form the only reference is to the use of the term in Clerks II, which would make it a neologism by definition (and not a common one). This article needs to CITE AND VERIFY notability, not simply have a collection of editors here make assertions that "it really IS a common term, really!". I'm aware there are a number of terms in every industry that are commonly used colloquially but hard to prove, but it strikes that if there is any industry where one should be able to verify via web-based sources, it would be the adult industry. -Markeer 13:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to anal sex. The term is for the most part a neologism of a sexual "move" seldom seen outside of the porno industry. It's usage in the movie Clerks II gives it some more notability but it fails to solve reliable sources and verifiabilty issues. A blurb in the anal sex article would do just fine. Same with the "ass to pussy" article because as is stands now both of these articles fail policy criteria for inclusion. NeoFreak 13:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in the pornographic community.--Yannismarou 15:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lots of non-notable things are known to some community or other. Multiple reliable mainstream independent sources are required to attest to the notability of a term. Edison 16:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to remind everyone that neologisms are defined by how long the term has been around, and this term has been around for quite a bit longer than Clerks 2. This, and the above Ass to pussy are colloquialisms, in other words, they are used informally in conversation - that doesn't automatically make them a neologism any more than blowjob is. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course the term has been around longer than Clerks II. The problem is finding reliable sources to provide verifiability so you can then establish notability which this article does not do. NeoFreak 20:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I think. I say start a new article, double dipping and merge this and the Ass to pussy articles and redirect them there. These terms seem to be common in the porn community. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Mhking 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ATM is the newest rage in adult film. So I've heard. DelPlaya 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DelPlaya's vote is the core problem with this debate at the moment, specifically for "so I've heard". I don't think anyone here is doubting that this is an industry term. The delete votes that I see (my own included) are that the article does not verify this according to wikipedia's policies. "Everybody knows", "It's well known", "I hear it a lot", etc are all weasel arguments used to avoid citation. If no one is able to find a verifiable source for the phrase on the web for a term used in an industry with the largest web presence, that means the term is of questionable encyclopedic quality. -Markeer 12:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I strongly support Markeer's above comments. He or she is right on. CyberAnth 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - no reason for this to be separate from an anal or oral sex article. Not enough references to justify separate article. Hatch68 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks again, porn, for introducing completely ridiculous expressions into the common lexicon! Ford MF 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token, Markeer, a bit of a problem arises in applying the same standards of verifiability to sexual colloquialisms (particularly of fringe sexual practices some may find unpleasant) as we do to, say, astronomical taxonomy. Sometimes "uh, doesn't everybody know what ass to mouth is" is what you have to work with, and you go from there. That's what that particular behavior is called (I can't think of a synonymous expression), and I really don't see why we need a citation from the New England Journal of Medicine to prove that. Handjob, rimjob, these are really not things you're going to have an easy time finding citations for, despite sexual behaviors occupying a central part in every culture that continues to produce babies (and orgasms). "Blowjob" is about 150 years old, and it's only very recently that etymologists have started to trace its origins. I don't think it would be a terrible idea to move this to a more encyclopedic-sounding title (although I can't begin to imagine what that would be Immediately-Post-Anal-Sex Oral Sex?), with a redirect from ass to mouth, a la, titty fuck redirecting to mammary intercourse. Maybe that would make everyone happy. Ford MF 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would make everyone happy are source citations. Your lengthy apology for the fact that this concept is unverifiable doesn't excuse it from the application of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If no-one has seen fit to document something, that is not Wikipedia's problem.
  By the way, discussion of etymology is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. The dictionary is over there. Wikipedia's articles are about people, places, concepts, events, and things. Unless you can show, by citing sources, that this is a documented concept, it may not have an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above editors have cited any sources. The article itself cites no sources. The only thing that it does cite is the quotations page for an IMDB entry on a film. That film is a work of fiction. There is no reason to believe that what the characters say is factual. Moreover, the quotations given don't even explain what the concept actually is in the first place.
Searching for sources on the subject of ass-to-mouth fucking, I find nothing at all.
The only web site that I found that purports to even answer the question "What is ass-to-mouth fucking?" comprises nothing but hyperlinks, and doesn't even answer the question. The only book that mentions the concept of an ass-to-mouth fetish is Kick, Russ (2005). Everything You Know About Sex Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to the Extremes of Human Sexuality. The Disinformation Company. ISBN 1932857176.. It mentions it once, on page 151, in one sentence giving it as one of a list of dangerous practices. It doesn't even say what it actually is.
The only journal article turned up by Google Scholar is Jack Sargeant (November 2006). "Filth and Sexual Excess: Some Brief Reflections on Popular Scatology". M/C Journal. 9 (5).. However, checking the references cited by that article, it turns out that the journal article is not only using the aforementioned book that doesn't document the concept but also is using this Wikipedia article as its source in the first place.
This entire article is unverifiable and is primary documentation of something that hasn't actually been documented anywhere outside of Wikipedia, a violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. I suggest that editors wanting this concept to be documented go and get the concept properly documented in books and articles. Then it becomes eligible for a Wikipedia article. Delete. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - Further to Uncle G's efforts to verify this article, I searched for the phrase in my major University's many databases of materials. I tried EBSCO databases, LexisNexis, WorldCat, and several major databases from the fields of medicine and psychology. The only thing perhaps relevant I came up with was a reference impertinent to the article, a 1959 novel called The Ass's Mouth. ;-) CyberAnth 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, I am 100% unsurprised that medical and psychological researched turned up nothing. However, cast your eyes over the net and you will see thousands (Google says millions, but let's be realistic) of uses of the term. With this much weight of evidence, to argue WP:V is arguing semantics. The term is not unverifiable but by dint of what it is "respectable" sources won't mention it. Remember, Wikipedia is unusual in that it is uncensored. Mallanox 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Counting Google hits is not research, and whether a phrase is in widespread use is only relevant to a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. What is relevant to an encyclopaedia is the existence of sources, and you still haven't cited any to show that any actually exist. Citing sources is your only counter to the charge that the article is unverifiable and original research. Continue to fail to do so, and you won't save the article, no matter how much you put forward irrelevant arguments about censorship. Uncle G 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable term that's managed to become mainstream. Kingfox 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it, by citing sources. Show that this concept has been documented by "the mainstream". There is no evidence that it has been documented anywhere at all. Uncle G 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is one main reason why it simply does not meet muster of WP:NEO. CyberAnth 07:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to quote WP:AN page on why we should avoid neologisms- "[...]articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." Blueaster 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for those saying "Keep", I think you need to carefully review WP:NEO. This article just does not meet muster. CyberAnth 07:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in my opinion, and remember these are opinions that we have even though some present them as fact, this article is valid. This practice goes on and if Wikipedia is to have any credibility it must be complete, if we are to have a category on sexual practices it should give the prevalent ones. This is an example of where WP:IAR (though I shudder to use it) is appropriate. There is a huge swathe of uses of Ass to mouth, ATM, A2M etc on the internet. There are interviews that include the term, it's not just in the "script" of a porn shoot, it is used verbally to communicate an idea. This is something real people do in their everyday lives, like it or not. Adherence to rules is ok but recognising when the rules don't serve the purpose for which they were written is essential. Malla nox 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you do realize that "Ignore All Rules" is a controversial policy, right? and WP is not supposed to be about every single thing under the sun... If Wikipedia is to have any credibility, it should only have reliable, encyclopedic content that is not based on personal observation or research. The fact that this article violates so many policies and guidelines must raise at least one red flag in your head. And the phrase that this article is about just seems to be so unnotable -both from WP's standards and any layman's subjective viewpoint- even if it is often and only used in the porn industry. I mean, it clearly and without any wordplay or use of unconventional phrasing describes the act. It is unlikely to qualify for a copyright. It does not seem to be any special phrase whose history can be reliably traced. I mean, if this article is to exist, then we might as well create an article for "Guy On Guy" or something like that.

Anyways, I say Delete or Merge (But I see no future for this content, even if it were merged) Blueaster 19:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To satisfy the reference Nazis, I added references proving that this term has been in use and clearly defined for well over a decade. That doesn't seem like a Neologism to me. (posted on 1 January 2007 by User:86.16.115.162

I Removed the references placed into the article by User:86.16.115.162 because the google.groups.com "references" here and here that he/she placed are not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. What the sources do prove, however, is that "Ass to mouth" is, in fact, a neologism that violates WP:NEO...meaning the article should not exist. WP:NEO states that all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Per the section mentioned, "Reliable sources for neologism", To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. **Folks, this one is a no-brainer**. If "books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term" cannot be sourced into the article, this must per WP:NEO policy be deleted. CyberAnth 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added a couple of references. One to the number of websearches for the term "ass to mouth" to demonstrate the penetration (pardon the pun) of the term into the English language. Also an article which references the health risks of the act. Malla nox 01:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge with other similar porn terms into a single article. --Strait 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - maybe you just do not understand, Malla. For a source to be considered reliable in an article about a neologism, per WP:NEO, which would justify an article about a neologism, the following must be followed: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers **about** the term — not books and papers that **use** the term. The source you added to Ass to mouth is merely an article that uses the term by noting "there is currently a trendy fetish for ass-to-mouth contact." Per WP:NEO, "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use", even though Google hits "show many examples of the term in use" - that is just not enough to justify an article about a neologism, yet your vote for "Keep" was based upon "google hits are very high. This term is in common usage." My friend, the base of your vote is irrelevant to this matter. It seems most votes are being cast here upon mere editor preference. I cannot understand why people seem to have so much difficulty simply reading and following the clearly stated policies at WP:NEO, although apparently so not always so, as even the NfV for Handjob is seeming to right now indicate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Handjob. CyberAnth 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I call shenanigans. A colloquial sexual term is never going to be verifiable to the standard of a scientific article, but that doesn't make it unworthy of inclusion. This article already survived one VfD. I believe Cyberanth is cunningly pushing a personal agenda by using overly strict interpretation of the rules with no regard to context. Note that he/she has recently nominated several long-standing sexual-practise type articles on similar grounds. Note also that his/her major contributions have been to articles about Christian views on contraception. You do the math. (The preceding unsigned comment was added on 23:30, 1 January 2007 by User:86.16.115.162

please dont use personal attacks, and assume good faith in interacting with other editors on WP Blueaster 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's difficult to assume good faith when someone is gunning for the article so strongly that that they revert edits that were made in an effort to improve it.

- I call follow the policies - The "math" is that that your post is a Personal Attack per WP:NPA. I have also recently written an article on Bonny Hicks, a Singaporean model who wrote controversial books on her sexuality. How does that fit into your stereotype of me? Also, the context is highly regarded in my mind. This is an encyclopedia of verifiable information on notable subjects, not a place for people to create articles about neologisms that have failed that. There are, in fact, articles that can satisfy WP:NEO, but this is not one of them. My interpretation of WP:NEO is not overly strict. As I will show below, each vote for "keep" here has apparently not bothered to try to follow it at all. CyberAnth 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's evaluate the basis of the "Keep" votes, besides Mallanox's which I already evaluated above.

Keep - per Mallanox. To Student7, Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on most sexual fetishes; this is pretty mild in comparison to some of them, and it _is_ an established term in the industry. Tevildo 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Censorship is not the issue. Satisfying WP:NEO is the core matter. "Mild" or "extreme" is irrelevant. "An established term in the [porn] industry is what defines it as a neologism per WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (emphasis added). For an article to be justified, more than that is needed. "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use" "to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

Keep. Notable in the pornographic community.--Yannismarou 15:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- See comment above.

Keep - ATM is the newest rage in adult film. So I've heard. DelPlaya 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also see comment above.

Keep - Notable term that's managed to become mainstream. Kingfox 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Which "mainstream"? Kingfox must mean "the porn industry". I live in the "mainstream" and I first heard of it on Wikipedia. Even so, "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use" "to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

Keep - Thanks again, porn, for introducing completely ridiculous expressions into the common lexicon! Ford MF 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- See comment above.

Keep - notable -- Jmax- 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Per which "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term"? That is what would make it "notable" per WP:NEO.

Keep - I can't deny that I find the topic pretty sick, but it seem to satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. TSO1D 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Criteria for inclusion of an article about a neologism is "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use" "to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." This article fails that; thus, it fails inclusion criteria.

CyberAnth 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If wanted to make a personal attack, I could have done much better than that. What I did was point out the pattern of your behavior and evidence of the the motivations that may be behind it, verifiable for all to see.

Comment as Uncle G pointed out on a similar AfD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Handjob , the article is not about a neologism therefore WP:NEO is not an issue. The article is about a perfectly notable, verifiable activity. I refer back to my initial statement on the subject. Malla nox 04:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not neccecarilly. If this article were to be about the activity, and nothing more, a more appropriate title would be "Oral to Anal Intercourse" or maybe "Oral/Anal Sexual Intercourse". The phrase that this article uses is a colloqialism, and it tries to document the term's usage, and so it clearly is about the term, not the activity. And therefore, it is affected by the No Neologisms policy. Blueaster 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why don't we rename Semen to Cum? Or Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Or Cunnilingus to Going down on? Or Fellatio to Head job? At best, any verifiable material in Ass to mouth needs to be merged into Human sexual behavior and described as Anal to oral contact. As is, this article is simply trying to document a currently trendy fetish in a small number of porn films, nothing more. That by definition is not notable because there is no evidence that "it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." CyberAnth 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read the article you're trying so hard to kill? As has already been pointed out, Ass to Mouth is a completely different thing and does not involve anal-oral contact at all. There is no formal or better-known name for the practise. As for the "small number" of porn films, may I ask how you define small? The porn industry puts out DVDs at a phenomenal rate. How many thousands of titles do you need?

"...if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." That does not include if a Wikipedian has watched scads of porn films with covers containing the term "Ass to Mouth" and can cite them as containing the act. CyberAnth 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on latest ref added to article - Ass to mouth is admittedly about a colloquial term used in the porn industry to describe Anal-oral contact. The newly cited source is simply another example of a paper that uses the term, but is not about the term. The purpose of the cited source is, in the author's own words, "to challenge us -- in harsh language -- on men’s use of pornography". And it is therein that he uses "Ass to mouth". CyberAnth 08:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the only material I could from the article and placed it into Anal-oral contact#Anal-oral contact in popular culture. What is left is well-cited within that context. CyberAnth 08:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two most recently added references do more than just use the term, they describe it's meaning and practise. Why do you persist in going on about Anal-oral contact when you should know by now that Ass to mouth can be performed without anyone's mouth being near anyone else's ass? You appear to be demanding nothing short of multiple peer-reviewed academic research papers on the subject, which is totally unreasonable in this context, and just adds to the impression that you are attempting to effectively censor the article by setting unattainable standards. As for your your edit to Anal-oral contact, did you even read it first? The second paragraph of that article says: "It is a distinct practice from anal sex followed by fellatio, which is often referred to as ass to mouth."

I have to agree, multiple source have been provided that the practice exists. It is real beyond doubt. As already stated, the source doesn't have to be about the origins of the term. If I added a source to England it should prove there is a country called England on the island of Great Britain not why it's called England and where the term comes from. The crux of argument, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don't know what to call it. It seems to have no proper name. In this instance I suggest we use a term that brings back a massive number of Google hits and move on to another subject who's verifiability and notability are in doubt. Malla nox 13:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pouring on our heads[edit]

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

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

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

Deletion nomination Prod contested by anon IP. Hoax. Claim that this band had a no.1 album and millions in CD sales appears to be false - No hits in the Billboard.com database for their "big break" album[20]. Actually, they don't appear to be in the database at all[21]. Only ~40 googlehits[22]. Band website is amateur and hosted on free webhost. Fails WP:MUSIC Bwithh 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since my nomination, a single purpose account has adjusted the article's claims to be more believable - now it is no longer claimed that the band had No.1 hits in the US and Canada which went went multiplatinum, selling 6 million CDs worldwide. Now it is merely claimed that the band debuted in the US and Canada charts and went only platinum, selling just 2 million CDs worldwide. Nice catch, guys Bwithh 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More backpedalling Bwithh 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious hoax. Only three ghits for "Assumption Academy Sucks", one of which is WP. Caknuck 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Savant45 02:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly not notable yet, guys, but best wishes. "Yohan Records", said to be a "major label", does not even have website. CyberAnth 02:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the following 2 comments from article talk page and registering them as keep Bwithh 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep i think that this is true do to the fact that this is on there website and myspace, and myspace friends reconize that there famous and talk how they are famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfhsdfyhtraq (talk • contribs) — Gfhsdfyhtraq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep this is band is great and many poeple like it and is probably going to be recreated over and over again so i think you guys should just keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhgljsdnofh (talk • contribs) — Fhgljsdnofh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Above 2 comments moved from article talk page by Bwithh 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: The statement alone that it will be repeatedly recreated is enough to cause the article to be salted, and even if you do recreate it repeatedly upon deletion, it will be subject to speedy deletion as a repost. --Dennisthe2 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may be the best band since the Beetles in your view but MySpace is not a source that can used in Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability. You need to come up with some press reports. CyberAnth 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recommend salting this article if it is deleted. Bwithh 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for pete's sake There's another keep comment from a single purpose account on this afd page's talk page - apparently made after I moved the keep comments from the article talk page and left a big link to this afd discussion. If people can't follow clear instructions twice in a row... take a look at the this afd's talk page if necessary, I'm not going to do more moving. Bwithh 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Myspace notability and talking as if peopel are famous and otherwise recognizing them isn't really all that reliable. --Dennisthe2 02:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Myspace notability" is an oxymoron. MER-C 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. =) --Dennisthe2 04:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very obvious delete per everyone who already expressed their deletion rationales above. -- Kicking222 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in my opinion should be speedied as per WP:SNOW.Malla nox 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete before this stupid myspacery gets any worse. MER-C 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-band, and block Fhgljsdnofh (talk · contribs) for pretty much announcing his intent to troll Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I don't know why it wasn't tagged that way in the first place, instead of going to AfD. =Axlq 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because originally the article claimed it was a multi-platinum selling band with no.1 hits in North America and 9million CDs sold worldwide. Even though these claims are false, likely hoax content is not covered by the criteria for speedy deletion. Having even a dubious claim to encyclopedic notability is sufficient to fail speedy deletion tagging criteria. I originally prodded this article and it was contested. So here we are at AfD. Bwithh 03:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the case of outright false claims, the {{db-nonsense}} tag would have sufficed rather than going to AfD. Ah, well, too late now. =Axlq 06:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, that's not right. CSD G1 specifically excludes hoax claims from db-nonsense tagging:"This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." Also see WP:NONSENSE and WP:HOAX. Bwithh 06:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a candidate for speedy but it sure is for deletion. TSO1D 04:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably okay as a db-band speedy now, as the article editors have withdrawn their no.1 hit/worldwide success claims Bwithh 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability assertion is obviously false. Recommend editor who states it will be "recreated over and over" have a read through WP:POINT. Seraphimblade 04:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, and also salt "It's Pouring on our Heads", "It's Pouring On Our Heads", etc. Also permanently block user who clearly has not read WP:POINT. --Charlene 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice try but NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt since commenters-for-keeping above threaten that it is likely that the article will be created "over and over again." Tarinth 05:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious WP:BALLS, utterly violates WP:V. Salting sounds reasonable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:55, 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 keep. Kimchi.sg 04:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Hicks[edit]

AfD nominated by Fighting for Justice with reason: "the bonny hicks article appears to have no notablity whatsoever. I say it should be deleted." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 03:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I did a Google search for her, and a few reputable articles turned up, but nothing really significant. This is a tricky one. I say that if someone can expand the article and provide references that satisfy WP:BIO, then I guess Keep, but if not, I say go ahead and delete it. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and does not assert notability, which is speediable. Unless the article can be expanded, as above, I would go for a delete. wtfunkymonkey 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She absolutely is notable in Singapore and a CNN article mentions her prominently in an article about the jet that crashed, killing her[23]. 45,000 books sold, as the article mentions, is a good number in Singapore. She has also has had numerous community centers and social organizations named after her in Singapore. The article needs cleanup and to be de-stubbed to better establish her notability, that's all. CyberAnth 03:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete in my view does not meet WP:BIO -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree to Keep as per request from CyberAnth (posted on my talk page) and now that adjustments made. -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now ... authors that are more than self-published are inherently notable. BigDT 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CyberAnth and [24]. Kimchi.sg 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without question - I just spent a few hours expanding the article. She is even more notable than I had initially thought. Check out the article now. CyberAnth 08:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly is independently notable even she didn't meet the section of WP:BIO about enduring contributions. Fabulous job, CyberAnth.--Kchase T 08:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Had the article look like this I would never have nominated for deletion. Fighting for Justice 09:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you had not NfD'ed it it would not look like this. :-) But I think this is a lesson that we should all be slow to delete and quick to research...in a fair amount of depth. CyberAnth 09:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So can we consider this nomination withdrawn? :-) Kimchi.sg 09:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she is notable enough and after the expansion it is definitely better. She was a well known author in the past as well as a model. Ter e nc e Ong 10:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, keep it. The article looks lovely now. :-) Fighting for Justice 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. Tonytypoon 00:44, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 03:55Z

List of Miniclip Games[edit]

Indiscriminate list/directory of unremarkable web content. Contested prod. MER-C 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is just no point to making a list like this. ~~Eugene2x ☺ ~~ 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miniclip game developers. Tevildo 03:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not require its own article! -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What purpose does this article serve? Spinach Dip 10:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless Tx17777 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless list, the vast majority of these don't have articles and never really could. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've played a few Miniclip games. The website is notable and I think it has its own article, but the individual games aren't worth half a fictional life. 129.98.212.73 17:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first point of call for obtaining this info would be Miniclip, there is zero need for this here. Well caught Mer-c. QuagmireDog 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found it very informative.Xammer 20:33, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 01:56Z

Tyholttårnet[edit]

Yet another unremarkable tower. Deprodded on the basis that it has... (gasp!) ... a revolving restaurant! MER-C 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge into List of towers.

Delete -- Actually, I found out that it's already in the list of towers. If so, then I'd say just delete it. ~~Eugene2x ☺ ~~ 02:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of towers. CyberAnth 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing worth merging per above... MER-C 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- I've read Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts but I'm not clear on exactly where the cut off is going to be regarding deleting articles on towers. What height or other criteria will qualify a tower as notable and therefore worthy of retaining? I'm not in favour of just deleting the few articles now tagged without a clear idea of where that cut off is going to be. Shawn in Montreal 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. What is the difference between this and other towers with revolving restaurants such as the Space Needle or the Calgary Tower? It's not in North America? --Charlene 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is height. MER-C 05:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's about 40 metres shorter. I'm still curious as to what the proposed cut off would be. The Norwegian tower is 124 metres. When does it become a notable tower? At 165 m? or more? And does anyone know if this is the tallest manmade structure in Norway?Shawn in Montreal 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's the tallest in central Norway. That may well be damning with faint praise. I added that to the article, though. I'm still neutral.Shawn in Montreal 05:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not require its own article! NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without addressing the merits of this article, I'm concerned that the mast deletion is trying to define a consensus cutoff by sequential deletion of all towers and masts until the community says "stop". That is unlikely to recognize the appropriate cutoff, however, because of the overwhelmingly large number of inarguable legitimate deletions that have dominated this field for the last few weeks. I know the US masts nominations are up to everythign less then 500', and this one is edging up closer to corresponding landmark buildings like the Space Needle. That doesn't necessarily imply that I'd argue to keep this one (as the article stands, its pretty unpersuasive -- anyone able to search the Norwegian press?), but we might want to think about where we want to stop before we actually get there ... inertia being what it is. Serpent's Choice 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I am having voting one way or the other is that it's not a mast. It's a self-supporting tower and a tourist attraction that happens to also be a radio tower. I don't think the mast guidelines apply. --Charlene 09:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll admit: I was the one so impressed by the... (gasp!) ... revolving restaurant that I deprodded this. I also deprodded the probably very unremarkable Fernsehturm Kulpenberg which could very smoothly be merged to the one-line substub on the Kulpenberg, the mountain it stands on. Not being an expert on these things, my intuition still tells me that there is a difference between a mast and a tower, especially one with a ... (gasp!) ... revolving restaurant. A tower which is the highest in its region and has a... (gasp!) ... revolving restaurant is obviously a frequently visited landmark in that area. However else would the restaurant make a profit? I wonder why whoever prodded these towers, if s/he felt they were unworthy of articles of their own, did not consider merging (or simply redirecting) them somewhere. It doesn't save any server space to have them go through the deletion process. And the most obvious merge target here is not the List of towers, but the article on Trondheim. up◦land 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is indeed a distinction between a guyed mast (which is basically a big antenna, right?) and a tower supporting a revolving restaurant. I didn't care for the "gasp" wisecrack either, btw. Shawn in Montreal 08:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into List of Towers AND article on Trondheim, per above suggestion. I've supplied a link from the Fodors website to the tower article, indicating that it is a bone fide attraction in the region, so a merge into the main city article is indicated, in my view. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Okay, Keep. I wanted to sleep on this and see if anyone from Norway came in and spoke out in favour of retaining. Eivind, below, is good enough for me. He is a person of some experience, judging by his user page, and confirms what I've been feeling. Shawn in Montreal 17:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a well known landmark in Trondheim. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 14:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as landmark and tourist attraction. -Freekee 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just another tower, but per Freekee, an important landmark and tourist attraction. --Oakshade 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Long Live the Restaurant Revolution!. up◦land 09:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (I didn't !vote in my comment above.)[reply]
Comment I am leaning towards a weak keep for the subject. I reckoned that this would be slightly controversial AfD, and was not within the scope of what I was trying to do with the mass deletes I initiated. In response to those citing 'keep' per "famous landmark/tourist attraction", I would urge them to cite sources of guide books so we can put this one to bed. Ohconfucius 18:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. Majorly (Talk) 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels available on SkyCable[edit]

The article List of DirecTV channels was added at 22:11 on 26 December 2006. --myselfalso 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles listed below were added four days after the discussion began. --- RockMFR 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Contested prod. MER-C 02:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete - an advert. CyberAnth 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I was one of the first authors of this article. I have patterned this after the List of DirecTV channels article. And that article didn't sound like an advert. The least I could do to make the article in question not sound like an advert is to delete the "About SkyCable" section. (That sounded like an advert to me.) I'd also remove the "Exclusive to SkyCable" line on the Technical Notes column. I think I'll do it now. PinoiBIGscientian 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about that one. Added to this AFD. MER-C 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone please properly define "TV guide?" In WP:NOT#DIR, the only expample on "guide" is on a radio guide. "For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable."(~From Wikipedia is not a directory) which makes the discussion of a TV guide issue very hard. But judging from the given example, listing radio stations is not included. This article does not show any "upcoming events, current promotions, telephone numbers, schedules, etc." From my level of knowledge (3rd year high school student), a TV guide is a guide of program schedules. This is a channel lineup. Simple logic. So, my stand is still a strong keep.(P.S Please forgive my online temper today.) pinoiBIGscientian 08:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It doesn't sound like advertising, but there's really no reason for this to be here. As the AFD points out, we're not TV Guide, and really, it's up to the cable providers to provide this to their users. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Information: In that case, there's a whole bunch of articles just like this that you have to delete, sourcing from DirecTV, Dish Network, XM. It feels unfair that "TV guides" from Philippine cable operators are being held first. I was waiting for articles just like this from U.S. cable operators to be deleted before I can approve of the deletion of the article in question. And besides, the TV guide that I interpreted from Wikipedia is not a TV guide are showing schedules of individual channels, and not channel listings. PinoiBIGscientian 03:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, and the point of information. Note that we can't get to all the cruft in here in one go. For what it's worth, I think that the one for SkyCable here got targeted only because it got noticed first. Please remember to assume good faith in these cases. --Dennisthe2 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, these two just got noticed first. The rest could be prod fodder once this nomination gets closed. MER-C 03:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the lists of channels for DirectTV, Dish Network, Sirius, XM, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, MNTV and CW stations/affiliates were nominated for deletion on November 13, 2006, with a result of keep; in addition, the listing of MNTV affiliates was nominated for deletion in August 2006, also with a resulting vote of keep.

Keep Considering that recent discussion on this subject was barely two months ago Previous discussion and nobody here has offered any rebuttal of that decision, I say keep, and just short of speedy. If you can argue with that discussion, that might be worth a start. FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the last discussion, at least half of the keeps were WP:ILIKEIT votes. And no-one effectively counteracted Wikipedia != TV guide. At least we're getting some real debate here. MER-C 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the parts where people said why a list of channels is not a TV guide then. There are several quite relevant arguments made there, much more substantial than ILIKEIT. A list of channels or even a list of programs is not the kind of TV guide that's been warned against. Now if this network used a wide variety of different programming blocks, then there might be arguments against this list, but it wouldn't be because it's a TV Guide. In any case though, it is important to be aware of the prior discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've already had this discussion. This is not a TV Guide, this is a list of channels. If it were a guide, it would have a list of programs when run and the time which it is. --04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarinth (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep, This is an old discussion. The DirecTV listing was nominated for deletion along with lists of ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW, MNTV, Dish Network and XM channels less than two months ago. The general consensus was that the lists of channels offered by each service, as long as they did not include detailed guide-type listings, did not constitute TV Guide as noted in WP:NOT. Nothing has changed since that point. Each of those nominations resulted in a finding of keep. I urge those prior decisions to be upheld, as nothing has changed in the interim. --Mhking 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Each of these listings (I can't speak for SkyCable) grew out of their parent articles. They do not constitute a TV Guide-type listing; they are an indication as to what stations are associated with the network/satellite company, not unlike the list of teams in the NFL or the templates of stations in each television/radio market. I want to WP:AGF, but this AfD feels more arbitrary than anything else. --Mhking 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets content policies. A merge might be something to consider, but personally I think this information makes more sense in a separate article. JYolkowski // talk 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless and ever-changing list. The only people who need this are the subscribers, and they're already getting that information. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POI. There are lots of things that are ever-changing that are in Wikipedia. Politics is ever changing, culture is ever changing. There is an article on the War in Somalia. That's a war in progress. How about the article on the War on Terror, the War in Iraq? Also, there are other people who might want to read this article, who are not subscribers. I think it's valid information to include a list of channels that DirecTV provides as their service. To list what the channels broadcast would clearly be a tv guide, and this is what Wikipedia is NOT; the List of channels DirecTV provides for its subscribers is clearly not a tv guide. TV Guide goes to that next step. As far as I'm concerned, as I read it and interpret WP:NOT#DIR, DIR only refers to TV guides such as what's in the newspaper, or the aforementioned magazine. AND, most importantly, NO ONE HAS YET TO SAY HOW EITHER OF THESE ARTICLES CONSTITUTES A TV GUIDE. I ask, how is List of DirecTV channels a tv guide? When I look at the page, where are the upcoming events on those channels? I don't see what time Mythbusters is on. That's why I go to tvguide.com for that. --myselfalso 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Yellow-pages-like advertispamlistcruft. Also all other lists mentioned by Mhking.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POI. Do you care to explain why this, along with other channel listings, became implied spam? And do you know what Yellow Pages are? They're a list of companies, along with their contact details. A channel list is nowhere near those. pinoiBIGscientian 12:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As many people already stated, many of these listed were nominated on November 7 on the same issue and was ruled a keep. If the ruling was to change now, it would be seen as a hypocrisy to the earlier ruling. TravKoolBreeze 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is the fathest thing from advertising. People who don't subscibe mostlikely want to see what is offered. Hands Down Strong Keep --Mgarnes2 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is an advert, a plain mirror of the company's website. Can you come up with any reliable secondary sources that have reported this list and can you establish notability? CyberAnth 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mirror would not give extra information, such as the list for XM. This extra information such as radio format and note on what has happen to said channels on certain dates are not found on the website at all. Thus the history given is the notability needed. Please explain how it is trying to promote the service and telling about subscription prices, since that would be an advert? Moreover, how is this a TV Guide if it is not telling what shows are coming on at a certain time, which is the reason for the AFD? TravKoolBreeze 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot point to reliable secondary sources who have done what you have done in the article and who have established some kind of special notability than it fails on Original research. CyberAnth 03:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So everything in the world needs to have a credible secondary source to count as research? As noted ealier, the formats and notes on the XM list have been done to show a history of what has happen. Once again, please explain how it is trying to promote the service and telling about subscription prices, since that would be an advert? Moreover, how is this a TV Guide if it is not telling what shows are coming on at a certain time, which is the reason for the AFD?TravKoolBreeze 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you realize how ridiculous the Intro sounds for an encyclopedia?

Please be advised that this list is the current SkyCable channel listing. This list is lifted from the SkySked Channel and SkyCable's official website. This channel listing is not applicable to subscribers in the CAMANAVA area and in the provinces.

Get you own web-hosting where you can rightly post this kind of stuff if you want to. CyberAnth 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it is trying to promote the service and telling about subscription prices, since that would be an advert? Moreover, how is this a TV Guide if it is not telling what shows are coming on at a certain time, which is the reason for the AFD? I only speak for the XM list.TravKoolBreeze 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That intro was the ost encyclopedic intro I could think of. That was the most informational. And still you think it is not encyclopedic? OK, since your'e asking for it, I'll change the intro. I'll think of a more encylopedic intro than that. (Whaw, I am so angry right now.) PinoiBIGscientian 17:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest keep possible. This is not a TV guide. These are lists of network affiliates. --- RockMFR 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where are they listed in reliable secondary sources that establish some sort of special notability? One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. CyberAnth 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking about television affiliates, I'd say you could review documents from the FCC, Nielson, TV Guide, and who knows what else in in the Television industry. oh, and SEC filings. Are you trying to argue that an important aspect of a multi-billion dollar industry isn't important? FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Where are the sources in the articles? CyberAnth 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the article. The articles on the stations themselves apply in many cases, which satisfies me. If you feel a need, I'm sure you could find a reference list like [25] so I don't see a problem requiring deletion. Do you seriously think such information is difficult to source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 06:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Changed to neutral - this is no longer merely a list of channels which I can find in the relevant cable TV guide but rather a list of TV affiliates. Perhaps a retitling and reworking to clarify this would be in order. MER-C 07:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on all These are reference lists of network affiliates and channels, not a TV Guide. Completely useful (as a contributor to the MNTV and CW articles) and well-sourced. Adding the American networks to this article four days after the beginning of the AfD is something that I really don't like. Nate 08:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many times are we going to go through this?! It's like people will keep nominating them until they get their way. --Tv's emory 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI agree with TV's emory.--XMBRIAN 03:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; this is an encylopedia, not TV/radio listings. —tregoweth (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Caldorwards4 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to both delete above How are these non-encyclopedia works when they would give information? By using the judgement that you are giving, Category:Lists of radio stations and all lists within should be deleted. The previous ruling stated that these lists were not a directory, which is the closest to what you are meaning by listings. TravKoolBreeze 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The Other encyclopedias have list of networksMagnum Serpentine 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the first things I looked at when I was looking into getting DirecTV subscription was the DirecTV channels article. Very noteworthy and very informative. And to those who say that Wikipedia isn't a TV Guide, TV Guide shows what programs each channel is broadcasting. Listing what channels a satellite company is available to its customers is not a TV guide. For that reason, this AFD should really be deemed void. --Raderick 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for bottom four, Weak Keep for the rest. As long as these articles are all kept on a tight leash so no advertising seeps through, then I don't have a problem with this. To me it's notable enough, even thogh I understand that Wikipedia's not a TV guide. --Wizardman 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep People who don't subscribe may want to see what is offered. Hands Down Strong Keep Mgarnes2 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to X-Men (disambiguation). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 03:57Z

X-Men Trilogy[edit]

The article appears to be redundant, there is nothing in it that isn't in the individual film articles X-Men (film), X2, and X-Men: The Last Stand. Other film series do not require a central article to tie them together as they aready refer to each other. Malla nox 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, very redundant. --Dennisthe2 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X-Men (disambiguation). =Axlq 03:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not require its own article -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Axlq. Tarinth 05:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Axlq, despite the somewhat unusual practice of redirection to a dab page. This article's primary purpose is better served by the navigational templates that already exist for the individual topics. Serpent's Choice 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X-Men (disambiguation), as above. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would serve for now, but I am not opposed to an X-men Film Series page. I think this might be a better choice than Trilogy, especially if further movies are made. See for example Star Wars which does cover the film series, not one movie example. Also Spider-Man_film_series for a Marvel franchise example. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X-Men (disambiguation) . Tonytypoon 01:46, 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, per consensus. Future eclipses are predictable with high certainty and there are reliable sources to back it up, compared to say, rumours about the next album released by a certain artist. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:01Z

Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21[edit]

crystalballism Ncisss 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is absolutely not crystal ballism. We can predict this event with extreme accuracy, and the content of the page is quite good--it traces precisely where and when the eclipse is going to take place. It even includes scientific data about the nature of the eclipse. Not only is this event notable because it's a sufficiently rare event in and of itself as a total eclipse, but it will be the first total eclipse visible from the contiguous United States since the '70s. If that isn't enough, then please keep in mind that eclipse-hunters get together yearly to chase down these remarkable events--planning them years in advance--and this article is both relevant and of practical use. My college physics teacher is among them, and I know she keeps track of when, where, what kind, and how long eclipses will happen and then coordinates with other friends and researchers. So as something of important scientific and cultural merit, I believe this article should stay. Torie 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe this falls under crystalballism. Unlike some far-off Olympic games, a lot of things can be said with near-certainty about astronomical events. Assuming the eclipse is not invented it should stay. Akihabara 02:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just because it is predictable does not mean it's notable. Predictability is not a requirement for inclusion on wikipedia, notability is. I do not see anything in the article, nor is there anything notable about a predicable astrnomical event that will not be taking place for another decade. wtfunkymonkey 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as much as needs to be said is included in List of solar eclipses. Malla nox 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. ~22 solar eclipses will take place between now and then. Yes, we know all sorts of shit about this. However, using that logic, we could potentially have articles about solar eclipses hundreds of years from now (or so I assume). We just don't need these articles, especially if they have not happened yet. --- RockMFR 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Aren't computer simulations fun?!? But wait, that is my birthday... Lmcelhiney 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is notable for a large fraction of the English Wikipedia readership - it's been since 1979 that we've had a total eclipse in the lower 48. Also, it's an eclipse listed in List of solar eclipses. There's no reason for eclipses listed there to not have their own article. If this article is deleted, we'll need to trim the list, too. Finally, it's just not that far in the future! Davidlwilliamson 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment; What about it being a total eclipse for the United States makes it notable? Are you saying that because it will look different for Americans it should be somehow more important? wtfunkymonkey 05:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment;; It's notable because a large landmass with a lot of people haven't seen a total eclipse in a long time. If this article described an eclipse in China (or anywhere else) that was the first one in several decades, I'd want it kept too. This isn't US-centric: the lack of an eclipse in a given large and well-populated area for several decades makes the next one interesting. Davidlwilliamson 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this event is so notable for that reason, why doesn't it SAY SO? Spinach Dip 10:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is not notable enough for it's own article! -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article that lists solar eclipses. It isn't crystall-ballism because astronomical events can be predicted with great accuracy, and the prediction of solar eclipses in general has been known for centuries. I think it sounds notable enough to be mentioned in such a list or article but not have an article on its own. Few people will enter the name of this title when looking for the subject, anyway, which means that Wikipedia users won't be served well by it. Tarinth 05:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the first total solar eclipse in the continental United States in over 40 years, which establishes its notability. If anyone cares to wager whether this event will happen, I'm willing to mortgage the house. Alansohn 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no, the fact it will be seen in the USA does not establish its notability. - fchd 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - This totally falls under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball criteria. Like far future presidential elections and Olympics, there is nothing verifiable apart from speculation about what will happen that day. I'm leaning towards giants grasshoppers covering the sky during the eclipse.--Eqdoktor 09:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your proposing almost all astronomy-related articles and many science ones for deletion as unverifiable for the same reason. Akihabara 12:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if its crystal ball gazing original research with no verification cited on its notability. A lot of people forget that Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a book of lists or an almanac. --Eqdoktor 08:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the above delete note, I think the general feeling of most people is that this isn't crystal ball gazing. I may not know what the results of the next Olympics will be, but I know where they'll be, and when. Heck, I'm more certain about the eclipse than the next Olympics. Davidlwilliamson 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All information in the article is precisely knowable (there is no speculative information) and the event is notable in that a large population will have the chance to experience an eclipse for the first time in 39 years. Hilmar 10:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a large American population. All future eclipses are precisely predictable and a general article listing their dates and field of view is useful. Separate articles on past eclipses that were in some way special are useful. An article on a future eclipse is not necessary and the fact that Americans (or anyone else) will have had to wait 40 years between total solar eclipses is neither unusual nor notable - that's the way it is! Delete Emeraude 12:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My argument is that solar eclipses are an extremely important tool for scientific education of the general public,

and here in the USA, we desparately needed a scientifically well-educated public!!! This page is very useful for planning public events so that people can observe this faacinating phenonmenon and get interested in science !!! please keep!Avwells 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Eclipses are almost certain. A total solar eclipse in a densely populated area is rare and always generates large interest. Already many Ghits. Seems notable to me. PrimeHunter 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a crystal ball issue because (absent some astronomical catastrophe) this eclipse is going to happen. There is a question of whether the article is suficiently notable. I would argue that all total solar eclipses are sufficiently rare and interesting enough to be notable, and all will, eventually, have articles as they approach. Those articles will provide more detail about viewing the particular eclipse and other useful information than may be conviently presented in List of solar eclipses. It is true that the number of Wikipedians interested in this eclipse (presumably due to the convenience with which they will be able to see the event) have led to this article being created before the articles for Solar eclipse of 2010 July 11, Solar eclipse of 2012 November 12, Solar eclipse of 2015 March 20, or Solar eclipse of 2016 March 9, but the fact that these articles have yet to be created does not reduce the notability of this article, any more than District Courts of India is made less notable by the fact that District Courts of Pakistan has yet to be created. JohnPomeranz 16:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm very much in favor of providing the information contained herein as an educational resource; but really, who is going to come to Wikipedia entering 'Social eclipse of such-and-such a date' as an article name? It seems that people looking for more information would be better served by containing this in an List of solar eclipses, or perhaps a new article such as Future Solar Eclipses which might encompass all such future events. Tarinth

Keep. I scanned some of the comments. I agree that future astronomical events are not in the crystal ball category because the scientific community agrees that they will happen according to very specific details. I also agree that solar eclipses are notable. The cutoff can be debated -- should we go to 2040, 2050, or even forever into the future? But this one is close enough to be relevant. 129.98.212.73 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can predict a lot of things way into the future, and scientists may agree on the details, but that does not make them notable. We do not need articles now for every future astronomical event for which computer models can grind out the details. If it is notable at this time, then add articles which provide more than passing reference about it from the New York Times, Newsweek or perhaps astonomy or science magazines. Blogs do not count. All that is provided is one NASA site, which is reliable and verifiable, but not "multiple." This is a filter to prevent someone from adding articles about every lunar or solar eclipse for the next 10,000 years. Edison 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as noted above, this is not a WP:CRYSTAL issue, as it is, there is specific scientific information contained here that while it may fit by itself, may as well be served by merging with an overall solar eclipse article. I can't honestly recommend merge as my vote, without having a more complete knowledge of the solar eclipse article. --Mhking 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of solar eclipses. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep come on, look at the nominator's edit history. This is only "crystalballism" in the sense that it is a future event. Wavy G 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps Merge into Future solar eclipses along with all future ones at Category:Solar eclipses. BTW, the subject IS NOT crystal ball, it is hard science and notable. CyberAnth 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While not a crystal ball, we're talking about an eclipse that will happen nearly 11 years from now, and there doesn't appear to be anything particularly notable about this one (being the first one visible from the US in a while isn't enough). There's just not enough to warrant anything more than a list entry at this time. Redirect to a list if you want, although it doesn't seem like a very likely search term. BryanG^(talk) 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I understand it, its proposed to be deleted under the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guideline not because its predictable, scientific and notable - its because its happening 10 years into the future and there is no reliable independent verifiable sources cited that discusses this particular eclipse and its notability. Two links cited, point to past eclipses, One points to a TIF file detailing its path (not discussing notability), and another uses a google map to illustrate the path. Theres a lot of hand-waving (here and in the article) claiming its notable, but theres ZERO external citation of an independent reliable source claiming notability. The exact sort of thing that the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guideline guards against. The Wikipedia is not a directory or in this case an almanac. Right now as it stands, this article is basically original research with uncited hand-waving towards notability. Yes, its scientific, its notable but at the moment (as I write this) it sure doesn't deserve to be a Wikipedia article. Its a crystal ball gazing original research. --Eqdoktor 08:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Is this a good-faith nomination? This nomination was the very first edit of nominator. The WP:CRYSTAL guideline is directed against (I quote) unverifiable speculation. It is not against future events per se, but states: expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Is this notable? Again from the guideline: the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. All of this is satisfied. Is this almost certain to take place? You bet. There is no requirement anywhere that notability requires that independent reliable sources claim notability. Please don't confuse the notability guidelines with the WP:RS policy, which is about verifiability. The NASA link is a reliable and totally authoritative source, and provides quite satisfactory verification. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I was wondering about this nomination, too. It looks like the original poster has a total of four edits over a ten minute period, and no further comments on this. Meta-question: can I just start creating new accounts and requesting deletions of random articles for nonsensical reasons? That would be a fascinating new denial of service attack...it would really keep a lot of people very busy for no good reason. I'm not going to do that, but who's to stop someone else? Davidlwilliamson 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are dozens of sources going back to the 1970's that highlight the 2017 eclipse as the first chance for many in the continental United States to view a total solar eclipse for almost four decades. References have been added to the article that indicate American astronomers and interested amateurs taking cruises and traveling to view other eclipses, noting that the next chance in the 48 states would be in 2017. A reference from 1991 cites that year's eclipse that crossed Hawaii and Mexico as the best until 2017. This is not just one total solar eclipse in an unending string of such eclipses that will take place somewhere on Earth until the Sun burns out. It has been deemed notable for decades as the first total solar eclipse in the continental United States to take place in 38 years. It is clear to me that notability has been established for this event. Alansohn 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there are all those sources going back 30 years as to how notable this eclipse is, then please add three or so of them to the article and I will gladly change my vote. Many things are predictable which are not notable. These days people do not even go outside to see the eclipse if they are busy, unless they are astronomy buffs. See one, seen'em all. Edison 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge My first impression was to delete an article, but now I think we should keep this article because it contains info on the solar exlipse and is not a crystal ball. If all else fails we should merge to solar eclipse.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply for the most part, as eclipses can be accurately predicted and their path very well described. Instead the issues are notabity and whether the topic is encyclopedic. As an event which will occur in well-populated areas, it immediately is potentially notable. As for it's occurring over 10 years from now: That is more of an issue, but I am not sure where the line should be drawn on this kind of article. Obviously an article on a 22nd century eclipse would be a joke, but if this eclipse was to occur in 2007 it would already be a topic of some interest. --EMS | Talk 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They can accurately predict high tides and sunrises many years into the future as well, but they do not need articles unless there are multiple reliable sources to show they are notable now. It was a bigger deal hundreds of years ago when they were unpredictable or thousands of years ago when they thought the gods were fighting. Edison 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, high and low tides happen daily, right? CyberAnth 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 03:58Z

The Indix[edit]

This band fails Wikipedia:Notability (music): No hits at national level, no gold records, no national concert tours, no major label etc. In 2000, it was mentioned in some music reviews columns or the local news sections of some newspapers. The band claims that they were the first pop group in Kerala and that they were the first to release a 3D music video in India. I am an Indian and I feel that claiming such things doesn't make this band notable. The google results are from Wikipedia mirrors, or about a system called IndiX (developed by NCST or about "International Network for Development Information Exchange" (INDIX). Delete. Jyothisingh 03:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom in so far that The Indix appear to be NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick google search throws up zero evidence of existance but rather a piece of software. Fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 07:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and vanity. Spinach Dip 10:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also: Anuj Nair, Simple Truth and My Love for You. -Freekee 19:22, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:06Z

Simple Truth[edit]

Non-notable album of a non-notable band The Indix, which fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). I am from India, and I can assure you that neither the band nor the album are notable. Google results are about albums by other artists such as Mike Stand, Jeff Kashiwa etc. The band and the album were mentioned in some local newspapers in 2000, because the group claimed that they were the first pop-band from Kerala and that they were the first to release a 3D music video in India. That doesn't make them notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Delete. Jyothisingh 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've noticed that there is a series of AfDs that all pertain to this band and related articles. While they are not very good articles and their notability is shakey, is there anyway we could condense all of the articles into a single article? That way we do not have to completely wipe what could possibly be a notable band (possibly in italics for emphasis) from the entire Wikipedia, but their less notable articles can be deleted. I think that would be a good idea. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it still fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 07:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, the rationale for deletion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BAND. They're covered in multiple nontrivial media sources, which you dismiss as "mentioned in some local newspapers." I'm disappointed at the pile-on votes here that don't consider any evidence. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't like the way this is rationalized and claimed, but the total lack of google results is giving me verifiability issues. Not a single hit outside wikipedia and its mirrors. Possible hoax. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The band isn't popular even in Kerala.--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 14:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph W. Eaton[edit]

This is very long. It is unformatted, unsourced, reads like a resume, contains all manner of information, almost certianly has sections copied from elsewhere, and it is very hard to read. This person appears to be notable, but the article is just hideous. I am unsure what to do about this. J Milburn 03:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination, for reasons cited by other editors. J Milburn 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like this article falls under the category of "Articles which may resemble crap but could contain a pearl". You don't delete pages if they are in bad quality but still have the potential to become an encyclopedia article. From your nomination, I can see that you gathered some information about the subject in the article, if nothing else, trim down and rewrite the article. Feel free to nominate it for deletion once you can reason that the article does not belong in the encyclopedia. I therefore suggest withdrawing this nomination for now. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong & Speedy Keep Notability guidelines quite clearly specify multiple reviews and awards a proof of notability. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and his works have been reviewed multiple times, with citations of these reviews within the article (toward the end). The format is terrible but the article meets notability. Contrary to the nomination, this article is very well sourced -- just badly organized. --Kevin Murray 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My sense is that the subject easily meets WP:BIO based on the "professor test" alone, but this article should be condensed and organized much better. Poor organization isn't enough of a reason for deletion. Tarinth 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I feel that this article is quite awful the way it is right now, but that is no reason to delete it. It needs a lot of clean-up, as most of it is utter nonsense right now, but it seems to be notable and could become a decent article. One thing that bothers me is that it might violate WP:COPY. There is no way someone typed in all those references by hand, it is an obvious copy-and-paste article. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:16, 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 Speedy Delete. I mean... come on... EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we fall in love lyrics[edit]

WP:NOT a song lyrics repository, and unlikely song lyrics could be GFDL released in any case. Prod removed without explanation by article author. Seraphimblade 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —bbatsell ¿? 03:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Lyrics are unlikely to be GFDL or anything close. If someone can find documentation as to its GDFL status, however… Will (Talk - contribs) 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the song is noteworthy (I don't feel like checking), it wouldn't deserve to have an article just for the lyrics. TJ Spyke 03:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-copyvio. Danny Lilithborne 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. So tagged. MER-C 04:45, 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 this collection of campfire stories; no prejudice against a sourced article on the subject of campfire stories. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:00Z

CampFire Stories[edit]

Delete. The nature of this subject is to be passed on orally, therefore making it hard to write an article with facts. Bouncy 01:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see WP:NOT. WP is not for a collection of stories. Mak (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could see a good encyclopedic article on this subject (verifiable history, traditions, etc.) but this jumbled collection of uncited material isn't it. Grand master ka 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whats rong with the article..its campfire stories stop deleting all my pages! pleassse theyre good , look how many hits they get. This one is atleast educational...somewhat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmfmets92 (talk • contribs)

Comment - you need to transform it into a clearly encyclopedic article, while citing sources. You should begin right away. CyberAnth 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic at this time (also not appropriate to put in the above comment in my view) -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could also see a good article on this subject, but everything about this article is wrong: the naming, the organization, WP:NOT, etc. The list goes on and on. WP is not a place to publish stories. It would be easier to scrap the entire thing and just start as a section under Ghost Stories or Horror Stories first, and redirect "Campfire Stories" to that. Maybe then it will accumulate enough to become its own article. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a press for these types of stories. A legitimate article could be written on this topic, but this is not the right start. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything's wrong. This breaks more rules than I have fingers. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host. Bastun 11:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If an admin is reading this, I'd consider a speedy. 129.98.212.73 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is clearly a notable vein of oral tradition. There are many publications, from the Foxfire books to Scouting manuals and more, that speak of camp fire stories both theoretically and practically and give story examples. The article sucks right now, true, but that is not grounds for giving it the old DELETE but for improving it. Bonny Hicks is a recent AfD'ed article where an editor, myself, decided to fix and expand it rather than just wield an ax (see difs here). The current article could become just as high of quality if an editor will but do it. I did one this week, anyone else game? :-) CyberAnth 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice work on the Bonny Hicks article. But personally, Campfire stories aren't something I know enough about to avoid OR. There is nothing to stop the original author from copying the current article to userspace and turning it into something readable, but at the moment it isn't the basis for an article. Bastun 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would generally agree with you except that your assertion assumes that only the initiating author(s) or a currently reading editor or expert exists that is qualified or is likely to expand it. Stubs or very poorly written articles exist for a reason per Wikipedia guidelines, and such articles are frequently expanded upon by persons other than the initiator, e.g., my "adoption" of the Bonny Hicks article, who I was acquainted with in only a minor way before delving into her life and contributions, although I consider myself an expert on literatures of discontent (which is a kissing cousin of post-colonial literature) and had a fair understanding of Singapore culture going in, which made things a bit easier. Bottom line: Generally, if a poor but potential-ridden article remains on article space, adoption by others can and frequently does happen, even by new Wikipedians who happen upon the article. Still: Author, are you listening? Prepare for the worst in the probably likely case that deletion happens: You can copy AND SHOULD RIGHT NOW copy this article on to your user space which I created for you at User:Nmfmets92/Campfire stories. Then, you can get it up to Wikipedia standards and repost it without any fear of it being deleted. It will definitely be a learning experience for you in either case. CyberAnth 12:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated question: Literature of discontent? Isn't that pretty much all literature? I'm hard-pressed to think of a single novel in which the main characters sit around giving thumbs up and laughing at how awesome their lives are. Ford MF 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its literatures that played a significant role in decolonization, written by subjects in the language of the colonizers. CyberAnth 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously unencyclopedic. Not about campfire stories (the title isn't even in line with the naming conventions guideline). Obviously should not be a collection of campfire stories, but redirected to ghost story except that it is not a plausible misspelling. —Dylan Lake 00:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 04:01Z

Lucy Parker (transsexual)[edit]

I turned down a speedy deletion request on this page a while back. After looking closely at the article though, this page is edited heavily by a User:Lucy Parker and the info in the article is overwhelmingly trivial and/or unverifiable. Whether or not one-time subjects of TV shows are worthy of inclusion has been up for debate many times before on this forum, with mixed results. However, I think we can agree that a subject mentioned in one press release (that doesn't include Lucy's last name) for an upcoming show cannot meet WP:BIO. Delete pending more coverage by reliable sources. Grand master ka 04:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO TSO1D 04:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she were to appear on a second program, maybe it would be a different story. Maxamegalon2000 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. Notable also the crystalballery therein. --Dennisthe2 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment should this speedy deletion tag be removed while the article remains on AfD? If not, it will likely be deleted out of process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it isn't a speedy. I have done so. MER-C 07:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in my view does not meet WP:BIO -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO and is probably WP:COI. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. Being featured on one episode of a television documentary series such as Surgery Saved My Life does not grant notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Spinach Dip 10:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, but not A7, not now, not earlier. - crz crztalk 13:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the most notable thing about you is that you are a transsexual, then you don't belong here. (Look again at the article title.) 129.98.212.73 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Funny you should mention that, I always thought the parenthetical was a disambiguation convention around here. --Dennisthe2 22:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly as per nom. Especially since they don't even have a title for the episode yet. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --rogerd 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. -- Satori Son 22:22, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:01Z

Xtreme world wrestling[edit]

Non-notable independent wrestling federation. Gets 190 Google hits, none of which confirm notability. Its website definitely doesn't help its case. Metros232 04:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn wrestling fed. TJ Spyke 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again per nom. Completely non-notable. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 07:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, vanity, and ad. Spinach Dip 10:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, at all. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:23, 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 Merge to Giant squid. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:09Z

Archie (squid)[edit]

Totally non-notable and written as an advertisement for the Natural History Museum, London, an institution that hardly needs clumsy linkspam from Wikipedia. The subject of the article isn't an especially large specimen of a giant squid, nor a historically important one. It hasn't provided any unique scientific insight, and isn't the type specimen for a new species. The "Archie" name has the ring of something coined by the marketing department, and without a reference to its use by the national press is pointless. All except the first paragraph read like marketing-speak and add nothing to the value of the article. Will every stuffed bird or preserved fish deserve an article of its own on Wikipedia?

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 04:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Does not deserve its own article. This might be included in the museam's article itself, but in its own article it just sounds like an advertisement. It's blatantly POV too. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge Doesn't particularly read like advertising to me. I did a google search and found a number of articles referring to the specimin, including major news sources such as the BBC. Apparently this particular specimin is notable for having been caught alive, as well as its general size and condition; the organism itself is extremely rare. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4756514.stm Tarinth 06:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from proposer. I know Wikipedia doesn't particularly respect "experts" but I happen to have been a cephalopod palaeontologist and I also know the NHM well, having done my PhD and post-doc there.[26] I've explored the modern cephalopod collection at length and am reasonably familiar with the breadth and depth of the material preserved there. There is nothing the least unusual about this specimen (the NHM has several other giant and colossal squid specimens, and these specimens lack entries on Wikipedia. Even more ridiculous, there is already a photograph of a one other museum specimen of this species on the Giant squid page already, and it doesn't have its own page! Whilst not an expert on modern squids, my understanding is that giant squid are far from rare, and there are literally hundreds if not thousands of preserved bits of giant squid in museum collections around the world. Admittedly, many are unexciting fragments taken from beached carcasses or sperm whale stomachs, for example. But the uncommon preservation of this specimen doesn't make this specimen notable. If it does, there'd need to be entries for nice but not special cuneiform tablets or Egyptian mummies! Simply because a museum is proud of a specimen doesn't make it worthy of its own article. If the thing was featured as a photograph on the Architeuthis page along with some comments on its size and preservation, that would be one thing, and as an interesting addition to the Natural History Museum page under "things to see" that would make sense too. But simply giving one, non-unique, and non-scientifically revolutionary specimen its own page just strikes me as absurd. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 06:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neale, I can understand your viewpoint, and I agree that the article comes off as a bit silly. Nevertheless, there's some precedent for giving common human names to famous museum specimens (Lucy (Australopithecus)) and scientific specimens (Dolly the Sheep). Since news entities like the BBC have made this particular specimen well-known, it leads one to expect that a person might search for this. Tarinth 15:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarinth, I agree that some specimens are so special that they do have common names. I'd also agree that these specimens are so important and well-known that they deserve Wikipedia pages. I'd add to your list things like the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum and Stephenson's Rocket at the Science Museum. But this squid isn't even close to that level of importance. It's just one, nicely preserved but otherwise unremarkable, giant squid. Unlike Lucy, this squid hasn't redefined our understanding of an aspect of biology (as the article notes, because it's preserved intact, it hasn't yielded even basic information like whether it's a male or female!). It isn't the first giant squid or the largest, so it isn't notable in that way either. It's just a nice specimen; nothing more, nothing less. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my concern--I'll take your word for it that the specimen has little or no notability within the community of cephalopod biologists; but on the other hand, there seems to be notability within the popular-science-press. I have no expertise on the subject and no particular desire to keep it around (other than that I find cephalopods extremely interesting), but what I'm attempting to do is see whether it meets Wikipedia's minimum standards. WP's standards for inclusion of an article on a named museum specimen is considerably lower than something of profound historical value such as Rosetta Stone, or even a more current example like Dolly the Sheep. I think this is an example of an article which falls into the category of "we probably don't really need it, but it meets the minimum anyway." It does seem to satisfy the minimal inclusion criteria (mentions of it in several non-trivial media sources). As a comparison, imagine if the BBC did a write-up on a new musical band; that band would easily meet notability on that basis alone, and could claim a page on Wikipedia. Because WP is not a print encyclopedia, it can be far more liberal. A compromise worthy of consideration may be to include a sentence on Archie within the giant squid article, and then change this to a Redirect. Thoughts? Tarinth 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tarinth! I have no argument at all with having "Archie" mentioned in the Giant Squid article. The difficulties involved in photographing, capturing, and displaying these animals are very interesting. There's an excellent book partly on this topic by Richard Ellis, The Search for the Giant Squid, that has chapters on the 'evolution' of model giant squids in museums. But the place for such discussion would be in the Giant Squid article, where there could be a proper discussion of how the first specimens were found and displayed. The Museum itself has a very nice 3D model in the marine invertebrates gallery that is one of my favourite things there. It really gives you a good idea of how big these things are! Anyway, there could be explanations of why they're not easy to find (live in deep water), recover whole (not robust, rather gloopy ammoniacal tissues), or put on display (not hard parts and no easy to 'stuff' like bird or mammal). In such a context, figuring "Archie" along with an outline of the good luck that led to its capture together with discriptions of how it is preserved and displayed would be perfectly logical. My problem is that given that this squid is otherwise completely non-notable, it justifies any museum or historical society creating a page for any specimen in their collections. While they're free to do so on their own web pages as advertisements or science communication, on Wikipedia there needs to be at least some level of discrimination, surely? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Merge, but I'd like to see the giant squid article capture the information Neale suggested, or we'll be back here in a month after someone makes the article again because it wasn't included elsewhere (and might be shy about editing a good article like giant squid).

Comment I am against a merge, I think it should stay with its own article. At first glance everything Neale says about Archie's non-notability as a specimen seems to make sense and he certainly talks like an expert.. but the press coverage strongly suggests otherwise. I also got slightly suspicious when Neale used Archies intact state to begin a line of argument that ended with Archie being less valuable to science.. ultimately they could always open him up, and anyway in 20 years time there will likely be non-invasive methods of imaging Archie's insides. A disingenuous argument, I think. Zargulon 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zargulon, press coverage is a debateable standard for the value of something being included in Wikipedia. There are presumably millions of events around the world that don't get included in the Encyclopaedia Britannica or in Wikipedia. Should there be an entry for every amusing dog or every beached whale? As for the "intact condition" of the specimen, my argument is basically this: in science, the value of something comes from the information it provides. This specimen has not yet provided anything exceptional, and since we don't even know the sex of the specimen, it has actually provided less information than the average NHM specimen that is dissected and studied more closely. Note that I'm not saying the article contains nothing of value, but I do think that it could be used more productively as material for the Giant Squid article where it can be used to illustrate the issues surrounding the exhibition of giant squids in museums. Instead of focusing on this specimen and how wonderful the NHM is (which I don't disagree with) why not explain the problems with finding specimens and why specimens such as "Archie" are so rare and thus newsworthy. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neale, the key word which you are glossing over is yet. Your argument would treat a scientific artifact of no value the same as one so valuable that people have to prepare very carefully to analyse it. Then you say "instead of A why not B?" but there is plenty of room in Wikipedia for both A and B. Provided there is no misleading glorification of Archie, I don't see how you can begrudge a perfectly coherent and informative article. Zargulon 21:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zargulon, there are lots of objects in museums and elsewhere that may yet yield useful information. I dare-say there are still interesting fossil hominids in the ground that are yet to be discovered, and perhaps there are letters by Dickens and sketches by Picasso lying around in attics that will tell us more about them. But they don't deserve an encyclopaedia entry until that time. I am not an expert on giant squid, but I know the NHM collections (at least during the 1990s) somewhat, and know for a fact they have lots of more material of this species as well as other large squids. The single thing that makes this specimen unusual is that it is in good condition. But it isn't unique in this regard. By all means create a section on the Giant Squid article about specimens in museums, but there's no point having an entry on just one specimen, especially when a similarly well preserved specimen in the Melbourne Aquarium is featured on the Giant Squid page! Should that specimen have a Wikipedia entry as well? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the Melbourne squid.. I'm not sure I see your point. Something can be notable but not unusual. Zargulon 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. With respect to the resident expert here, the article does assert some notable things about this squid: That it was captured alive, and that it's the best preserved whole specimen in existence. Giant squids may be numerous, but my understanding is they are nevertheless rarely seen whole even when dead, let alone alive. I would be happy if the salient facts about this squid were merged into the giant squid article or somewhere else appropriate. I don't mind seeing the article deleted as long as the relevant content still exists somewhere. As long as the content is to be found in this article, it should stay, but if it's merged somewhere else, it should be deleted. =Axlq 06:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant information into giant squid. That seems best. Charlie 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. there should also be reference to the media coverage. Zargulon 10:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With due respect, I don't think a singular museum exhibit is notable on its own unless it is unique. Do the dinosaur skeletons in the Natural History Museum get their own entries? The Science Museum has lots of unusual machines, but I don't think any of them get their own entries. Also, I cannot see how anyone is going to look for information on this subject under the name of "Archie". Leave that to "Have I Got News For You". Sam Blacketer 15:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Madman 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Giant squid. CyberAnth 01:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neale Monks' second comment. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The relevant material is already at Giant squid#Timeline with better sourcing. I see multiple publications about a single day's news event, and thus don't believe that the primary notability criteria is truly met. GRBerry 22:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tank Johnson. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:02Z

William Posey[edit]

Subject has very, very shaky notability. He was the bodyguard to a guy who plays for the Chicago Bears--a player who had run into legal problems just a few days before. Posey's shooting death probably got a bunch of coverage for that fact, but otherwise, there's nothing that makes him notable. Metros232 04:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete - This type of news fades away quickly. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Fighting for Justice 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tank Johnson. Redirects are cheap, and it's at least mildly conceivable that someone would search for this guy. Zagalejo 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tank Johnson. Per above --Kevin Murray 05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tank Johnson. The shooting incident might merit a sentence or two in that article, but it doesn't deserve its own page. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above _SUBWAYguy 05:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zag. TSO1D 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This fails the criterion of "will anyone care 10 years from now?" 129.98.212.73 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:20, 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 Redirect to ASAP Mania. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:10Z

ASAP '06[edit]

AfD nominated by Wikiuserphil. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yea.: i agree to wtfunkymonkey, this should be ASAP (variety show) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikomouse (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
comment: from the article As to who will win in this word war, no one knows just yet.

How on Earth is it not known what will happen? This event took place over three years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at a copyvio here. wtfunkymonkey 05:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as failing WP:NOTE and WP:CITE, does not appear to have much in the way of third party sources. Though I do imagine that a great many could be drummed up, I am not sure if any of them would be enough to qualify it for an article on en.wikipedia.org. Additionally there are a lot of problems with the content of the article not matching the title (article should probably be named ASAP (variety show) since ASAP '06 is the name of the current season/run. If appropriate sources can be found, notability can be established, and the article is renamed and cleaned up then the article could be kept. wtfunkymonkey 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs a lot of clean-up and revamping, but I think that there is enough to call this notable. I agree that it should be moved to a different page name. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ASAP Mania, an article of which it is an almost exact duplicate (as pointed out in this duplicate AfD). Demiurge 12:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ASAP Mania or rename to ASAP (TV series). Take your pick. This is a legit TV show. --Howard the Duck 13:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 04:05Z

Steelers vs. Browns[edit]

The premise of this page is inherently original research and has no information about this supposed rivalry, only statistics. Prod removed by author. Also included in this AfD are three other articles which are essentially duplicates of the first one. Danny Lilithborne 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlike Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, this is unreferenced and therefore not really encyclopedic. Heimstern Läufer 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. TJ Spyke 04:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Completely unreferenced, non-notable, and nothing that would contribute any more to an encyclopedia than a small section would do. Even if this is decided as keep, someone should at least sort out the sprawling list, and condense all 4 pages into a single page. It doesn't deserve 4 pages... --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. MER-C 07:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. fan-cruft. Spinach Dip 10:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all of the above. This is a fan page, not an encyclopedia article, and there is already a couple of notes about these teams at Significant rivalries in the NFL -Markeer 13:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - unencyclopedic. Moderately significant rivalry, but coverage in the NFL article cited above is quite sufficient. Fan-1967 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as uncyclopedic.--Yannismarou 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unencyclopedic. TSO1D 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per WP:ROFL. ;-) CyberAnth 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Good work, guys. Let's create four (FOUR!) identical articles about some trivial football game. Wavy G 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the rivalry exists, but does deserve its own (4) article. And despite the original assertions of the article, I doubt this rivalry is more important then any of the infamous ones in, say, the NFC East. I also find it interesting how the article refers to the moving of the Browns to Baltimore as "the Art Modell scandal," although that's a bit POV.-- danntm ^T _C 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I love sports but this isn't much of a rivalry in the grand scheme of sports rivalries, especially now that the original Browns are the Ravens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DelPlaya (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has created yet another duplicate article at Browns-Steelers Rivalry. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He has also created another duplicate at Steelers-Browns Rivalry. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment He has now made all the articles redirects to Cleveland Browns-Pittsburgh Steelers Rivalry and created another redirect, Pittsburgh Steelers-Cleveland Browns Rivalry. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 04:06Z

World Class curse[edit]

Unsourced list for a non-notable curse. "World class curse" gets about 50 Google hits, almost all of them Wikimirrors in some shape or form. Metros232 04:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: It's unsourced, and it doesn't exactly provide a lot of context for those unfamiliar with it (yes, the latter could be fixed, but the former remains a problem). Heimstern Läufer 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, and if it is neccesary to include this in an article, I think that it at most could be a section of a larger one. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Crufty. MER-C 07:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced OR. TSO1D 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and original research. Does not explain the notability or context of the "curse" which is pretty unscientific to begin with. --Eqdoktor 07:23, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:11Z

Danasoft Signatures[edit]

Non-notable hosting service/product. I personally have never heard of this on any of the various Internet forums I frequent. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB, etc. Prod removed by User:Humowtiulun. --- RockMFR 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because article fails to assert notability and doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose beyond advertising the product; however it could be a good article with a lot of work. I never heard of them either, but 161,000 hits on Google isn't insignificant. Lots of reviews (many negative) appear to have been written about this. =Axlq 07:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:CORP found on Google, may be persuaded to change if Axlq finds some. MER-C 07:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability that would satisfy criteria of WP:CORP, WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE, et cetera. -- Satori Son 06:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 04:08Z

Neutomic Keyboard[edit]

This band does not meet any criteria for notability as established in Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Nor is there any semblance of citation for verifiability). The only websites mentioned as references or external links are the band's own pages, except for three of interviews, which seem (as best-case scenario) to have been conducted by a friend of the band, on a website with the same name as a Wikipedia editor, who created the page.

Also, the article on one of the members, and five of their (self-published) albums are included in this AfD. Brother Caine, God is a Hermaphrodite, Who Is God, With a Mustache, On Tuesday, Night Soil (album). And Category:Neutomic Keyboard. -Freekee 05:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unverified. Heimstern Läufer 05:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V with 4 non-wiki non-myspace ghits. Don't forget Category:Neutomic Keyboard albums too. MER-C 08:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable Spinach Dip 10:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC TSO1D 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:34, 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. Majorly (Talk) 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saga (singer)[edit]

Non-notable artist. Mainstream coverage is less than 90 seconds on the Discovery Times Channel. There are claims on the talk page she has been covered in nationalist and neo-Nazi magazines, but no details are provided and I wouldn't consider them to be particularly reliable and independent sources. One Night In Hackney 04:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 90 seconds is a long time on a mainstream TV news feature. We're are not trying to establish prominence, just notability. The neo Nazi publications are not being cited as references within the article, the nominator criticizes U-Tube below, which again is not one of the references used at the article; the U-tube links are for song samples etc.. --Kevin Murray 19:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discovery Times Channel is not "a mainstream TV news feature". WP:MUSIC states Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network, if you think that is unreasonable, then try and get the guideline changed. One Night In Hackney 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal I think that you are misinterpreting this section. If someone had that length of coverage they would be automatically notable. She is not automatically notable because of the Discovery documentary, but it is one solid brick in the wall. --Kevin Murray 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If she was interviewed on Discovery that gives some indication that she is notable. There is a link, now at the article, to the Minnesota Public Radio website where she is mentioned as an example of White Power artists. I would err on the safer side of keeping this social phenomonon.--Kevin Murray 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) In addition to the Discovery Channel segment, there is recognition in multiple and diverse media including: the liberal institutions: US National Public Radio and The Southern Poverty Law Center Intellegence Report and ultra conservative (reactionary) sources including: The National Alliance and Resistance Magazine. Guidelines call for non-trivial and independent sources. There is no specification that the source be independent of her political beliefs, just independent of her control. This subject should be evaluated not only based on the musical relevance, but also as being politically notable (updated) --Kevin Murray 18:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Kevin Murray was not involved in the article until AfD, although I have heavilly edited it since mostly for NPOV and referencing. I am not a fan of nor politically aligned with Saga etc. But I do feel that it is important that WP Standards be evenly and intellegently applied and that we be an excellent research resource. --Kevin Murray 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MUSIC gives guidelines on notability for music acts, she doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria. One Night In Hackney 06:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the notability here not strictly as a musician, but but as a representative of social movements, both in nationalism and in racism. That her notability has penetrated to the point of being mentioned on US TV and as deep within US culture as to be on Minnesota Public Radio (known as a liberal medium), is significant. Perhaps a more pertinent article would be about Swedish nationalism or Swedish neo-nazism. To me an internationally recognized Swedish neo-nazi singer is of notable concern--Kevin Murray 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saga hasn't been on Minnesota Public Radio. A link to the article in question [27] shows it is an interview with the owner of a Minnesota based record company, and the only mention of Saga is when the owner states There's Czech bands, Italian bands, you've got Valkyrian and you've got Saga -- female Swedish folk tunes. It's a trivial mention at best, and can't be used to argue she's notable. One Night In Hackney 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Much revised, although I'm not entirely convinced of the notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely, I agree with keeping her on wikipedia; she does have some influence in the White Power scene. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! 21:56, 28 December 2006

Comment In that case, please show evidence of the influence citing reliable sources. One Night In Hackney
Comment Well, a few YouTube videos focus on her. Additionally, she created a tribute to Skrewdriver longer than any other band thus far (4-5 albums. Just look on such WP websites, namely MiceTrap.net and other WP music distributors). Moreover, a page for her Symphony of Sorrow project exists on Encyclopaedia Metallum (or Metal-Archives.com). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment YouTube isn't a reliable source. Companies that distribute her music aren't reliable sources. At this moment, Encyclopaedia Metallum is down due to bandwidth problems, but as their site is based on user contributions any claims or her influence can't be classed as reliable, and merely having an album listed on there doesn't make her notable. One Night In Hackney 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence that artist "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." -- Satori Son 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion cited by Satori Son is only one among several within a list at WP:MUSIC where the instructions clearly specify: "meets any one of the following criteria:" This gaff is probably due to haste. The subject qualifies on other criteria within the list. --Kevin Murray 06:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which ones? She doesn't appear to meet any of them. One Night In Hackney 06:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject does not meet any of the optional criteria. I refuse to presuppose what Kevin Murray's gaff is due to. -- Satori Son 06:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now Satori has stated his case, albeit defensivly. Before he wanted to hang on one criterion now he cites all criteria - talk about covering all of the bases! Please specify why you don't think that the author(s) have met the criteria. Let's talk some specifics, if you're not too busy --Kevin Murray 07:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two words explain it best - reliable sources. There are no reliable sources to verify she meets any of the criteria. One Night In Hackney 07:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have ~~three~~ five reliable sources that demonstrate that she is recognized internationally as a symbol of racism and intolerance -- thus notable. More than that, she is a snake-in-the-grass due to her ability to "come across as the girl-next-door" and alternatively the "Swedish Madonna of the far right." This is not about just a singer; it's about a potentially dangerous social phenomenon. Please stop micro lawyering and look at the big-picture --Kevin Murray 07:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three reliable sources? The Minnesota Radio show has been discounted above, it does not assert notability. Second reference is exactly the same. It's an interview from a far right radio show (of unknown broadcast status), where her name is mentioned in one sentence, and does not assert notability. That only leaves the incredibly short clip from Discovery, which does not assert notability. One Night In Hackney 08:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney, you are starting to cite your own statements of opinion as sources of reference. You have stated above your concern about the sourcese, but you can't cite your own opinions as "discounting" the credibilty of the source -- this is circular logic. You seem to be losing objectivity here. --Kevin Murray 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I'm just not the one saying that simply because Saga is mentioned in passing on a couple of radio station by people who run record companies that distribute her music (which are therefore not independent, and are not reliable sources) she is notable. If you wish to carry on this charade, I suggest first reading WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC and especially using extremist sources. Extremist sources can only be used as primary sources, and articles may use primary sources, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. Without independent third party sources, there's no way of proving she's notable. And yet again not one of the sources (be they credible or otherwise) made any assertion of notability that she meets any of the criteria for WP:MUSIC. One Night In Hackney 08:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the various criteria at WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC are merely guidelines, we must look to the overarching spirit of Wikipedia, especially when someone's notability crosses among genres and borders. In this case Saga is more than a musician, she is a symbol within an international cult. By your own statement above her "distributors" are getting her press in the US, as far reaching as the ultra-liberal Public Radio and the reactionary National Alliance, with a significant interview on Discovery Channel in the middle, which is a big deal on this side of the Pond. How can you question the independence of Public Radio and Discovery Channel? What is the risk of inclusion? Again, this seems to be mirco lawyering to win a point --Kevin Murray 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:V is policy, it is not a guideline. Re we must look to the overarching spirit of Wikipedia, especially when someone's notability crosses among genres and borders, quite possibly so proving there is evidence that the person is actually notable which you have consistently failed to show thus far. I can't put this any simpler for you, stop saying she's notable and produce some evidence that she is! Any further comments from you without this evidence will be summarily ignored, I'm done feeding the troll. One Night In Hackney 09:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cite Verifiability as the policy, you have ~~three~~ five verifiable source -- that is fact. --Kevin Murray 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say the sources are insufficient, that is subjective - your opinion! --Kevin Murray 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me a troll is getting personal. Not appropriate. --Kevin Murray 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Its an awfully written article with no references, and notable surely means more than "has more than 5 fans". 58.7.0.146 09:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

58.7.0.146 has blank user and discussion pages. SPA? Sockpuppet? Admin should check for multiple vote offense --Kevin Murray 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. So far, all of the reasons listed supporting deletion are satirical, and seem to be attacking the singer's political views, rather than her notoriety. Saga is an important singer of a music sub-culture and should be kept. A simple democratic vote may not be fair, as people who are too emotional or opinionated politically may allow their own personal opinions to sway their votes. -Wikischmedia 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added several sources, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and an interview with Resistance Magazine. With every passing day, there is a better case being made to keep Saga on Wikipedia. The satirical, and hateful "has more than 5 fans" comments do not help the discussion. --Wikischmedia 17:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, all the reaons against deletion have failed to produce a single verifiable reliable source that Saga is notable, and repeatedly misrepresent the content of the articles they have linked to and ignore Wikipedia guidelines and policies at will. If she is an important singer, please produce evidence to support this. Not one of the sources suggests she is notable. The Southern Poverty Law Centre merely has her in a list of over a hundred acts, with no information apart from her name. That isn't a source, other than to prove she actually exists. Please produce sources that assert notability. If she is notable as you allege, you should be able to produce sources to support this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Missing the Point Hackney continues to miss the point or try to throw the discussion off track with non sequitur discussion and ad hominem conclusions. Focusing on Saga as only a singer ignores the political symbolism for which she is most notable. The perponderance of sources makes Hackney's arguments about the weaknesses of several irrelevant. By the heated level of discussion here and vandalism at the article, it appears that the Saga issue is controvercial enough to qualify by that alone. If you look back to the Notability guidelines, there is very little specification of what makes media mention notable; the concern is mostly that the medium be independent and that the mention be non-trivial. When the US Southern Poverty Law Center ~~puts~~ published a list including a Swedish singer, along with an article expressing deep concern ~~on a list of concerns~~, that is notable from a highly credible liberal source, not to mention public radio. Hackney may not respect the neo-conservative press, but they are independent of Saga herself, and are discussing her clearly in more than a trivial way. Hackney seems to be taking this to a level of prosecution rather than nomination --Kevin Murray 00:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting the content yet again They are not "discussing her clearly in more than a trivial way" [28]. She is not discussed, she is a name on a lengthy list with no context. Not one "source" (and I use that term loosely) asserts notability. The Southern Poverty Law Centre didn't "put a Swedish singer on a list of concerns", the article clearly states it was a list provided to them. I strongly suggest an administrator thoroughly reviews this debate and disregards the constant blatant inaccuracies clearly made in bad faith by Kevin Murray. One Night In Hackney 00:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

The more that you contribute the more you prove my point. You seem emotionally charged by this subject, lending further creedance to the assertion of the subject's implied notability. --Kevin Murray 00:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she was ONLY listed on the SPLC's list of White Power bands, with no other sources, I'd agree that she wouldn't be notable. But the fact that SPLC thinks she's a worth warning people about, and that Discovery Channel interviewed her suggests to me that she's notable and will probably only become more so. Tarinth 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep as obviously notable based on coverage on:

(a) a prominent cable television show as well as
(b) Minnesota Public Radio
(c) designation by Southern Poverty Law Center as a White Power band (I don't think SPLC is in the business of denoting neo-nazi garage bands...)

All are clearly verifiable, reliable sources. I find the subject of this article despicable, but that is not a reason to exclude her. Tarinth 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet again, (b) and (c) are not coverage. Minnesota Public Radio did not cover her. Her name was mentioned in one sentence during an interview with the owner of a Minnesota based record company. The Southern Poverty Law Centre did not designate her as anything, please read the articles before making grandiose and factually incorrect claims. One Night In Hackney 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oops. I forgot to sign in when I wanted to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment This editor has already stated Keep much earlier. One Night In Hackney 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote to Groar to suggest that he come back to sign his prior "Keep", the second Keep was apparently his reposnse and should not be counted as a second Keep. --Kevin Murray 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Source[edit]

"White off the scale", Guardian - Observer Music Monthly, Sunday January 22, 2006. Research for this topic is time consuming because the name "Saga" is such a common word. This article I found this morning is from an undisputable non-trivial and independent source. --Kevin Murray 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from Article:

"Some white power websites list a 'Nazi Top Ten' - Viking is a regular chart-topper. Frequently appearing in the same hit parade is another racialist chanteuse called Saga - or the 'Swedish Madonna of the far right' as she's been nicknamed thanks to her stunning looks. Her philosophy, she told me simply, was: 'I just don't want people that are not like me around me.' We met in Stockholm, where she was feted in the streets by skinheads. She has deliberately concocted a 'mainstream' look - not for her the 'skin-girl' haircut and bovver boots - despite her celebrity status in the white power underground. She's immaculately coiffed and made up - and alludes to something terrible happening to her in her past, that she won't talk about explicitly, which turned her towards the politics of hate.

Saga flew secretly to the UK to play a white power concert in yet another run-down former mining town in the north of England. Most gigs are arranged surreptitiously through a series of mobile phone calls, like football hooligan rucks. Those in the know phone their mates, and then they phone their mates, and so on until everyone in the white power scene knows where and when the latest gig will be.

Saga's biggest thrill is giving the Nazi salute to her fans. I watch while a moshpit of smitten British skinheads salute her back - including a child aged about eight. 'Raising your right arm is like - we all do that, you know, to greet each other,' she says later. 'They greet me and I greet them. It is a victory salute. For me, it is a really honourable thing to do. There is a lot of honour in doing that.

At gigs such as the one played by Saga in Britain, all profits from merchandising and ticket sales go to the BNP. 'You do something to make a difference,' she says. 'I sing because that's what I do. If I was any good at politics I would probably do that, but I am not so I am doing my bit the musical way.

Comment I don't think anyone can seriously challenge The Guardian as a reliable source. I think this puts her well over the minimum bar for WP:BIO. Tarinth 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I received a note on my talk page asking me to please review the newly sourced article, and I do agree now that reliable sources have been found to verify the article's contents and establish a bare minimum of notability. I have stricken my "Delete" opinion above. Nice job to Wikischmedia and others who worked hard on this one! -- Satori Son 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Kevin Murray is the one to thank. I found a couple of sources, but I couldn't have dreamed the article would expand to over a page in length. If you look at the article's history, a mere month ago it was only 2 lines, with no sources. Amazing. --Wikischmedia 03:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An interview which you have never read and do not know the content of [29] is not a source, and has been removed from the article. One Night In Hackney 04:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saga appears on the cover of Resistance Magazine, which is visible on the webpage; the article is linked to that visual. Another editor referred to the interview, but that has now been removed and only the reference to the cover page remains. Hackney should not have removed the entire discussion and reference. However, Hackney also removed the reference to the Jewish Defense League which mentions Saga at it's webpage. I think that an editor in opposition to an article should not be removing references without discussion. --Kevin Murray 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to 2005-06 in English football. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:12Z

The Football League 2005-06[edit]

The same tables can be found at 2005-06 in English football. I've noticed that the English football seasons list tables for all 4 divisions until about 1974 when they stop.Surge79uwf 05:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Do you plan on deleting all the prmier league seasons? Kingjeff 05:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No since they already have their own pages. What we could do is limit the season pages to Football League tables (i've noticed 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 are missing tables), and only optionally include the Premiership tables or link to them. Surge79uwf 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - copy the tables back into the 2005-06 in English football page, and then there's no need at all for this article. And yes, I would be leaning to delete the Premier League season-by-season articles as well. Other than the league tables, everything else is best left to RSSSF. - fchd 08:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per fchd. I too would delete the Premier League season by season articles. Jcuk 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why don't you do that then? Kingjeff 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:21, 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 delete. --Core desat 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque metal[edit]

This was kept with consensus to merge last time. However, original research can not really be merged anywhere. This is a non-notable and unverifiable term. All the supposed "key artists" are power metal bands. 3490 Google hits altogether is very low for a supposed musical genre and the only incoming wikilinks are from the previous Afd discussion and List of genres of music: A-F. Prolog 05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last AfD. The only reason it survived is because the consensus was to merge. Unsourced OR cannot be saved, thus it must be purged. It's been nearly a year and the article has still not been improved since the last AfD. wtfunkymonkey 06:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced and unverified. Heimstern Läufer 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced, unverified, and sounds just too overlapping with power metal. --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 11:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - originial researc, unverified, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:08, 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. WP:BIO requires multiple independent sources, and regardless of its triviality, one is not multiple. --Core desat 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Molloy Owens[edit]

Prodded as non-notable, unsourced, possible hoax. De-prodded without comment. Some assertions, but no sources, have been added so original reasons for tagging remain. Pleclech 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: apparently not a hoax; see the university website. But there is nothing to suggest sufficient notability here. Heimstern Läufer 06:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She is not a hoax. I found an award for her which is cited at the site, but it sounds like she teaches some pretty basic skills. --Kevin Murray 06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She doesn't appear to be notable. TJ Spyke 06:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability established. MER-C 08:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an instructor doing her job like thousands of others. Unless the coincidences in the last paragraph are statistically significant, there is nothing in this article to justify a wikipedia article. (And speaking as someone who was born on the same day as his father 19 years later, you can guess my feelings there!) Emeraude 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - But this means I want an article about my teaching, thesis, and several publications too! But seriously, the article lacks good establishment of notability. To the author(s): are there any sources I am missing? CyberAnth 01:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, albeit not a hoax, no notability. SkierRMH 12:01, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:09Z

Eternity Theory[edit]

Reads like an essay--not encyclopedic. I can't find any reference to an "Eternity Theory". Glendoremus 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without references, it seems like Original Research to me. And the claim that Agnostics "support" this theory is dubious too. =Axlq 07:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To quote from the article, "no evidence exists to support this concept". Indeed. Serpent's Choice 08:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original Research. Possible hoax. Spinach Dip 10:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of flawed logic. If justification for an article is that "no evidence exists to support this concept, (but) believers argue that there is no evidence to disprove it" then we are in serious trouble. Emeraude 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR essay. TSO1D 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect that the idea of so-called eternity theory is discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. (Try cosmology.) 129.98.212.73 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's found at Steady state theory. The idea is completely discredited since Penzias and Wilson. Delete -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources given despite request. Gazpacho 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HBG Prangins[edit]

Yet another unremarkable tower. Contested prod. MER-C 06:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article does not even assert notability. Charlie 08:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely non-notable. Spinach Dip 10:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not reallyi a tower article as a facility article. -Freekee 19:46, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:10Z

Like a Boy[edit]

The article is essentially one statement, indicating that a song of this title is "rumored to be the next single" off of Ciara's album, but it's "uncertain"... no WP:RS are found indicating that this is nothing more than a rumor of some sort. Appears to be a contested PROD for whatever reason, so brought here.

Delete as WP:NOT a crystal ball, especially one that contains unsourceable information. No prejudice to recreation if this is indeed confirmed from a reliable source (i.e., not her Myspace). --Kinu ^t/_c 06:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. =Axlq 07:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom> MER-C 08:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No rush, it'll be created when it is released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ciara: The Evolution. Unsourced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 22:31, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:12Z

That's Right[edit]

Much like the article above, this article consists of a couple of unsourced statements indicating that a song of this title "is most likely to be the next single" off of Ciara's album (which kind of contradicts the statement at similarly unsourced Like A Boy). Again, no WP:RS are found indicating that this is nothing more than speculation based on non-final results of a poll at her Myspace page. Appears to be a contested PROD for whatever reason, so brought here. Delete as WP:NOT a crystal ball, especially one that contains unsourceable information. No prejudice to recreation if this is indeed confirmed from a reliable source (i.e., not her Myspace). --Kinu ^t/_c 06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I separated the two AfDs for liability purposes... i.e., maybe one might have some sort of WP:RS, but it's hard to say based on what I could find. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. =Axlq 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have sprotected the page because anons keep removing the AfD tag. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:14Z

Pisces (notable persons)[edit]

This is a simple list of links intended to include one-twelfth of all Wiki-biographies — i.e., entirely free from information, ludicrously broad in scope, and based on an utterly meaningless random criterion. Previously proposed deletion was accepted without objection, but the article was silently recreated (note blank talk page). Recommend deletion and blank-page protection. ➥the Epopt 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One-twelfth of the entire population? Delete as an indiscriminate list. Also, there are, not surprisingly, other lists floating around:

Gemini (notable persons)
Cancer (notable persons)
Aquarius (notable persons)
Aries (notable persons)
Taurus (notable persons)

The other signs of the zodiac ought to receive pre-emptive salting if this passes. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitary indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and someone should AFD the others, and salt the remaining. Charlie 08:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable and inherently POV (that eternal problem of "who decides who is notable?"). I agree the others should be proposed for speedy depending on the outcome here -Markeer 13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, the others should be combined with this nom. Or is Aries more notable than Taurus? --Dhartung | Talk 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your horoscope for today: avoid rainclouds and don't take any wooden nickels, and try not to be upset if the Wikipedia article about you is deleted. >Radiant< 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is such a no brainer, I'm not even sure what to say. 129.98.212.73 18:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculative. Punkmorten 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, can this be serious? CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary scope, no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 16:14, 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. --Core desat 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keron Thomas[edit]

Non notable, prod tag removed with no justification One Night In Hackney 06:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These past procedural matters are irrelevant to the discussion of AfD. Are you trying to say that the article is guilty of misbehaving? --Kevin Murray 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in that the MTA changed several internal policies as a result of this incident and tightened policies of restricted access to crew areas. also the figure is relevant as a teenager with misguided zeal, similar to farris hassan (the teen who left florida for iraq) or mathias rust, who flew a cessna from Finland to Russia in 1987. User:hockeyman001. prod tag removed because article was under edit at time tag was originally applied, article subsequently expanded to current size. citations needed.

Keep per Hockeyman001; remembered even 10 years on: [30] Kimchi.sg 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notable, BUT this will fall under living biography WP:LIVING, will need to find external sources to verify all the info listed here asap. Especially given that this article states that he was arrested for attempted murder a few years later - without citing any sources. If the article is not fixed by the end of AFD discussion period, delete --Eqdoktor 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like a notable person, but a lot of unsourced statements in the article. I marked it as {{unsourced}} and I think time would be better spent attempting to enhance an article like this rather than make an AfD. Tarinth 17:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took it to AfD after the prod tags were removed (with no edit summary or explanation), as they aren't supposed to be removed until the issues raised have been addressed. I still don't regard this person as notable, he's just a typical "Dead Donkey" filler news story. One Night In Hackney 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These past procedural matters are irrelevant to the discussion of AfD. --Kevin Murray 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but wikify and get more sources and references Alf photoman 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a source and clarified the other. We now have a recent NY Times article and a 1993 Associated Press article - this makes two non-trivial accounts. Regardless of the silly aspects, it meet the notability guidelines. --Kevin Murray 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough for a brief mention in a non-paper encyclopedia. CyberAnth 02:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel some people are seeing this back to front. The points being put forward are along the lines of "well he was in the newspaper, therefore he's notable", whereas I think his actions weren't very notable in the first place. The only possible part of WP:BIO he comes close to meeting is Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated., and stealing a train seems a long, long way from assassination in my opinion. One Night In Hackney 03:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that taking the guideline a little too rigidly? He's notable enough to be remembered by the media after 10 years. He was mentioned mostly in 1993 for the train thing, again in 1994 for stabbing, and again compared to others in 2003 for his "daredevil-ness". Has survived the "test of time", so to speak. Kimchi.sg 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking the guideline rigidly at all, in fact I made it clear there was room for manoeuvre. I wouldn't say "remembered by the media" is a particularly accurate statement either, one website of unclear importance doesn't qualify your statement. One Night In Hackney 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Gothamist doesn't satisfy, surely the New York Times does. And that's a even more recent article. Kimchi.sg 04:17, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. — Lost^(talk) 13:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Named passenger trains in India[edit]

Abandoned by its creator (hadn't been edited since December 15), and as it stands, gives no information at all, and even if fleshed out, is likely to be a list of little practical value. Delete. (I considered speedy deleting it as basically an empty article, but I thought it better to submit it for community consensus. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Give it more time to be worked on, It's the holiday season. DXRAW 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject's notability is not asserted, nor is the subject suggested by the title even discussed in the article! Also, I appreciate the sentiment that editors not being online because of major religious holidays should be taken into account, but I can't say I support the idea of temporarily suspending WP policies for the holidays. Not everyone is Christian, and it's pretty much a holiday season for some religion all year.Charlie 08:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article is two sentences long, with no actual content or information. The essence of an "empty article" that does not respond to its title. If the original editor (or anyone else) wants to write this article, a speedy will not prejudice against recreation, and there would certainly be no significant loss of prior effort. Serpent's Choice 08:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point - so tagged. Charlie 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a result of a wrong move. A template talk page (created by my bot) was moved to the current title. I am speedy deleting the article — Lost^(talk) 13:40, 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 Ten Commandments. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:13Z

Revelation at Sinai[edit]

Still listed as under construction, but no conceivable content that is not already more than adequately covered by other articles, I think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete. Article was created less than 2 weeks ago, and the author may be on a holiday break, so I would have personally waited a month before proposing this for AfD. =Axlq 07:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Axlq: Any editor is free to work on an article in the sandbox, but the fact is that many don't ever get around to finishing (or in this case, starting) the work. When there IS an article on this subject, the article can be recreated. In the meantime, this is not an article and editors should not be "parking" article names. -Markeer 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I changed my vote above. =Axlq 14:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless notably expanded by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Perhaps redirect to Ten Commandments, which are the laws given at the Revelation of Mount Sinai. A section might be added to Ten Commandments to establish its context in the Biblical narrative. 129.98.212.73 18:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ten Commandments - no need to have two articles about the same event.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:31, 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 Redirect to Custom Robo. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:15Z

Rahu I[edit]

When I came across it while cleaning up the list of articles under construction, I went, "Huh?" Right now, it's utterly incomprehensible, and even if rewritten, I can't see how this is going to be encyclopedic or sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be a Robo (mech) from the game Custom Robo. It's just a minor one though. TJ Spyke 07:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, minor game character. MER-C 08:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Boardering on game-guide. Spinach Dip 10:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Custom Robo? Anthony Appleyard 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely minor character. --- RockMFR 16:39, 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisces (notable persons). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:16Z

Aries (notable persons)[edit]

This is a simple list of links intended to include one-twelfth of all Wiki-biographies — i.e., entirely free from information, ludicrously broad in scope, and based on an utterly meaningless random criterion. ➥the Epopt 07:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitary indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why weren't these added to the nom above? --Dhartung | Talk 14:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These people's fame has no association to Aries_(astrology). Tonytypoon 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculative. Punkmorten 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary scope, no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 16:17, 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 Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisces (notable persons). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:16Z

Aquarius (notable persons)[edit]

This is a simple list of links intended to include one-twelfth of all Wiki-biographies — i.e., entirely free from information, ludicrously broad in scope, and based on an utterly meaningless random criterion. ➥the Epopt 07:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitary indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the article is just a collection of links
:Alternative - transfer to a Category, for example Category:Aquarius Notable Persons. Anthony cfc (talk • email • tools) 14:20, Wednesday December 27 2006 (UTC)
Delete, speculative. Punkmorten 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content has no Neutral point of view. Tonytypoon 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, period/full-stop. NO category please, because that would be equally pointless. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary scope, no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 16:17, 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 Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisces (notable persons). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:16Z

Cancer (notable persons)[edit]

This is a simple list of links intended to include one-twelfth of all Wiki-biographies — i.e., entirely free from information, ludicrously broad in scope, and based on an utterly meaningless random criterion. ➥the Epopt 07:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitary indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It wouldn't be so bad if it were a list of people who identify by their zodiac signs, but that would still be iffy. -Freekee 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculative. Punkmorten 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary scope, no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 16:16, 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 Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisces (notable persons). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:16Z

Gemini (notable persons)[edit]

This is a simple list of links intended to include one-twelfth of all Wiki-biographies — i.e., entirely free from information, ludicrously broad in scope, and based on an utterly meaningless random criterion. ➥the Epopt 07:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arbitary indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These people's fame has no association to Gemini_(astrology). Tonytypoon 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculative. Punkmorten 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary scope, no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 16:15, 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. MER-C 08:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StepMania[edit]

Not a notable bit of software. Given a {{prod}} tag, removed, given a {{More sources}} tag, removed, given a {{notability}} tag, nothing happens. Response to talk page request for sources was "[G]o right ahead. Nominate it for deletion." Nothing to indicate that this meets the proposed inclusion guidleine for software by having "multiple non-trivial published works, which is also the hurdle for the accepted guidline on Notability linked before. Google News has one hit which is a trivial mention: One word in a list of other similare games, Google search has circa 5K hits, none of which appear to be non-trivial coverage from a reliable source. Delete unless citations provided to demostrate that this meets the existing (and proposed) inclusion guidelines. brenneman 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notwithstanding the long-winded nomination (most of which is irrelevant and relates to tags), there is press coverage for this. [31]. The software was featured in an exhibition at New York's museum of the Moving Image in 2005 [32], [33]. It was discussed by the Museum curator and director in a TV interview in NY [34]. This definitely merits inclusion. --JJay 14:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is a trivial mention - no byline that I can see, amounts to a review only. The second three links all are very slim indeed: perhaps enough to rate a mention in a paragraph on "DDR clones" in the DDR article at the most. More to the point, they are not in the article. Quit faffing around here and write something in the article as I have painfully pointed out time and again on the talk page.
  brenneman 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly trivial although you are certainly entitled to your opinion. As to "faffing", instead of pointing things out "time and again" on talk pages, your time would be better served adding references and editing articles. --JJay 23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I suppose after the recent spate of music-game-related AfDs (for example Flash Flash Revolution, pydance, Text Text Revolution, Dance With Intensity), this nomination was inevitable. Sorry, but StepMania is actually notable - not only has it provided the engine behind two rather successful arcade games that I know of (In The Groove 1 and 2), but the main version has been covered pretty often in media, as JJay pointed out. — flamingspinach | (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First and foremost, the Stepmania Engine was used in ITG 1 and 2, which were notable games. 69.239.146.153 19:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source that In The Groove (a commercial success until Konami sued) is based on Stepmania. JJay's sources are probably enough for a decent stub. The current article needs pruning. --SPUI (T - C) 20:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. We really need a WikiProject to build good pages about music game simulators, what with all the users trying to wipe them off the face of Wikipedia. - Chardish 02:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay; --Mhking 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a very notable game per links provided above. VegaDark 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is a notable and popular game with many verifiable sources too Yuckfoo 08:01, 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 speedy delete, CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 16:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villagedeep[edit]

non notable Finekorg 08:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unremarkable record label. So tagged. MER-C 08:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google found 44 finds ignoring Wikipedia pages & duplicates. Anthony Appleyard 10:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal ball-ism and non-notable to boot. Spinach Dip 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non notable. Jayden54 13:24, 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 speedy delete as spam (G11).--Kchase T 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunab[edit]

non notable company Finekorg 08:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - first person spam. So tagged. MER-C 08:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search for "dunab -wikipedia telecommunication" found 6 entries ignoring duplications. Anthony Appleyard 10:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. Spinach Dip 10:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - db-spam. Jayden54 12:22, 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. --Core desat 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heungkook Fire[edit]

non notable company Finekorg 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP, nothing on Google: English Hangul. MER-C 08:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google found 62 finds, ignoring duplicates & Wikipedia entries. Also, advertisement? Anthony Appleyard 10:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable per WP:CORP and the above comments. Jayden54 12:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, part of an enormous series of machine-translated articles created by a pernicious semi-bot account. Or redirect to Taekwang Group, which is amply notable. -- Visviva 11:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The company is actually called Hungkuk Ssangyong Fire & Marine Insurance, and it seems fairly clear from an initial perusal of Google results for "흥국쌍용화재" that this has more notability than you could shake a stick at. It is also traded on the Korea Stock Exchange (see its entry). That said, this article at present has 0 salvageable content, and I am very tired of cleaning up this user's messes. Wake me up when this is deleted, and I'll be happy to come back and stub it out afresh. -- Visviva 12:13, 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 delete. --Core desat 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoDigital Records[edit]

non notable company Finekorg 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP as far as I can tell. MER-C 08:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google for "GoDigital Records" found 229 finds ignoring duplicates & Wikipedia pages. {Search for "GoDigital" alone is no use because many other things are named GoDigital".) Anthony Appleyard 10:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable per WP:CORP. Jayden54 12:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non notable--SUIT 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article claims a bunch of notable artists on its label, though the articles for (at least some of) those artists don't support that. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:21Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 04:21Z

Fin (the band)[edit]

non notable band Finekorg 08:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. MER-C 09:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable per WP:MUSIC. Google and Google News provide very nothing noteworthy about this band. Jayden54 12:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria of WP:MUSIC TSO1D 16:53, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:22Z

From the Heart Records[edit]

nn company Finekorg 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 09:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Google showed 19 finds, ignoring duplicates & Wikipedia pages. Anthony Appleyard 10:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable per WP:CORP and Google and Google News provide nothing noteworthy. Jayden54 12:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of credible secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:22Z

The Start of Western Theatre in Attic Greece[edit]

Extremely badly written original research (probably school essay) published as a Wikipedia article. Place name spelled as "Attic" throughout the article probably misspelled Attica, although its hard to say since there is totally no sources cited for verification. Failing grade school essays make for bad Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has other articles that adequately cover Greek Theatre. Eqdoktor 09:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 10:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR covered elsewhere. (nb. attic adj - of or pertaining to Attica - the use in the article is correct). Nuttah68 10:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anthony Appleyard 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete OR and lacks any references. Jayden54 12:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references. --Alvestrand 12:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no references, citations are added and article is wikified by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:29, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:23Z

Club sauce (disambiguation)[edit]

Contested prod, with no reason given. A disambig page with no target pages Nuttah68 09:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless disambig page. MER-C 09:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly a disambig page, delete seeing as there is no usable content and no links to any existing pages.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 09:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't need a disambig page for this subject yet. Jayden54 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, echoing user:jayden54's comments and as per the nom. --Dennisthe2 22:34, 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 - Padosier argued to keep twice, and the source provided is not a third-party source. --Core desat 23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona Organics[edit]

A non notable on campus student project Nuttah68 09:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 10:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google shows 2 finds, ignoring duplicates and a Wikipedia page. Anthony Appleyard 10:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non notable (Google and Google News show almost nothing). Jayden54 12:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I created this article to coincide with the start up of the initiative. I am new at creating articles, and working to add more information to the article. I am also working on making this a "notable" student project. Padosier 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Verifiable source found in The Poly Post ([35]). Padosier 1:24, 30 December 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 was Delete for now, but if a reference is found it may be speedy undeleted. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:21Z

Turaga na Ravunisa[edit]

I cannot find this title listed in any authoritative publication, so it may constitute original research. I myself am abstaining on this vote - but giving other users the opportunity to decide for themselves. David Cannon 09:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per. nom. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 10:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 11:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - existence of title verified at ai cavuti. Delete the reference to Turaga na Rasau and it should be fine. --Xorkl000 13:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That doesn't appear to be a reliable source. -- Visviva 04:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- gadfium 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Just a minute Turaga Na Ravunisa is a real title and is the recognised cheifly title for Lomaloma Village the reference from 'Ai Cavuti' from the Book 'Bula Vakavanua' is incorrect it correctly lists it as Yavusa Buca Turaga Na Ravunisa but according to Fijian affairs board records the Turaga i Taukei or head of the whole tribe of Yavusa Buca is the Turaga Na Rasau a title which supesedes the Ravunisa in the Tikina of Lomaloma again these facts I need to verify and am now under going that process to make public private document recording traditional hsitory, titles and lineage of Fiji in reference only to the Tikina of Lomaloma Malo MAIKELI MB 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified, unverifiable WP:OR and I could find no mention of it here as suggested [36] which is a blog spot anyway.--Dakota 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete until reliable sources found. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:23Z

Turaga na Rasau[edit]

I cannot find any references to this title in any authoritative work. Very likely original research. I will abstain in this vote - and leave it up to all of you to decide. David Cannon 10:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per. nom. No references found outside Wikipedia. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 10:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 11:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references to back up any of this information, so could be original research and definitely fails WP:V. Jayden54 12:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at the moment. Obviously, this material does us no good uncited. With that said, however, I'm unwilling to write it off as unverifiable (or as OR) based on its non-showing in Google. This is perhaps the best example of material that I've seen hit AFD that is unlikely to have a strong online footprint, being Fijian island tribal history. Anyone have a good book on Fijian history, or anything documenting people and titles taking part of the councils that intervened during Fiji's coups in the last 2-3 decades? Serpent's Choice 12:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC) - amended below[reply]
Delete - i have some familarity with the subject matter and i have never heard of this particular title. Have a look at the history for House of Chiefs (Fiji), the title did not exist here until the editor in question added it, also see the original source at ai cavuti, this title is not listed. The editor in question admits that this is original research at User talk:Davidcannon#FROM_MAIKELI. In the interests of full disclosure i must state that i know the editor in question in real life and I happen to have a very low opinion of him. --Xorkl000 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User conflict in the above-linked material notwithstanding, the primary contributor of this article has admitted that it is the result of unverified original research. Serpent's Choice 13:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD should probably be extended to cover Keni Naulumatua II the described as the current title holder, with a similar edit history. Serpent's Choice 13:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think it would be better all of these AFD were merged with the one for Keni Naulumatua and Mere Tuisalalo, the issues are substantially the same.

do not delete the "Ai Cavuti vaka tikina" lists the "Turaga na Ravunisa" wrongly as when it was written there was a period between when Ratu Viliam Fonolahi died and then when Ratu Keni was then nominated by the Vanua of LOMALOMA THE LAU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL AND THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD WHO HAVE RECORDS AND WILL CONFIRM THIS, THIS IS A LONG ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND REQUIRES THE SIGNTURES OF ALL THE CHIEFLY FAMILY OF VALELEVU OF LOMALOMA TIKINA this process has already been completed. and the traditional installation would have taken place this year but current political events have changed this and next year looks like a more likely period. there are also early records that are kept by the Fijian affairs board also records in the "Au vola ni kawa bula" (the book holds all the records of titles and title holders and villages and their various families) at the Fijian affairs board which will confirm the soverenty of the "Turaga Na Rasau" please contact them direct before considering this and related articles for deletion. Actually all titles and articles on Fiji should be confirmed by the FAB (Fijian Affairs Board) and the variuos provincial councils to which they belong. many people entering information regarding Fijian traditional titles and history on wikipedia do not have expressed permission of the provinicial councils and the Fijian affairs board and therefore should all be re-considered and reviewed pending the endorsement of the respective councils and Tikinas to which this history and information belongs and it should be endorsed by the Great Council of Chiefs not just of one or two books written by individuals or one or two independant sources Thank you FROM USER MAIKELI

um, thats what you say, but you need to make these sources available to the community to judge their veracity. Verifiability, not Truth! --Xorkl000 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying Xork1000 is you'll print a lie as long it is verifiable??? thats interesting. Maikeli

these are not my rules, they are rules of this community as expressed in WP:V. If you are unable to follow them, then you need to find somewhere else to post this stuff --Xorkl000 04:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- gadfium 04:44, 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 Delete until reliable sources found. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:24Z

Keni Naulumatua[edit]

I can find no references to this individual in any respected work, online or in print. Very likely Original research. David Cannon 10:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would doubt that this is truly original research, but rather it is at this point undocumented research. The establishment of notability and the task of providing references are subtly different, although the latter seems to accomplish the former in many cases. Unfortuantely our standards may be biased against a culture which does not have a large repository of online information. We may want to look to the spirit of the guidelines and consider the assumption of good faith. --Kevin Murray 12:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 11:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Kevin Murray's comments, but we can't really have have unsourced information in Wikipedia since completely goes against WP:V. The sources don't have to be online though, so maybe the author of this article can let us know where he/she got the information from? Jayden54 12:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly! But is deletion the only course of action? Do we have a procedural flaw at Wikipedia that there is no middle ground? --Kevin Murray 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - fails WP:NOR and WP:V. Full Disclosure - I know the primary author in real life and I happen to have a very low opinion of him. Have a read of our exchanges at User talk:Maikeli and User talk:Xorkl000 for more context. That said this article needs to go. The author has stated himself twice that this is Original Research at User talk:Xorkl000#FROM_MAIKELI and User talk:Davidcannon#FROM_MAIKELI. I think this is an open and shut case. --Xorkl000 13:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- changing vote to an extremely weak keep (see below) --Xorkl000 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This attack on the author is outrageous and irrelevant to the notability of the subject of the article. As there is a personal relationship here, Xorkl000 should at minimum honorably recuse himself from this evaluation.--Kevin Murray 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - agreed, my personal view of the author is irrelevant. The fact is this is original research and thus should be deleted. --Xorkl000 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mark as {{unsourced}}, since the article asserts notability (that he held a significant position amongst Fijian nobility). Time spent debating deletion is probably better spent adding sources or improving the article. Tarinth 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said! --Kevin Murray 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure we can give this article a couple of months for it to be fixed, i doubt it will though, and we'll be back here before too long. I disagree that this is notable, but as Kevin Murray says my view may be tainted (which is why i'm sticking with the open shut case of WP:NOR) --Xorkl000 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete the its of importance to the people of LOMALOMA TIKINA TO WHO THIS HISTORY BELONGS please also note my entry on the Turaga Na Rasau "Ai Cavuti vaka tikina" lists the "Turaga na Ravunisa" wrongly as when it was written there was a period between when Ratu Viliam Fonolahi died and then when Ratu Keni was then nominated by the Vanua of LOMALOMA THE LAU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL AND THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD WHO HAVE RECORDS AND WILL CONFIRM THIS, THIS IS A LONG ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND REQUIRES THE SIGNTURES OF ALL THE CHIEFLY FAMILY OF VALELEVU OF LOMALOMA TIKINA this process has already been completed. and the traditional installation would have taken place this year but current political events have changed this and next year looks like a more likely period. there are also early records that are kept by the Fijian affairs board also records in the "Au vola ni kawa bula" (the book holds all the records of titles and title holders and villages and their various families) at the Fijian affairs board which will confirm the soverenty of the "Turaga Na Rasau" please contact them direct before considering this and related articles for deletion. Actually all titles and articles on Fiji should be confirmed by the FAB (Fijian Affairs Board) and the variuos provincial councils to which they belong. many people entering information regarding Fijian traditional titles and history on wikipedia do not have expressed permission of the provinicial councils and the Fijian affairs board and therefore should all be re-considered and reviewed pending the endorsement of the respective councils and Tikinas to which this history and information belongs and it should be endorsed by the Great Council of Chiefs not just of one or two books written by individuals or one or two independant sources. I have the endorsemnet of the reigning Turaga Na Rasau who has the endorsement of the Lau Provincial council and the Fijian affairs board but I am yet to table this before the GCC which will eventually be done by the reigning Turaga na Rasau who represents Lomaloma Tikina and the people of that Tikina who endorsed his instillation he has access to their records with regard to Lomaloma Tikina. Thank you FROM USER MAIKELI
- verifiability not truth! --Xorkl000 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so I have to go to Suva I am not getting off my outer Island for sometime, I then have to scan all this documentation it will take me a while to do this, call the Fijian affairs board, call the lau provinical council and confirm my articles FROM MAIKELI
- propose we accept this good faith offer and proceed with Tarinth's idea. If this isn't sorted in two months, i'll be the first to nominate this for deletion --Xorkl000 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine. Please update your comment above to Keep. If it isn't sourced in a couple of months, I doubt (but won't promise) that I'll stand in the way of a second AfD. Tarinth 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - will do - i think the debate for Turaga na Rasau needs to merged here as well, the issues are exactly the same. --Xorkl000 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have a pretty good amount of expertise on the Pacific. The Turaga Na Rasau is to Fijians roughly as the Queen of England is to Brits. Deletion is thus pretty ethnocentric. However, the article needs sourcing and it could perhaps be merged into Turaga Na Rasau. And I am sure good sources exist that could be cited, even if some of them need to be primary. CyberAnth 01:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- i'm sorry but thats just utter bollocks. At best this is a minor village title and at worst it exists only in the fertile mind of the author. There are three major titles in Fiji: Vunivalu of Bau, Roko Tui Dreketi, and Tui Cakau - please go and read up at House of Chiefs (Fiji) --Xorkl000 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the analogy is indeed roughly accurate, although I should have been more precise to stipulate Fijian inhabitants of Vanuabalavu. CyberAnth 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minute Correction today the three confedarices are adminitrative introductions of the British Fiji never had paramount chiefs of Confedaricies but rather regional chieftans today the Turaga Na Tui Kaba Na Vunivalu of the confedaracy of Kubuna, currently the Marama Na Roko Tui Dreketi of Burebasaga and Lalagavesi na Turaga na Tui Cakau na i Sokula of the Tovata Confedarcy, the Turaga Na Rasau was formerly in old history part of Kubuna and in modern history Paramount Cheif only of Lomaloma Tikina, by the way the GCC still considers the Queen of England as Fiji's highest Cheif since session of 1874 Malo Maikeli
- thats what you say, again this hasn't been verified anywhere --Xorkl000 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- gadfium 04:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
We've agreed that you can take the next couple of months to work on the article and get it improved. Go ahead and get some sources and some better information, and get it in the article! Good luck. Tarinth 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then. I'll keep an eye on this article, and other articles under discussion (Turaga na Rasau, Turaga na Ravunisa, Mere Tuisalalo, Keni Naulumatua II) in the meantime, and give Maikeli the agreed two months to find and add sources for his information. David Cannon 05:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just another minute has not been verified anywhere....hmmm...only by the highest authorities in Fiji the GCC, the FAB the NLTB....anyway point taken I'll get the references MAIKELI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.62.121.205 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I do not want to interfere in this debate in which I would not be able to say if the information is the truth or not, but this is an interesting question. We all know how oral tradition is important in all South Pacific and how it can vary from one narrator to another. We could have the same debate about New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, Cook Islands... The question is, should Wikipedia tolerate informations when there are no written sources ? I think it should, if the author of the article explains where and how he had the information and if the tribe concerned or the clan, or any legitime owner of the story is agreed to reveal it. If I well understood, the author of those articles is himself involved in it. So what is the problem ?

i think in this case we should let someone outside our community document this information and publish it (where it will get peer reviewed by other experts in the field). Otherwise what you are asking is for us (the wikipedia community) to judge the quality of the author's research methods in collecting oral histories and the quality of his synthesis and conclusion. We should not be doing this - we are simply not qualified. This one reason why we ban original research here - so that such issues are dealt with outside the community, and the information comes to us reliably and verified. --Xorkl000 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, that I really appreciate the articles (from all contributors) about fidji in the english wikipedia. It helps me a lot in my modest constributions in the french one and reminds me a great trip in fidji more than ten years ago. Vinaka and keep on the good job !

Nevers

I found a reference to a "William Keni Naulumatua" here. Not sure whether it's the same guy or not, though the meeting it mentions did occur during what our article lists as his lifetime. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is Ratu Kenis son Viliame or William Fonolahi and also David toganivalu both assisted in the research,thank you that will help and be one of my many sources I'll present, thanks again hit bull. MB 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Courtesy blanking (snowball)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ben Hecht. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:25Z

Jenny Hecht[edit]

Deletion nomination Daughter of notable screenwriter, that's it. Unremarkable acting career. Bwithh 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge important details to Ben Hecht, which has no information on wife or daughter now. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 17:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ben Hecht until such time as this article can be flushed out with verifiable citations of notability. There are many minor actors and actresses with articles on wikipedia that have successfully claimed notability, but at the moment this article fails WP:V largely because the one reference/link is to a museum site that only demonstrates it has an exhibit about the father, not the daughter. -Markeer 13:38, 27 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, Conscious 12:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge The article asserts that: "As a child and teenager, she performed on stage, in movies, and on television." I'd like to know more about the notability of these perfomances before kicking this to the curb. Is she was a credited minor character in multiple main-stream productions, I think this makes the case for notability. Also, there is some notability that comes with heritage and suicide rightly or wrongly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and Redirect. She has three IMDB entries, one as "Gang Member," one as a guest star on a single ep of an obscure TV show. RGTraynor 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect until notability can be established. --- RockMFR 03:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as part of the copyright violation process, as tagged. (aeropagitica) 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hepburn[edit]

Promo/vanity. There is assertion of notability -- which is great -- but there are no sources to support them. Google results are unimpressive. "A Mothers Love", apparently his most 'famous' collection, does not yield promising Ghits. The article is a copy and paste from a networking site. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nom buried the lead above: This article is a presumed copyvio because all text copied/pasted from another site. -Markeer 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio Otto4711 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete After review I agree with all above --Kevin Murray 19:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyvio from [37]; it can't be speedied as the article was created more than forty-eight hours ago. (aeropagitica) 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio... SkierRMH 11:57, 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 Redirect to Leslie Ash. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:27Z

Trout pout[edit]

NN term. - Francis Tyers · 13:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asnom. - Francis Tyers · 13:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leslie Ash. I feel cruel suggesting that but it was due to her that the term became prevelant. Keresaspa 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dic-def of a neologism. Eluchil404 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism Garion96 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Barisal City. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:33Z

Barisal Cadet College[edit]

Article makes no assertion of notability for school. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the information presented in this article meets our content policies, and it is nice to keep information on schools like this to counter systemic bias. Nice photo too. I don't see any problems with the article, except that it's fairly short and not likely to expand anytime soon, if you count that as a problem. So, merge with Barisal City and break it out again if more information comes up. JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, why not... Shimeru 05:44, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:32Z

Genocide Awareness Project[edit]

Soapboxy article about a mobile temporary display erected on university campuses by people who are apparently unable to distunguish between abortion and genocide. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This article, right now, does not assert its importance, but I feel that it could possibly be made into something that shows wht it needs an article more. And what's the connection between fetuses and genocide? Sure they're both disgusting pictures, but I'm not sure how that got dragged into the article. That seems rather odd to me. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your question about "connection between fetuses and genocide" is irrelevant (not to say that quite a few Pro-Lifers think there is).`'mikka 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nothing wrong with this artical. It contains factual information (which I presume is correct), and adopts a neutral tone. As to the connection between abortion and genocide, it does not present this as fact but merely reports it as an opinion expressed by the organisation in question. 82.10.103.157 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The Center for Bioethical Reform may be notable and deserve its own article (perhaps the author of this article could create it, bearing in mind WP:COI, of course), but, without reliable sources, one of their projects isn't. Tevildo 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply because the article fails to assert the notability of the subject. Tarinth 17:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, no assertion of notability. Keep. The article's been cleaned up a bit, includes a good bit of balance, and has been sourced to mainstream media outlets. RGTraynor 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A quick google seach reveals that GAP (not that GAP:-) is discussed on numerous campus newspapers, hence it is not a nonnotable dormitory-wide project. `'mikka 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, you should know better! Speedy keep is not a vaild !vote once deletes have been registered. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A joke, man. `'mikka 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[deleted image, please do not start illustrating afd debates, esp. as illustration is completely irrelevant] ⇒ bsnowball 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~HANGON~~ Obviously the "delete" voters didn't bother to figure out that the project generated a consideable publicity. ~~Please postpone your votes for a couple of hours. I am currently working on the article.~~ And no I am not a pro-lifer, I am from a different culture. `'mikka 20:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Done for now. I hope plenty (4) of "mainstream" references. If one wants more, Google news archives have MUCH more. `'mikka 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: with the lead Google hit on this being from www.abortionno.org and the second lead hit from genocideawarenessproject.blogspot.com, I'm unconvinced on the alleged "consideable [sic] publicity." Certainly there's a buzz on both sides of the abortion wars blogosphere and on campus bulletin boards, but might we see some citations to reliable mainstream sources? RGTraynor 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done: National Post and Vancouver Sun are very mainstream in Canada. And a buzz on a two hundred campus bulletin boards for over 9 years now is hardly to be easily dismissed, especially the buzz goes beyond "campus bulletin board" and into "independent student newspapers". `'mikka 20:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I am working on WP:RS and notability issues only. I have no particular desire to write an actual description of the exhibit. I am quite sure someone else will eventally fill this in as well. `'mikka 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Did you really have to nail me down for a typo? Wasn't it much easier to fix a single letter in quotation than to type "[sic]"? Not that I was offended; I've seen worse, but I'd seriously recommed to avoid such an attitude. We didn't even have any heated dispute here with name calling and all. `'mikka 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or maybe move to Center of Bioethical Reform and write an article on the rest of what the organization does. JYolkowski // talk 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would second that. I suspect this org does only this. `'mikka 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Genocide and suggest cleanup of the the content. Tonytypoon 01:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- haha very funny. `'mikka 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete borderline notability for an offensive publicity stunt.note there are only a couple of newspaper refs. the rest are from anti-abortionist publications. ⇒ bsnowball 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who told you "only a couple"? Did you read all newspapers in US and Canada for 9 years? Surely I cannot add a nundred refs here. 5 is more than enough. `'mikka 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This kind of organization is bound to inspire debate whenever it comes up - but they do receive an impressive amount of traditional media coverage when they appear. BillyBoy 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lacks independent sources, very POV article. Edison 00:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lacks independent sources? Are you kidding me? Please explain what kind of sourced did I add then? The National Post, Vancouver Sun, San Francisco Chronicle, The Cincinnati Post? Of course, we all heard that all media in the United States belong to a Jewish Cabal... `'mikka 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability is asserted, I believe. The article could use some more refs I think, but it's not too shabby despite, as Guy pointed out, the subject's apparent refusal to consult a dictionary on the meaning of the word "genocide". Ford MF 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Madchen Hoch 06:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-02 02:33Z

Josh Hoge[edit]

Non-notable musician. Seems to fail notability standards. His debut single was released late this year and nothing suggests it was a notable single. Metros232 13:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:MUSIC. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is more substance shown by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:33, 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 all. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA Premier League results December 2006[edit]

Way more detail than necessary or appropriate for Wikipedia; this is not a news archive. A precedent for removing month by month results has been set by two recent similar AfD's - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBA Results November 2006 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

FA Premier League results August 2006
FA Premier League results September 2006
FA Premier League results October 2006
FA Premier League results November 2006

Dsreyn 14:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policy that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information and the reasoning at the NHL and NBA result AfDs, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per reasoning cited above and previously. Punkmorten 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FA Premier League 2006-07 article, there is only a results table there. Maybe a format like these monthly results articles will be good. Changing vote to Keep as these results pages are an important part of the results table on FA Premier League 2006-07, linking to the various rounds of play in the League. It is important for users wanting to know about the timeline of the games. typhoonchaser 07:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Possibly useful information which does not necessarily deserve an article on it's own but may not require deletion. A merge to ~~FA Premier League 2006-07, as mentioned by Typhoonchaser~~ another article, should do. Insanephantom 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - surely this would be far too much information to merge into one page? Every other month-by-month page results has gone. Next step, by the way, is to look at the goalscorers articles taht are cropping up. --Robdurbar 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, make external links to such sports sites that cover this better. We're an encyclopedia, not a data dump. >Radiant< 10:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, per WP:NOT Kingjamie 13:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. HornetMike 13:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Wikipedia is not a statistics database. Oldelpaso 14:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - for virtually all the reasons mentioned above. Leave detail like this to RSSSF. - fchd 14:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per precedent, nominator and NeoChaosX. Qwghlm 14:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Wikipedia is not ESPN/BBC Sport/etc. – Elisson • T • C • 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all ... "with extreme prejudice," as CAPT Willard was told. WP is not a collection of information, and I certainly don't come to WP to find sports results, timely information on schedules, blah blah blah. This is also arguably promotion as it is serving as a marketing information resource for professional(?) sports. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above along with similar articles for Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Spain, France and England (2) - many of which are no longer being updated in any event. Forbsey 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. If you're looking for sports scores, go to Yahoo!, ESPN, or a dedicated sports statistics database site, like Retrosheet. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is information that should be on Wikipedia. Niall123 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Care to explain why? The delete voters have all cited Wikipedia policies and guidelines as reasons for their votes. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Definition of Encyclopedia: "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.". The information that we are adding is referenced and well organised information which could be viewed as useful. How this information strays from the meaning of the word encyclopedia I don't know. You should try to go on the internet to find detailed results of matches from the internet as we were doing and discover how hard it actually is to find such detailed information. I also put the word comprehensive in bold. More detail is what we need here and not less.Niall123 13:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All - Yes it's too much info and more pages than necessary, but surely 1 merged page for the whole season is fine? The 06-07 season page has a results table, why not show the results? It's been done for World Cups and suchlike. If it is merged into one page (or put onto the 06-07 season page) then it should be cut down considerably. Whilding87 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please review AfD discussion guidelines before leaving a comment. We need arguments, perspective. Thanks!! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree these articles should be deleted. Wiki is not Grandstand. However the difference between these articles and the FA Cup Qualifying rounds article is significant. These articles are fancruft, the latter is a one off piece of information giving a record of results which will not be added to. These articles are duplicated all over the internet but Wiki works best when Wiki supplies (and gives the opportunity to supply) extra to the ordinary level of information. doktorb _words^deeds 08:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't these results pages have been deleted months ago when they were actually started, instead of now when a lot of hard work has gone into creating them? Bababoum 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently, nobody's noticed that it needs deletion at that time. Most of us probably don't care how much work someone puts into this articles, only whether it meets the criteria for AfDing, that's all... Insanephantom 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The August and September ones were nominated for deletion before, but there was a consensus there for "Keep" at the time. Link is here. typhoonchaser 05:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all - These articles meet all WP policies, and are useful and interesting. We are not short of server space so why delete articles that may well attract new readers? BlueValour 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one page, but probably not FA Premier League 2006-07 as it would overwhelm the rest of the info on that page. Neier 11:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, but where can it be merged to? A single article with all the results may attract another AfD... Insanephantom 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Wikipedia isn't an all-soccer-related website. Delete also other similar lists (UEFA CL, etc.) Do you seriously think a guy would come searching on who scored on the Wigan-Charlton match on Wikipedia? No. --Howard the Duck 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is true that not very many people will come searching for who scored on the Wigan vs Charlton match, but it is also true that not many people will come searching for, say, the Little India metro station in Singapore or who the next King of Bhutan will be... typhoonchaser 13:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The next King of Bhutan is way more important than a Wigan vs. Charlton match (they're required reading for high school students that study Asian history). As for the Little India metro station, well, how about the the metro station below Madison Square Garden? They can be considered as equivalents. --Howard the Duck 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, someone may not enter WP searching for a results page, but readers could and arguably would find the pages under discussion from internal links off broad topic articles. My concern is, are these more detailed "results" pages necessary to understand the broad topic, or even admissible according to WP guidelines. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep all Concurring with David Spalding. Monthly results provide supporting information for the main season. Given the information provided users can use Wikipedia to access the summarized match reports or even official match reports. All the results are neatly linked from main FAPL 2006-07 season page so, this information is easily accessible to users.Tirupraveen 05:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all - A League's month-by-month history is encylcopedic.gigatotti 6:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why? Punkmorten 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dictionary.com gives a definition for Encyclopedic; "comprehending a wide variety of information; comprehensive". Month by month listings surely falls under a wide variety of information ? Niall123 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In a sports encyclopedia, yes. In a general-reference encyclopedia, no. Is a monthly sports scoresheet is what you would expect to find in an encyclopedia? Would Britannica carry a list of game results of all Major League Baseball games? I frankly think these types of information are suitable for world sporting championships, but for sporting events that occur every year, I guess this is too much. Would high school students research on the score of a Charlton-Wigan match? Perhaps what happened on the Juventus-Liverpool riot, but not necessarily the score of Wigan-Charlton matches (although I do think a list of historical scores of derbies will do). 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      - So, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about everything but sports, or what? I'm confused. Neier 14:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not that a Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about everything but sports, but you'd have to draw the line. Is a Wigan-Charlton match that important, say 10 years from now? I actually liked what the people did at 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season, where they posted only the key matchups (read: Chelsea-Man Utd. matches, local derbies, games among relegated teams, upsets). --Howard the Duck 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, not 'everything but sports', but I think the reasons for deletion are that it's according to WP:NOT, saying that WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Insanephantom 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The point being, that if it is notable enough to include in a sports encyclopedia, then it should be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Neier 14:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A sports encyclopedia is not equal to Wikipedia. --Howard the Duck 16:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And I would further comment that encyclopedic does not equal everything about everything. I continue to feel that an article about the season, summarizing competitions, developments, overturns, whatever, would be encyclopedic. One critieria I use is "effort in writing," not to be confused with effort in formatting. IOW, if you spend an hour writing a narrative description of the season, fine. If you spent an hour copying results data in to a table, with no editorial discrimination, it's "almanac-like," and deviating from WP:NOT#IINFO. (BTW, I'm presuming that each of these pages has — or will have — verifiable information with references to back it up. If results pages don't reference their source, we have further reasons to merge/delete. Please don't counter, "But we all saw the match, it's in the news, it's common knowledge," etc. ;) ) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        All the matches have links to the original match report from Official English Premier league website. So, they do reference the original source.Tirupraveen 06:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia isn't an all-soccer-related website, especially statistics of every match in history of football. I think an article for a season is enough. I can't imagine if after a lot of years we have such statistics for every month or such statistics of 20 years ago. And there is also danger to have such detailed information for every league in the world! --KRBN 13:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thing is, we don't have a summary of the results in the article for the season, so we need to merge the results to a page, in my opinion. And I suppose it's fine to have results of notable leagues (such as the English one)? If you could be so kind to explain the danger of having month-by-month detailed statistics, however naïve this question may seem...? typhoonchaser 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Much more sensible/acceptable to store results in the format used on the FA Premier League 2006-07 page i.e. neatly tabulated, scores only. QmunkE 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I believe that just a results table isn't enough. That's why these results pages were created, I think. Readers would expect maybe a brief summary of the game when they click on the wikilinks (which link to the results pages). Without these results pages, readers wanting to know about how the games went on would (maybe) be upset because the timelines of the games are gone. Just my thoughts... typhoonchaser 07:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per nom. --DethFromAbove 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This debate is present on every WP that tried to write that kind of lists but the russian WP which puts an article per day i.e. on the curent NHL season. It would be better (in fact, it is urgent) to separate the raw data - which can be useful for the expert - from the data for learning - which is useful for everyone. Hope I didn't make too much mistakes. Kwak 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(why noone at Wikimedia Foundation had the idea to make a "Wikisports" ?)

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

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

The result was Delete; there's already Category:Final Fantasy designers. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:27Z

List of Final Fantasy designers[edit]

The entire article is just a list, and likely will never be more than that. There is also no discussion or context provided by the article, and a number of the individuals on the list do not have more than a stub's worth of information in their own articles, or no article at all. Thus, the list by itself will not be helpful to many readers. Providing this information in this form doesn't seem encyclopedic given WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. This information would be better presented in the articles for each of the Final Fantasy games and in the main Final Fantasy article in cases of desisgners who have worked on many FF games. Nimrand 14:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Key phrase is in the article intro: Production credits for each individual game can be located in the specific articles. This seems to be a list just for the sake of having a list. -Markeer 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article on Final Fantasy. Tarinth 16:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Markeer. There isn't anything profound or encyclopedic to show regarding who helped design which game, so I don't see any benefit for a list. Any of this that isn't already at the respective pages of each game should be merged there, of course. Serpent's Choice 16:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dowkn 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Final Fantasy deletions. Nimrand 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure all of this can be merged into their respective articles in a relatively painless fashion. I think I'll do that sometime within the next day. Axem Titanium 16:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after checking that the information here is also listed on the relevant games. Quack 688 10:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(do not know proper term) Make it into a catalog instead.

Comment What do you mean by catalog? Nimrand 00:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [S]He probably meant a category. Koweja 08:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A category instead of an article might not be a bad idea. That was possibly the intent of this article in the first place, and the authors just didn't know how to go about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahvazi[edit]

Nominaton for speedy deletion The article is about a football player who does not exist. There is no football player born in Brazil who plays for Foolad FC. The article is pure nonsense. Nokhodi 09:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For speedy deletions, no listing on AfD is necessary, you just put a {{db}} tag on the article. However, this article meets no criterium for speedy deletion, so an AfD discussion is appropriate. I've fixed the nomination which was improperly filed; please follow the instructions on WP:AfD next time. Sandstein 09:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I looked through the Google results and I couldn't find anything about this player so the nominator is probably right. Jayden54 14:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ahvazi/Ahwazi would refer to someone from Ahwaz, not Brazil. Anyway, I've never heard of any footballer from Brazil playing for Foolad FC. What is the need for discussion? Just delete speedily.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Julian Bleecker. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:35Z

Blogject[edit]

This article is classified as being of unclear importance since last June. It seems to be an internet meme coined by Julian Bleecker. I was going to be bold and merge the article with its creator's article but I am not sure (it would require shortening it a lot) so I prefer asking your opinion first. Merge to Julian Bleecker -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - seems to be a term that might be gaining in usage, but to qualify as a neologism that's notable enough for Wikipedia, there needs to be some secondary sources that discuss the use of the term (rather than articles that make a passing usage of the term). A couple of newspaper articles (or similar) items that discuss the use of it as a new term would satisfy this, but I couldn't find any. Tarinth 16:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete or merge to Julian Bleecker. Yet another brand-new blog neologism. --- RockMFR 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neologism Guy (Help!) 11:07, 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:36Z

Brian Baker (Australia)[edit]

This article is listed on the list of articles with unclear importance since June. I personally have mixed feelings about this author so I abstain. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there anything out there that could lead us to believe that this musician is notable even in Australia? Alf photoman 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 07:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fact he launched his CD at what looks like a suburban pub doesn't inspire confidence in his notability. A few ghits, but few of them seem to be anything other than offhand mentions in gig guides and the like. I'm willing to change my vote if more evidence of his notability is brought forward. Lankiveil 06:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete very limited notability asserted, no reliable sources given. Eluchil404 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:37Z

Can Birsay[edit]

~~Not important person, not worth an article in Wikipedia~~ Article does not assert notability per WP:BIO. Tuncay Tekle 04:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (edited: Tuncay Tekle 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a comment, I would suggest using gentler language when it comes to AfDs regarding a living person. Saying that they are "not an important person" sounds too personal, and might aggravate a person who might otherwise like to contribute helpful content to Wikipedia. Might I suggest: "Article does not assert notability per WP:BIO." Tarinth 16:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tarinth, what I understand Birsay is a sportsman and works in that proffesion. But this article must improve. Thorny Daisy

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuisnotunixisit (talk • contribs) 05:20, December 31, 2006
Delete per WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 06:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:38Z

Carolyn Monroe[edit]

~~The article does not demonstrate or document any notability e.g., filmography, effect on industry, sources of information~~ --Kevin Murray 14:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rescind my nomination for delete and vote for a keep. Shouldn't we have photo of an actress? --Kevin Murray 04:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO on at least two counts-- #6: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. " 216 appearances listed at Internet Adult Film Database, (plus four as director) show she was prolific. #7 "There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer." At least three films have her name in the title: Carolyn Monroe is the Dream Machine, Carolyn Monroe: Pussyfootin' Around, and Carolyn Super Star -- Dekkappai 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would reverse my position if:
- some of the assertions to notability above can be documented at the article.
- the article sounded more encyclopedic and less adoring -- see recent rewrite

--Kevin Murray 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We were re-writing at the same time. I agree with the removal of the fannish prose, but think the article looks better with the intro sentence broken off from the body of the article. But if you disagree, feel free to take it out again. Dekkappai 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!--Kevin Murray 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any reliable sources. I do not agree that PORNBIO, establisheed by a few devotees, provides a valid backdoor route for establishing notability of otherwise nonnotable persons. Edison 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PORNBIO is an accepted guideline, and she clearly meets it. One Night In Hackney 01:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten.--Kubigula (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 04:28Z

Craig Burgers[edit]

Not noteworthy

A student who involved in some minor campus politics and quoted in a few student newspapers does not constiute a noteworthy person. I don't understand the 'Burger-time' reference either. This is most likely a page created by a friend of the person.

Delete because Peter Pepper picked a peck of pickled pipers... Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Burger-time is probably a reference to the arcade game. Otto4711 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pickled pipers? Caknuck 18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above--Kevin Murray 19:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS indicating subject meets WP:BIO. Writing for a few partisan blogs, belonging to some organizations, and running for county commissioner don't seem to indicate notablity. The "Burger Time" time thing makes me think this is a WP:COI article by either the subject or an acquaintance. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:48, 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 as not notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FM- and TV-mast Trzeciewiec[edit]

Prod contested by User:Zonk43. Cleanup of stubs of non-notable masts per AfD precedent. Excessive number of stub articles in this category, see also User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. These are stubs of equally unremarkable masts for deletion, this time in Poland. Ohconfucius 09:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 09:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Deizio talk 16:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I don't see why we need articles on every non-notable masts. What's next, articles on every electricity pole? Jayden54 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there were a few of those as well, but they've been prodded. MER-C 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above. With regard to the no doubt large number of mast enthusiasts who will suggest keep let me remind you of WP:NBD. The "consensus" that will be brought up is from January 2006. The recent deletion of a large number of US masts clearly demonstrates our current attitude towards these articles. MartinDK 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not so sure. There has been one strong dissenting voice on the recent US mast nominations, and the even more recent ones in the UK (26th) are contested leaning towards keep. My own view has changed. I now believe if the article is nothing but a stub giving height and location then it should go; at worst it takes a few minutes to recreate. But if someone has added a photo and has something interesting to say about notability then I lean towards keep. They are likely to be local landmarks. Akihabara 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree that we should be careful about possible trainwrecks here. A picture does not grant notability, the fact that a particular mast has played some important role may. MartinDK 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're correct, but a photo does indicate that someone's interested in the mast in question, making it that much more likely to be expanded beyond raw information. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree. Anyone who lives near to or goes to the location can take a photo, and still does not guarantee an encyclopaedic article. Please bear in mind that the Wikipedia test per WP:NN is that the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". Ohconfucius 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be pretty tall masts, so I think information about them should be kept. Merge into either an article about tall structures in Poland (per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts) or the locality (per WP:LOCAL). JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with the idea that valuable information should be merged if possible. That said Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts is a sub-page of an official policy, not official policy itself so WP:NBD apply. I think you are more right when bringing up WP:LOCAL which also supports the merge argument for the notable masts and in any case would have reduced this to a content dispute within another article rather than an AfD. MartinDK 07:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These fungible utilitarian structures lack multiple sources to show they are notable. Being in a database of masts, or someone taking pictures of it, does not make it notable. I could take pictures of the mailbox at the corner and enter data from a database of mailboxes, but it would still be a non-notable mailbox. Find several newspaper or magazine articles where the mast is the primary subject and I will change my mind. Edison 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football League Championship results August 2006[edit]

This article was prodded a few days ago. I oppose the prod, but I would like to get some consensus or precedent on this, as there are already many such articles on wikipedia, and many more are created as we speak. That is why I am moving this to AfD. The concern raised in the prod was "Has not been continued throughout the season. Wikipedia is not a collection of information and is not a football results database". I believe that the article adds to the encyclopedic content of wikipedia. It provides an overview of results, goal scorers, winning streaks, losing streaks, etcetera. As such, it provides documented data, which others can use for whatever they need it for. This discussion should probably also cover Football League Championship results September 2006. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Football League Championship results September 2006 to this AFD. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions and in the list of England-related deletions. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League fixtures and results - the group of articles that were kept over there and this article follow the same format, hence precedent says that this one should go the same way. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, SportsAddicted | discuss 11:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly TransWiki to a sports statistics wiki - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and editors here should not have to maintain potentially thousands of pages of football results which are easily locatable elsewhere on the web. Qwghlm 14:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything on wikipedia can be found elsewhere. Otherwise it would be original research. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction, WP articles are written from verifiable resources on the web and off. WP is not a mirror of whole-cloth information as your comment suggests. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read my comment again. I said that anything on wikipedia can be found elsewhere. I didn't say that anything that can be found elsewhere is on wikipedia, or that it should be. A ecis ^{Find the Fish} 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwghlm. HornetMike 15:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All this information can readily be found on BBC.co.uk/football and elsewhere with considerably less effort. I think the fact that these pages fizzle out in mid-September speaks for itself. Daemonic Kangaroo 16:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006. Crossing precedents, Daniel Bryant! Punkmorten 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one goes too far down the line of being an indiscriminate collection of information. Also agree with points of Daemonic Kangaroo (good name) and Qwghlm. --Robdurbar 17:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not ESPN. I am concerned in general about the very clear and noticable recentism that has started to spread amongst the football related articles (while at the same time much more important events from 10, 20, 50 and 100 years back are completely ignored), and I will try to start some sort of discussion on the matter on the football WikiProject during the holidays. – Elisson • T • C • 15:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are other sites to provide this level of detail. Conscious 12:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. Niall123 17:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the deletion discussion Punkmortem brings up and the reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006. This much recent detail is not necessary for Wikipedia. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or trans-wiki. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, per WP:NOT Kingjamie 13:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all ... "with extreme prejudice," as CAPT Willard was told. WP is not a collection of information, and I certainly don't come to WP to find sports results, timely information on schedules, blah blah blah. This is also arguably promotion as it is serving as a marketing information resource for professional(?) sports. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwghlm . Edison 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that's what external links are for. >Radiant< 10:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to single article for season results. Neier 12:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as merging would create a too-large article. Neier 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:45Z

Foulacy[edit]

As per a previous AfD, I am resubmitting this. This article fails WP:BIO and is related to Major League Gaming. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naconkantari 22:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has never appeared in any major international competition, nor made any notable achievements and therefore fails WP:BIO. Show on USA network is sponsored by the MLG league itself and therefore not a reliable source. For clarification regarding e-Sports, view e-Sports and 2006 e-Sports World Champions -- DJiTH 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:27, 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 and tag {{local}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:48Z

Holy Trinity Church, Leicester[edit]

Contested speedy. Rather spammy article on a local church offering no indication of notability Nuttah68 19:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is a stub, and could do with a rewrite, but it seems odd that we should be looking to delete the article of a large church in a large city. As per WP:LOCAL, a better course of action would be to tag with {{local}} or {{not verified}} in the first instance to allow someone with more local knowledge to expand the article, rather than to go straight to an AFD. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to clarify, the article has not gone 'straight to an AFD' but has existed for a month. Nuttah68 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, to clarify further, you tagged for speedy delete rather than take a more constructive approach. You've now nominated for deletion. That's what I mean by "straight to AFD". You haven't attempted to improve the article, or encourage others to do so. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Robwingfield: this unfortunately appears to be Nuttah68's modus operandi. The extent of contributions are a list of speedy deletes followed by AFD if the speedy doesn't take hold [38]. Further, despite repeated requests (see User_talk:Nuttah68) of the value of "common courtesy," this user does not notify the author(s) of attempts to delete said articles. Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." It might be that it is easier for some to delete articles rather than attempt to improve articles for the good of the community. Drew30319 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The external links in the article offer no more information. Google provides, apart from the church site (already linked), forums and directories. The appears to be no readily available information and the article was created by a single use account. Nuttah68 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI have extended the description, and I intend to add some information about the history and architecture of the church building. pjparkinson 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Drew30319 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meets content policies. Keep. Possibly merging with an appropriate locality article might be a reasonable compromise instead. JYolkowski // talk 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete or Merge - Nice advert, can I visit sometime? But you need to cite some secondary sources to establish notability. Have any books or reports on the cell church movement mentioned the church? Otherwise it needs to go or be merged per JYolkowski until such a time. CyberAnth 02:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or perhaps merge as suggested by JYolkowski). I've added a bit of historical info. --HJMG 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church merits an article on its past and present role in the city, but perhaps some nn "congregation-only" bits could be pruned? For example, sermons, songs.--HJMG 12:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Income tax in Iran[edit]

an artcile about Labour and tax laws in Iran already exists. Furthermore the new article is nearly empty SSZ 21:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs expansion; therefore, the {{expert}} tag is there.--Patchouli 01:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- very short article. only saying that there is income tax in Iran. And one already exists. -- Dasnedius 18:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just an indiscriminate fact, and could easily be mentioned in the article on Iran. Tarinth 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran if credible
Merge into Iran as a subsection of Economy, keep the {{expert}} tag for the section, let it expand, and if it expands too large then let it spin off into its own article. That seems the most sensible thing. CyberAnth 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, needs lots of work. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly encyclopaedic, but unsatisfactory in its present state. The article has only been up since the 22nd Dec, I'd be inclined to leave it awhile longer. If it hasn't been appreciably expanded in a month or so, then I would favour merging it. Xdamr^talk 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable fetishism[edit]

Unsourced article, includes lovely neologism. Reads as original research, if one could dignify it with the word research. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Balloon fetishism, without predjudice against splitting the articles up again if (a) the two paraphilias are, in fact, distinct (an issue I don't feel competent to comment on, fortunately), and (b) independent sources for this side of it are available. Tevildo 15:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oh please what is next? The fact that someone seriously filled an entire article (this is far from being a stub) with this clearly demonstrates the level of original research that is going on within these articles. MartinDK 22:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources means that this fails WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 02:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tevildo (yeah, I'm aware he/she voted to merge; that's just how I roll). From reading the articles I do think both paraphilias can be established as distinct. The article is in crappy, uncited shape, and needs improvement, but that's not a good argument for deletion, it's an argument for someone to roll up their sleeves and fix it. Ford MF 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, also it looks like the article was already deleted (with, I must admit with some chagrin, some of the same absurdly and irrelevantly "disgusted" responses of the voting Wiki editors). An interesting aside and voice of support (although he doesn't appear to be a Wiki editor) is this guy's blog. Not that that's supposed to be a source, but it does speak intelligently to the difficulty of maintaining Wiki articles on fringe sexualities, which is basically what is at question here I think. Ford MF 04:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You've got to be kidding. Madchen Hoch 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. `'mikka 07:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article's virtually unreadable but a quick google search shows it to be a genuine practice Iridescenti 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Thomas[edit]

Delete Not notable. No sources are cited regarding his biography.Daniel J. Leivick 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can add some more detail about John R. Thomas: "Mr. Thomas enjoys spending his free time with his wife and two daughters. He also enjoys playing golf, biking and snow skiing." I got this from the same place that this article came from, word-for-word - the company's website. So, not just not notable, but a copy. Delete Emeraude 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable ad. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 15:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per nom, and also for possible copyvio. --Eqdoktor 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity & Spam --Kevin Murray 19:28, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:50Z

Klondyke group[edit]

nn chain FirefoxMan 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No third-party sources, independent claims of notability. - CobaltBlueTony 23:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn garden centre. Deizio talk 17:19, 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. --Core desat 23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty High School (Bakersfield, California)[edit]

Contains no solid referenced information, no substance PWdiamond 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though having your football team coached by an afl2 coach is pretty awesome. -- Kicking222 15:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SCHOOL in that it does not assert the notability of the subject. The article only talks about a coach at the school. Tarinth 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this school is close enough to meeting WP:SCHOOL and the article meets content policies, so I don't think the information should just be thrown out. Either keeping or merging appropriately would be fine with me. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is verifiable that the school exists, but the article passes no other content policies except WP:WINAD. (I suppose WP:NPOV is arguable, but I find the bit about the administration and the coach somewhat suspect.) I don't think that's enough to keep it, in the absence of any sources (Google News brings up only 4 or so mentions, all in passing; will try Lexis-Nexis when I can, though), when it fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOLS. No opposition to merge/redirect. Shimeru 06:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:28, 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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengalis[edit]

Good material but should be reordered into categories. frummer 08:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: "should be reordered" is not a justification for AfD. Article on notable people from ethnic groups are common. See List of Germans, List of Tamils. --Ragib 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous other lists. --- RockMFR 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~ Keep Is the existance of numerous other lists an adequate reason to keep a particular case? (Why not just just use a category for this? (Otherwise, lists of notable people based on nationality will simple expand unbounded, ultimately becoming non-useful lists). Tarinth 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists can give you a snippet on each person so you can find out if you want to learn more. Like say you see a name on a list that says "She was in XYZ movie" and you go "Oh yeah I remember her." You may not remember her name on its own. Likewise it allows for expansion on neglected areas. (Like the Third World, topics primarily of interest to people over 50, topics of interest to people born in non-English speaking nations, etc)--T. Anthony 17:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I can buy into that (changed to Keep). Tarinth 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I kind of like working on lists here. Although there has been lists I went against. Like if the topic would not be worthy of an article in itself, can never be verified, or is based on a very subjective or POV bias. (Like a hypothetical "List of Jamaican haberdashers" on the first, List of virgins being an actual example of the second, and "List of people who. were ugly as babies" as a made-up one on the third)--T. Anthony 18:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, on account that this is not a proper justification for AfD per User:Ragib. --Dennisthe2 23:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep these lists are useful for redlinks ⇒ bsnowball 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep the reasons for deletion given here are not sufficient. I found the list useful since it keeps the list of people I want to write about in future, in a way it is a to-do list. I am curious to know why this particular list is marked for deletion since the other lists are thriving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeroje (talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep - why was this afd'd? Bengalis are present in many countries.Baka man 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep - Why delete a List of Bengalis when there is a List of Serbs,List of Assyrians, Lists of Jews,List of Arabs etc. ? Rumpelstiltskin223 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Please avoid confusing categories and list. -- User:Docu
Delete this and all similar lists. There are many millions of Bengalis; why are they not all (or all the notable ones) in cluded in such a list? But if they were it would be so large as to be useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete until reliable sources found. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:23Z

Mere Tuisalalo[edit]

This article may be original research - cannot find any references to this individual in any authoritative work - either online or in print. David Cannon 11:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. Deizio talk 17:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete this is of importance to the people of LOMALOMA TIKINA TO WHO THIS HISTORY BELONGS please also note my entry on the Turaga Na Rasau "Ai Cavuti vaka tikina" lists the "Turaga na Ravunisa" wrongly as when it was written there was a period between when Ratu Viliam Fonolahi died and then when Ratu Keni was then nominated by the Vanua of LOMALOMA THE LAU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL AND THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD WHO HAVE RECORDS AND WILL CONFIRM THIS, THIS IS A LONG ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND REQUIRES THE SIGNTURES OF ALL THE CHIEFLY FAMILY OF VALELEVU OF LOMALOMA TIKINA this process has already been completed. and the traditional installation would have taken place this year but current political events have changed this and next year looks like a more likely period. there are also early records that are kept by the Fijian affairs board also records in the "Au vola ni kawa bula" (the book holds all the records of titles and title holders and villages and their various families) at the Fijian affairs board which will confirm the soverenty of the "Turaga Na Rasau" please contact them direct before considering this and related articles for deletion. Actually all titles and articles on Fiji should be confirmed by the FAB (Fijian Affairs Board) and the variuos provincial councils to which they belong. many people entering information regarding Fijian traditional titles and history on wikipedia do not have expressed permission of the provinicial councils and the Fijian affairs board and therefore should all be re-considered and reviewed pending the endorsement of the respective councils and Tikinas to which this history and information belongs and it should be endorsed by the Great Council of Chiefs not just of one or two books written by individuals or one or two independant sources Thank you FROM USER MAIKELI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikeli (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2006 December 27
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turaga_na_Rasau"
Delete unless properly sourced. WP:V applies. If reasonable sources per WP:RS are added prior to the closure of discussion, consider my recommendation changed to keep, as the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- gadfium 04:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete Maikeli confirms above that it is original research, as the information is only accessible by a very complex process requiring access to special archives. Furthermore, notability is in doubt as her only claim to fame is her relationship to the famous. This may also contravene wikipedia's family tree policy. DrKiernan 20:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEAR ME OUT I have been allowed 2 months to correctly format my material and verify this material wit regard to the Tikina of Lomaloma it villages and chiefly titles she is of importance as her and her sisters unions linked the household of Vuanirewa and the Turaga Na Tui Nayau of Lakemba, the Turaga Na Tui Kaba Na Vunivalu of Bau and the Turaga Na Rasau of Lomaloma, but I have to verify my research the importance of these Vasu (maternal connections)and within the said period I will provide these references, also I have to research to ensure my souces are correct thats what I mean by original research not me making up things and those source I will make public.

THANK YOU MAIKELI

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 not an encyclopedia article. --Core desat 23:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normative accounting[edit]

Delete - Article does not make sense and is not written properly. Octopus-Hands 10:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not contain any information whatsoever, least of which is its failure to assert notability of the subject. Tarinth 18:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Redirects to the real world are not appropriate wiki articles. Ford MF 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 10:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PC Mobile[edit]

Non notable phone service. Not exactly the best of articles either. AeomMai 22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- Yes, it is a notable phone service. Perhaps the article is not the best, but it can simply be classified as a stub. Although they are obviously not as big as Rogers or Fido, for example, they operate their own call center with several reps, and even I know of a dozen people who use their service. There is no reason that this should be deleted... Tingalex 14:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an advert but beyond that, it does NOT pass WP:V as in the article provides no sources. Where are their multiple reliable reputable independent third-party published sources? does it pass WP:CORP? If so, prove it. (which will help clean up the article). get rid of the avert pricing and plan information. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the aritcle up a bit...removed the "aim to provide low fees" crap and changed some other stuff. However, I do not feel that removing the pricing informaiton is necessary. It is not stated in a biased way and shows no opinion of having good value. Any opinions?? Tingalex 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. No coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not notable.....why not delete practically all of the MVNO companies; Petro-Canada Mobile, 7-11 Mobile, etc. Tingalex 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failure to assert notability. If kept, stubify. Hardware and fees sections are entirely unencyclopedic. --- RockMFR 05:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not candidate for deletion, it could be Merged into the main Pc article, if there is one.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability established, but can and should be edited to ameliorate spam concerns. Eluchil404 16:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Ascott[edit]

This article appears to be self promotion and seems to fail to demonstrate notability. Kevin Murray 10:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable according to the San Francisco Chronicle [39]. Could do with a rewrite to remove some of the peacock terms though. Demiurge 15:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to satisfy WP:BIO. Tarinth 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like there are no issues with WP:BIO, a little reworking to make it sound less like an advert would not hurt though Alf photoman 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a re-write; reads too much like AUTO/SPAM as it. SkierRMH 11:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Metamagician3000 11:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup/expand. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shire in Bend, Oregon USA[edit]

I think this article is about a non-notable housing development or that the article needs a large cleanup. Natl1 22:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam, with some clumsy grasping-at-straws attempts at asserting notability. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page. I am new to adding to / editing Wikipedia, but I am a long time user and fan of the site. I created the page about The Shire in Bend, Oregon. It is true that The Shire in Bend is a small development in a small town. But what warrants "notability" if not an unsolicited interview on the BBC, an unsolicited interview with The Economist, unsolicited interviews with various newspapers in the US and Canada who then feature The Shire in print, blogs around the world talking about The Shire, and a consistent #1 return on Google without a paid adword, etc? No advertising has been paid for, yet people are talking about The Shire located in little old Bend, Oregon. I agree that the writing needs to be improved. I am working on better copy for the page. Rather than deleting the page, keep it up and give me (and others) time to improve the content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bendshire (talk • contribs) 09:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and cleanup. Apparently notable mainly for having an unusual name, but we have Intercourse, Pennsylvania, which is notable for the same reason. Tevildo 15:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But Intercourse is a town. This is a housing development. -- Kicking222 15:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 15:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup, so the quality of this article (which is indeed poor) should not be a factor. The development does seem reasonable notable though, considering the multiple news reports. Maybe a merge to Bend, Oregon though. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have likewise been in print, been interviewed and been on TV. That doesn't make me prima facie notable. Probably there'd be some press coverage if I named a housing development "Dick Cheney Must Be Set On Fire Village" or "George Bush Is The Son Of God Tower," but I don't see why this outfit's self-promotion and unsourced assertions should get any more space than I would. RGTraynor 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, give way more details, and clean up. The biggest problem I have with this article is that, while it certainly asserts notability, it doesn't actually say precisely what this is. Granted that I'm gleaning from context that it's a housing development in Bend that's fashioned more or less in the fashion of The Shire as found in Tolkien's works, but please, be explicit about this! Pictures! Website! Be bold here! Tell us all about it! --Dennisthe2 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs expansion but the citation of sources shows at least some notability. Eluchil404 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Board Australia[edit]

It is not a very large or important thing - I know things bigger and more important that get deleted. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 03:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (web). I tagged it with "notability"; if references are found that make it satisfy the notability criteria, I'd say "keep". --Alvestrand 14:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 07:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable web forum bordering on nonsense. Nachoman-au 04:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete open and shut case of a nn forum that doesn't meet WP:WEB in any way. Put it on the first train outta here. Lankiveil 06:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Please let me know if there is somewhere you would like it moved to in userspace, rather than just copy it - GFDL requires a retained retain history - but please do not recreate the article or dump it all in the main article. Proto::► 13:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MapleStory character classes[edit]

article about how to play the game. wikipedia is not for game guides KaiFei 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge MapleStory is as notable as can be, but this is just a game guide. I think a bunch of this information should be condensed and moved to the main article, however. Unfortunately, there's really too much content to simply merge the whole thing. Tarinth 15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge back to MapleStory. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --- RockMFR 17:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can we get a bit of time to clean up the rest of the MapleStory book before deleting something more? My plan was to move a fair bit of this page to StrategyWiki:MapleStory/Jobs. If someone else is willing to do it, great, but I won't have the chance to do it for a while. -- Prod-You 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can an admin move it to your userspace so that you can merge it with MapleStory when you get a chance? Tarinth 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT; merging would simply result in a bigger MapleStory article containing game-guide information. Move to namespace if necessary, but should be deleted. --Scottie theNerd 12:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If someone still needs this article if and when it is deleted to merge with the main article or whatever, you can find it here. Greeves 00:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about history? -- Prod-You 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both as blatant advertising, non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C&G Partners[edit]

Advertising - page was created by cgpartners. Say no more. Emeraude 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page which redirects to the first article C&g Emeraude 15:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because the article does not assert the notability of the company. Tarinth 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and is a WP:COI. Claims in the article could satify WP:CORP only if verified. Deizio talk 17:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless non-trivial sources demonstrating to satisfy WP:CORP are included by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:51, 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 keep, stubify, cleanup to remove "advert-ishness", and reference. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frappr[edit]

Previouslyspeedily deleted at Frappr!, this re-creation still makes no assertion of notability and offers no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even giving the benefit of the doubt that "over two million maps...have been created" is an assertion of notability, the only sources are the site itself and a Wikipedia mirror of the previously speedied article. Google returns only blogs and forums. Unverifiable and dubiously notable. Demiurge 15:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify, 6M+ google hits, and it's pretty clear from even a cursory examination of those that it's gotten fairly widespread use and recognition. The article could be significantly better, and should be listed as a stub, but the absence of better content in the article isn't an adequate reason for deletion. Tarinth 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation This article is spam, does not assert notability, and shows no third-party coverage. If these things can be changed, then by all means, let's have an article on Frappr. Until then, get rid of this mess. -- Kicking222 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My concern about this approach is that it creates a lot of wasted effort. Why not leave it and give some editors an opportunity to make the article better? I'd suggest marking it with {{unreferenced}}. Tarinth 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But then it's still an advertisement. All the article does is list off what features the site has- read the articles on Facebook and MySpace and how they handle site features, then compare them to this article. It would be much better to just start all over again on this page. -- Kicking222 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calling it an advert is still a bit of a subjective judgement, but you could address that by marking it with {{advert}}. I'm not sure it's reasonable to compare it to Facebook which has had the benefit of a long period of editing, versus this relatively new article which probably should get the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to improve. Tarinth 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. Someone should be able to provide a source or two during this discussion. --- RockMFR 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the article can pass WP:V, and has WP:RS. Fails WP:WEB as it is. The article must pass guidelines and rules of wikipedia NOW...not some crystalballed time in the future. If it is important enough to have a 'keep' opinion, then take the time to actually get the article on par so we CAN keep it. Where are the Multiple, Reputable, Reliable, Independent, Third-party, published sources? Per WP:V . If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. 6 million hits on Google? Well check the Sources section on WP:V. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't have any particular interest in the subject and I'm not going to take the time to research additional sources for it, but my sense is that it is in enough widespread usage that it should have an article, and give others the opportunity to improve it rather than a deletion on the just because someone doesn't like the content of the article. Tarinth 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have five days during this AFD to correct the article. If you no one takes an interest in cleaning up the article during the AFD, the please tell me WHEN someone will? We are not going to 'keep' and article based on a crystalballed 'maybe someone might clean it up in the future...possibly' --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)}
Keep and stubify -- The site is notable and popular enough that it deserves its own article. ~~Eugene 2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify, and clean up the article. Seems kinda spammy. No prejudice if deleted. Needs work, but I'm not really sure that WP:V is at issue. --Dennisthe2 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment WP:V is compeletely valid. Where are the Multiple, Reputable, Reliable, Independent, Third-party, published sources? --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 6M Ghits just suggests to me a notability of near-obviousness. Yes, the article can be improved. Continuously deleting it will never give it that chance. Stubify, mark as unsourced if needed, and let it be and see how it fares after a few months. As with many of these cases, time spent in AfD debates is better spent improving articles. Tarinth 17:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counting Google hits is not research, and Google hits are not a measure of notability. See Wikipedia:Search engine test for the several flaws in your argument. You've put the name into the search engine. What sources did Google turn up for you? How much time have you spent responding with fallacious arguments based upon nothing but counting hits that you could have spent simply citing what Google turned up when you did your search? Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have plenty of time in 5 days to do so over this AFD run. If the article can not be cleaned up in that time, it most likely never will. It's had how long to be cleaned up and it hasn't? At some point you have to put your foot down and say, "Source it, clean it up, and make it encyclopedic" You are right, time spend in AfD debates can be spent improving articles. If you feel so strongly to keep it, then heed your own advice and improve the article. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:09, 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 no consensus. AFD is not a vote. If you're arguing to keep something, you have to say why - you can't just go "keep" or "keep, it exists". Even discounting those "votes", it is impossible to determine a consensus to do anything here. Nonetheless, the article has POV problems, and these need to be dealt with as soon as possible, or the article may be renominated. --Core desat 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia[edit]

This article is surrounded by a quite lot of wikidrama. Before stating the reasons for deletion, let me inform the audience of its history:

1st nomination: likely bad-faith nom, lots of "bad-faith nom!", "WP:ILIKEIT", "there are similar articles around" arguments. Kept.
Second nom, good faith one by Mel Etitis, closed as no consensus. Please read the lengthy closure by HappyCamper. Chief points were that the term exists as a neologism and that the article should be constrained to usage of the term.
Third nom, speedy kept as bad-faith one.
Followed by a lots of talk page spamming by User:Bosniak why this article exists and his Bosniakophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted, it was deleted by myself per WP:IAR on Dec 13, along with Anti-Croatian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Anti-Bosniak sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), similar ethnic feud soapboxes (Croatian one was tad better, admittedly). I reported the deletion to the community at WP:AN/I, here, and it was widely endorsed.
It was undeleted on Dec 26/27 after a 6-hour long DRV.

So, here we are at the 4th nom: contrary to the conclusions in lengthy closure by HappyCamper, in the meantime the article became a soapbox for enumerating all instances of hatred and crimes towards Serbs throughout the history. Actually, it's not a problem of sourcing (it's not too difficult to prove the existence of most of stated instances of crimes): the article tries (and certainly would continue, if the future permits) to establish the common link between all crimes commited against an ethnic group — that link, inferred or spelled out, is the hint to the eternal hate of Our Evil Neighbours against Poor Us.

...And, yes, per WP:ILIKEIT, existence of other similar articles is not a reason to keep this one. (And I promise I'll work on their demise too)

Duja► 15:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this is a neologism that hasn't reached widespread usage. Only 3K hits on google. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and there can't be one of these for each [insert-ethnic-group]-phobia except in extraordinary cases of very widespread adoption of the term. Existance of similar pages isn't a justification of this existance of this one (delete them as well). Tarinth 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The topic seems to be worth writing about, even if the word used for it is a neologism. Anyway "xxxx-ophobia" is a well-known way of saying "dislike of xxxx". Anthony Appleyard 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Anti-Serbism. The only problem I see with this article is the title. Most of the rest is no different than Antisemitism. --- RockMFR 16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The topic is notable enough and the article is well-sourced. Although the title might not be used that frequently, the subject it refers to a well-known topic. I wouldn't have anything against moving it to Anti-Serbian Discrimination or something of the sort, though I think Serbophobia is fine. TSO1D 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. the nomination is misguided: the nominator ironically says the eternal hate of Our Evil Neighbours against Poor Us. He confuses two issues: whether the "eternal hate" exists with whether "some think that the ethernal hate exists". For starters, I would suggest him to re-read the article "conspiracy theory". `'mikka 19:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, thanks. And I maintain that this article, along with several similar ones, is a feeding ground of conspiracy theories rather than an objective overview of peer-reviewed sociological studies (and they can't become good, because none of those became good, except possibly widely-understood phenomena such as Antisemitism and Anti-Americanism). Duja► 21:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If there are balance/NPOV problems with the article or if it needs more of an academic/historical perspective, this should be corrected through cleanup not outright deletion. There is evidence that, besides any historical incidents "anti-Serbism", the specific term of "Serbophobia" is at least encyclopedically notable for being a key term in the historical discourse of Serbian nationalism as used by Serbian nationalists themselves both during the 1990s wars in the Former Yugoslavia (and since) and as part of the internal tensions of Yugoslavia when it still existed as a functioning Communist state. Non-trivial examples of its use can be found at the level of governmental relations, academic institutions, party politics and international relations in recent decades. (I don't know what the phrase is in Serbo-Croat, but "Serbo-Croat" is used by reliable direct English translation sources). The term then is important for understanding the history of late 20th century Serbian nationalism. (There was also an inaccessible references from google books search that on the face of the listed search description suggested the term may have been around during the beginning of the First World War)

Examples of late 20th century significant use:

1986 controversy seen as a key moment in rise of Serbian nationalist movement when the Serbian Academy of the Arts and Sciences issued what has been described as a "extraordinary memorandum" publicly accusing the Yugoslav central government - and the then national Constitution - of "Serbophobia" and urging Serbs to "pursue their national

interests"[40][41][42]

1988 rise of tensions between regional politicians of Yugoslavia which would eventually led to the breakup of Yugoslavia - Excerpt (Factiva) from "Serbia Presses Its Bid to Control Region Demands Kosovo Leaders Be Removed From National Politburo"[43], 12 October 1988, Los Angeles Times (Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1988 All Rights Reserved)

The other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia have reacted cautiously to the Serbian campaign, but they began to speak out more openly last week when the Milosevic group attempted to force the resignation of government and party officials in the southern republic of Montenegro.

The Montenegrin officials stood firm, and the Slovenian government issued a strong statement of support.

...

The Serbian Central Committee fired back Tuesday, accusing the Slovenians of "Serbophobia."

The exchange spotlighted what may be the limit to the Milosevic drive-opposition from the other republics to any Serbian push for authority beyond its own boundaries. Along with the Slovenians, the Croatians will almost certainly put up stiff resistance to any increase in Milosevic's authority.

1996 example of prominence of "Serbophobia" concept in Bosnian Serb political discourse/attitude to international relations at highest level of government. Excerpt (Factiva)from Bosnian Serb TV Q&A interview with Bosnian Serb President Biljana Plavsic:

Source: Bosnian Serb television, Pale, in Serbo-Croat 1910 gmt 10 Dec 96

[Q] Since we are discussing international influences, it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the newly-appointed US officials, primarily the new secretary of state and the head of the CIA. Can you comment on their appointments and their attitude towards the Serb Republic?

[A] Well, the whole set of officials has changed. It has always been said that there is an anti-Serb group, an extremely anti-Serb group, surrounding President Clinton, and another group which - I do not want to say it supports our side - mitigates the Serbophobia of the former. I cannot say now, I cannot assess these people, but even though some of them can be put into the group of Serbophobes - you know more or less whom I mean - it does not mean that things will function in this way with the new team.

Example of continued use in mainstream political discourse in Montenegro. Excerpt (Factiva) from "Party official accuses Montenegrin 'regime' of apartheid against Serbs", Montenegrin Mina news agency:

Excerpt from report by Montenegrin Mina news agency

Podgorica, 9 January: Montenegro cannot seriously claim to be a tolerant country because its government is carrying out a policy of apartheid against the Serbs who make up 32 per cent of the overall population in Montenegro, Budimir Aleksic, a senior official of the Serb People's Party [SNS], said today.

...

He went on to say that the incumbent Montenegrin regime was imposing on its citizens xenophobia and nationalism as a philosophy of life.

"Montenegrin everyday life cannot be imagined without the public display of various forms of Montenegrin chauvinism and Serbophobia through which the present government is aspiring to create the so-called new Montenegrin," Aleksic said.

Also see multiple non-trivial refs in books on Google Books[44] and Amazon[45].

Bwithh 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You give an excellent overview (which should become a part of the article). If you intend to write about this topic, just note that Serbian Academy of the Arts and Sciences never issued the memorandum. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - A neologism with no real notability in the English language (as the article itself admits); article thus seems to exist for the sole purpose of airing ethnic grievances. - Merzbow 22:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English language Wikipedia (the default global wikipedia) does not necessarily exclude phrases that do not have significant cultural/historical /political notability in the English language e.g. Algérie française, Kinder, Küche, Kirche, ¡Ya basta!. Bwithh 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any of those references Bwithh produces being 'non-trivial references' - simply mentioning the word is not the same as a legitimate source about the term and its connotations. When the topic is as loaded with POV warriors on both sides, all we can do is be stringent in requiring decent references and do our best to maintain a neutral perspective, stating the facts and not attempting to draw any form of conclusion. Unfortunately, none of the references that are provided are anything other than uses of the term, and the extrapolation of these, as well as being used to push nationalistic propaganda (and the other 'side' to this are no better), is tantamount to original research as well as being a hopeless and counterproductive POV fest. Proto::► 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My "non-trivial" references I excerpted above were intended to highlight the use of the term in mainstream Balkan politics (clearly the memorandum by the Serbian Academy is a non-trivial and publicized political document. In the Amazon and Google booksearch links I cited, there are academic history books which use this term too. If you want a book which directly addresses the term at some length written by people outside the former Yugoslav discourse, there's this which is written by this guy. Bwithh 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent catch, and a good book, on the first sight. Now, if we had an article akin or summarizing the Macdonald's book, which goes into the great detail of the conflict and its history, causes, related myths, propaganda, etc. I'd be perfectly happy. But that's not what we have, and we're very far from that. Like I said on AN/I, having a "Serbo-Croatian relations", "Serbo-Bosniak relations" or like could be a good thing potentially, as it would enable to contextualize the phobias and give an outline of thoughts and actions of both sides in proper historic contexts. What we have here, though, are lists of misdeeds without context, hinting at presupposed phobias and hatred by the neighbors as the reason for the conflict. Duja► 13:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...to underline my point, let me quote a passage from the page 3 of the book: Without a clear view of Serbian and Croatian arguments, half the debate is missing. Duja► 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This seems to be a reference to proposed "Serbian-Croatian relations" article, however serbophobia isn't expressed only by Croats. (I don't think that the book is very good BTW.) Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Anti-Serbism, per RockMFR. Qqqqqq 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of neologisms that a couple of people use. BigDT 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article, the word has been in use for about a hundred years, and the sentiment certainly exists even longer. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these "anti-XXX" articles are unavoidably POV and unencyclopedic. Any important info can be added to other articles. Khoi khoi 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which other articles would you add important info from this article to? Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as much as I believe that most things should be kept and cleaned-up on the grounds of NPOV, this isn't one of them. Sorry. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV/troll magnet, non-notable neologism, little assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaning towards Weak Keep - Neologism or not "serbophobia" is a notable term, even outside Serbia. Having lived very closely from Greece (Greek medias were very interested in these events; sometimes in a pro-Serbian POV way) the tense days of the Bosnian War and of the NATO air strikes in Kosovo, I do know that this term was notable in my country. So, the argument of not-notability is not convincing for me. Now, the POV and edit-wars concerns are important. But are these reasons strong enough in order to delete a notable article which has been in Wikipedia for more than one year and has survived three (or four?) previous nominations? I'm not sure. My experience in Wikipedia has taught me that we should try to resolve POV and edit conflicts, and not just delete notable articles, when such problems appear. Tag the article as POV if necessary! On the other side, maybe Eusebeus has understood better than anyone here the essence of this article's problems. He had said in a previous nomination and I quote: "The attempt to accommodate NPOV and OR objections has stripped it of any value and the content has moved from the encyclopedic to the ridiculous. This is choir-preaching and it seems to me that no one stumbling across this would be able to make much sense if it one way or the other. Articles that become subject to such disputes usually make themselves irrelevant in this way". As it is now the article tends indeed to become irrelevant, and, therefore, deletion will soon be indifferent.--Yannismarou 12:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is an immense number of possible phobias and every ethnic or other group has its own "phobia", mostly in sporadic use (notable exception being the antisemitism and perhaps a few others). But the description of these phobias in Wikipedia is often very subjective and prone to WP:OR. Therefore I think that these and similar articles should be deleted until they are backed by two or three academic books writen by independent researchers (i.e. not Serbians or Croatians in this case).--Ioannes Pragensis 13:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To those who think the article should be deleted, I hope to see AfDs and the same support for the majority of articles in the List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms / Category:Anti-national sentiment as your reasons given here will apply to all these articles as well (because of this I don't think WP:ILIKEIT applies). If we do list all those articles for AfD you will get a much broader range Wikipedians participating in this discussion, and a better way to determine a true consensus on this subject. // Laughing Man 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my (bitter) experience, such global polls seldom come out well; you get too many "global" keep votes objecting to the procedure, objecting to the bad weather, then piling on "keep per all above" etc; it gets real messy. While I don't have a global strategy at the moment, a better approach could be to establish few precedents, formulate a kind of guideline on the basis of that, then apply the principle everywhere it's applicable. Or at least I hope so. Duja► 16:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, such global polls seldom come out the way you want them to. Well that's not their general idea. I personally don't like precedents as a way of establishing concensus. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the fact that this article is being nominated for a fourth time (!) should be enough to keep it. However, this term is at least twenty years old, if we ignore instances of its use way before the 80s, by people including the famous Croatian man of letters, Miroslav Krleža. It has been used in many languages, and examples of its use are linked to in the article, so it is notable. That the term actually exists further demonstrates that it is notable compared to other similarly-titled article, which are mostly descriptive and do not exist outside Wikipedia. If these anti- articles are the problem, as some claim, then lets have a vote to delete them all, instead of singling this article out FOUR TIMES. It reeks of Serbophobia, ironically. If half the energy invested in showing how the article is biased, poorly written etc had been invested in improving it, it would be one of the better Wiki articles today. --Еstavisti 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Anti-Bosniak sentiment and Anti-Croatian sentiment were deleted by myself and undeleted by someone else during the course of this AfD. While the notability of the term is (kinda) established, the article did not follow the recommendations given at the 2nd AfD. During the course of this AfD, SmithBlue (talk · contribs) did some cleanup and removal of OR, but I'm simply afraid that it will return. If the entire wikidrama I started would result in keep and rewrite all, I'd be , um, kind of content, but I'd much more prefer refactoring of those topics into "Foo-Barian conflict/relations" that would give historical context and views on both sides of the conflict; see Serbian-Albanian conflict as an example of a fairly NPOV (though fairly unsourced) article. See also Fut. Perf's thoughts on the matter here Duja► 09:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the other Yugos, but to the list of links I linked to.--Еstavisti 09:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Fairly NPOV? The borders chosen for the new state did not correspond to the ethnic composition of the region, leaving several million Albanians outside Albania - even today there no several millions of Albanians outside Albania, so this not only is POV but is completely factually inaccurate. And that one is among the several first sentences in the article (stopped reading after it). Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Serbophobia is an existing term, and an existing sentiment. Maybe the text needs improvement, but the whole idea of the article is legitimate, hence it shouldn't be deleted.Velimir85 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Djus 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this article is nothing more than WP:OR and its deletion was almost unanimously supported by the board when the question was brought to the WP:AN/I.--Aldux 23:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This Afd is not about whether the Serbs are victims or not. The question is whether Serbophobia is a term or concept in use, and it appears to be so, so the article is as valid as one on antiSemitism. Edison 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Anti-Serbism, per RockMFR, with a redirect from Serbophobia. Ford MF 05:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Anti-Serbism. I'm not convinced one way or the other which name should be used. But the article should still exist in some form. Either "anti-X" articles (with sufficient sources, of course) are allowed, or they're not. Quack 688 11:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could write hundreds of lines justifying my vote (like pontiting that many, many articles related to Yugoslav Wars in the English edition of Wikipedia have recently been contaminated with POVs — and, sometimes, clear disinformation — that try to distort History presenting Serbian ultranationalists/religious zealots in general and Milosevic and his allies in particular as mainly defensive victims of the Muslim-Ustasha-Western conspiration and aggression, not the other way round), but all I can say on this matter is that, differently from well-based articles like Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism, I agree with Duja that the Serbophobia article is being used as an ethnic-religious hate soapbox with highly disputable real encyclopedic value, to say at least. Well, the article could be “reformed” as a all-new "Anti-Serbism" entry, but I do have clear doubts that it would be valuable.--MaGioZal 13:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't get why some people are advocating a move to Anti-Serbism, which gets only 175 non-Wikipedia google hits. It is a neologism, unlike Serbophobia which has been used for decades, and incidentally, comes up 24 separate times in the limited amount of scholarly material indexed by Google Scholar. For comparison's sake, Russophobia comes up 340 times, relatively less givern Russia's vast influence and population. So, anyone planning to delete Russophobia? --Еstavisti 13:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect from serbophobia would I think be sufficient in this case. The reason for the move would be to put the article on arguably more neutral and less loaded territory, and give it a more encyclopedia title, instead of leaving it with a fairly ugly neologism. I think a consonant example is the article for islamophobia--which is strictly about the neologism itself (if serbophobia were so amended, I'd be fine with that--and then then sister article for anti-Arabism, which discusses the conceptual prejudice against Arabs contained within the neologism islamophobia. Ford MF 18:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not bothered to read that it has been used for many decades? How can a word that has been used for many decades be a neologism (a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created)? Also, not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslims...--Еstavisti 22:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "Anti-Serbism" is very rarely used, note however that the adjective "anti-Serbian" is commonly used, and we should always use nouns for article names. So, this is the reasoning behind the move. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have practically written books on this website as to why the term is bogus. Live Forever 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. It's been shown that the term is in use and has been used for many decades. It is also present in scholarly literature. So why is it "bogus"? Also, is Anti-Bosniak sentiment also bogus? If not, why not?--Еstavisti 01:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no; it's been in use sporadically for a little over two decades, and even then almost exclusively in a political context by Serb nationalists. The only "scholarly lliterature" mentioning the term refutes its existence, so I don't see what point you're trying to make there. Live Forever 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you smoking that makes you think Miroslav Krleža, the famous Croatian man of letters, is a "Serbian nationalist"? I could do with some of it :) --Еstavisti 07:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew that and, as usual, you're missing the point. Krleža used the word a few times, but never in the sense of some wide-spread and established phobia as you're trying to portray here. The "Serbophobia" Krleža talked of (or rather, "mentioned") could be applied to any nation; a Croatian intellectual today in 2006 could just as easily combine "Bosniaks" and "phobia" to create "Bosniakophobia." He could then even use the word in some interview, but this would hardly make it a subject of encyclopedic value. If you still disagree, could you please provide examples of other Croatian intellectuals using Serbophobia during this time period? I mean, surely your mention of Krleža is simply one part of a complex argument grounded on an impressive knowledge of early Yugoslav political circles - it's not as if you simply took the information from Mir Harven and then tried to twist it to suit your goals. Live Forever 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the one missing the point. We're not discussing the quality of the article, but whether it should be deleted. You said that the term is "almost exclusively in a political context by Serb nationalists" for "little over two decades" before admitting that Krleža (who as a Croat can hardly be considered a Serb nationalist) used it many decades before that. I didn't get this information from "Mir Harven" but from the very article you're so anxious to have deleted. If you had bothered to read the article, you wouldn't have asked me for other examples of Croatian intellectuals using the term either, because one is given - Antun Gustav Matoš. Also, you assume bad faith, accusing me of trying to "twist [information] to suit your goals". Really, you have no arguments... --Еstavisti 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, the article should be deleted. 2) Krleza's occasional (i.e. sparse) mention of "Serbophobia" does not make it a term of encyclopedic value, and either way it is quite separate from the far more relevant (but equally worthless) definition of "Serbophobia" - the one invented in the 80s and the one that, after several months of existence, this article proves to consistently return to. 3) I have followed the article. In fact, apparently far closer (or more scrutinizingly) than you have, for I know that the brief mention of Krleža and Matoš was brought up by Mir Harven in discussion. If it wasn't for him, you wouldn't even have this pathetic excuse to fall back on; you'd simply resort to the same recycled greater Serbian garbage from earlier. 4.) I had read the article and I was just waiting for you to bring up Matoš. Nonetheless, I asked you for more than "one given" example, because I just don't believe that two brief mentions of a (then) utter neologism make it encyclopedic or give the later propaganda term some sort of historical foundation. 5) The good faith guideline does not require me to continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Live Forever 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Unfortunately, those are books of fairy tales. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sasa Stefanovic • 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krytan 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also delete "Anti-Croatian sentiment" and"Anti-Bosniak sentiment", as all three are POV/troll magnets, and have little assertion of their notability. If they are to be kept, I'd have to agree with what Yannismarou said on the Administrators noticeboard, that all three anti-(Croat, Bosniak, Serb) articles should be merged into one comprehensive article, as it may limit the amount of POV/edit wars. —King Ivan 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable subject. Everyking 08:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject exists. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I explained reasons in in my comments above. To sum it up: notability of the sentiment and the word used to describe it seem fairly well established and that is not disputed by the nomination anyway. What is disputed, and what was the point of the HappyCamper's closure, is that "The article itself...is little more than a focus for edit warring...". I don't think that that should be reason for deletion of any article, ever. If edit warring and POV pushing is a problem, preventing edit warring and POV pushing is the solution, not deleting articles so that people would have nowhere to edit war. Heck, we could probably delete the article on Bush for the same reason. People who think that other articles would be a better solution should maybe try to write those other articles first and see how that comes out. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe rename if this name is not correct, but don't delete forever. --Djordjes (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Bwithh // Laughing Man 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Merzbow, "A neologism with no real notability in the English language (as the article itself admits); article thus seems to exist for the sole purpose of airing ethnic grievances." Let 'em take their campaign of "poor poor pitiful me" elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, we should delete Anti-Semitism, right? Let the Jews take their campaign of "poor poor pitiful me" elsewhere.--Еstavisti 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in my opinion, you simply cannot compare the well-based history of Anti-semitism to the much more recent and somehow dubious term (and theories about) Serbophobia. You can say what you want, but the fact is that Auschwitz was a tragedy much more bigger to the Jews than Jasenovac was to the Orthodox Yugoslavs. Besides, I ask myself how many people do believe in Serbophobia outside Serbia? Sometimes it’s seems to be more a case of Serbian ultra-nationalist sense of exceptionalism and auto-victimization.--MaGioZal 11:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? The word has been used for decades, by Croats as well as Serbs. Try reading the other comments on the page. It has also been used by Western commentators:

Thomas Friedman (who himself has quite a little aversion towards "the Serbs") used the word Serbophobia in the New York Times [46]:

"But then the German Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, acting on the long love affair between Germany and Croatia (and traditional German Serbophobia), told the E.C. that Germany would recognize Croatia by Christmas 1991 -- no matter what." (TimesSelect membership required to read the article.)

Furthermore, it's not a question of "belief", but sources - and there are many sources showing that the term has been relatively widely used for decades. Finally, your casual dismissal of a death camp for Serbs (whom you futher insult by only deigning to call them "Orthodox Yugoslavs"), is just the kind of comment that has no place in any civilised discussion. You don't need to care yourself, but I would appreciate some respect for the dead.--Еstavisti 12:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dismissal of a death camp? No way, I am no Holocaust denier. I didn’t claim that Jasenovac did not exist nor people haven’t been killed there, I am just pointing out to well-agreed facts: fewer people were killed in Jasenovac than in Auschwitz, and most of Serbians are Yugoslav Orthodox people. No offence on that.--MaGioZal 13:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I am just wondering here what do you meant by saying that “You don't need to care yourself”.--MaGioZal 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MaGioZal your comments are pathetic and extremely offensive, comparing the number of people killed in concentration camps and saying one means more than another. You're disgusting. // Laughing Man 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that I don't care what you think in private, just try to keep your ignorant views to yourself. I can assure you that to those killed and their relatives, Jasenovac was just as great a tragedy as Auschwitz, or any other death camp, and your attempted relativisation is way out of line.--Еstavisti 04:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-survived three previous afds-this term is broadly used in academic circles, and a fourth afd smacks of bad faith. Chris 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for 3 months then review; Article may need retitling and does have problems but to put it in the "too hard" basket would be to miss an opportunity to find a way to make a very difficult subject work. SmithBlue 09:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Serbophobia realy exist, so how you can delete this article Jovanvb 09:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Serbophobia is a historical fact.--Marko M 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serbophobia exist. bonzo 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a POV magnet that has not and probably cannot be upgraded to meet encyclopedic standards. Eluchil404 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't know what to vote; delete it - it'll return; keep it - it'll draw the "need" to create parallel articles for nations that have had conflicts with the Serb nation recently. --PaxEquilibrium 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to significant improvements made since nomination. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Hogan[edit]

Userfied once when created by User:Hhogan, re-created by User:Wbking whose only other edits are to link this article to others. IMDB shows five video game roles of which four are minor and one unreleased. Lots of links to the subjects merchandise, but not much in the way of multiple independent coverage in reliabe secondary sources. I call vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then delete. Google seems to say 17,500 finds, but only 305 without duplications". Anthony Appleyard 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Deizio talk 17:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; IMdb shows nnability. SkierRMH 11:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the writer of this article let me say first I clearly needed to do more research on creating a Wikipedia article before submitting. I am new to this as evidenced by I just made an edit to the article accidentally forgetting to sign in first. Having said that I did add more references for you to review but the problem is that although Mr. Hogan has done some work in traditional movie and theatrical acting, his main body of work and that which he is notable for is in the field of voice-over for television and radio advertising. Something that doesn't get you lots of google hits and entries in IMdb etc. Therefore references such as the IMdb one make him look like a minor player. In reality Mr. Hogan has been one of the top voice over actors in the advertising field for 30+ years. You can review the article for some of the famous commercials and advertising campaigns he has done. I daresay there is not a one of you who has not heard Mr. Hogan over and over again over the course of your lifetime (not to mention your parents). More importantly as Mr. Hogan has done and continues to do voice overs for many of the top brands in the US on the national level he has diverted untold millions of dollars of purchasing power to those companies. He rightfully has been called a "legend" by peers in his industry as evidenced by the fact he is called back for ads for major corporations over and over again to this day 30 years after he started in this industry. Again, this doesn't get you a lot of google hits but I think in terms of the effect on the public's buying habits and the culture of the advertising media it does make him notable. So please, all I ask is to take this into consideration. Please do me the favor to respond as to whether first you believe the basis of notability as outlined above has merit and if so whether I have presented enough evidence to show Mr. Hogan merits inclusion based upon this. I am certainly willing to keep working on the article to bring it up to your standards. Thank you. Wbking 17:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems like a notable and published person. Article needs a lot of work to move it away from a vanity/resume page, as it was most likely created by its subject. Daniel J. Leivick 04:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as benefit of doubt. There are some subjects that, despite notability, will be intrinsically difficult digging up sources on. I would imagine major voice-over actors would fall into this category in general, and this guy in particular. The article does need improvement though. Ford MF 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If given the chance I will update the article away from the admittedly self promotional vein to a strictly encyclopedic entry. I plead lazyness for using existing copy already out there. This article is out of the subjects hands and I will revise accordingly after a more thorough review of guidelines, Editing - how to:, other similar articles, etc. This has been and continues to be quite a learning experience. Wbking 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Medical intern `'mikka 01:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internship (medicine)[edit]

Useful dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedia article. Emeraude 15:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we already have a medical intern article Tx17777 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unexpandable dicdef. -- Kicking222 15:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to medical intern. Tevildo 16:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to medical intern. Anthony Appleyard 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to medical intern. --- RockMFR 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. TSO1D 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to medical intern. Mytildebang 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to medical intern because people are likely to enter this article name while looking for this article. Tarinth 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as above. Tonytypoon 01:04, 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 Speedy delete and salt due to WP:CSD#G4. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yugioh the abridged series[edit]

Non-notable YouTube video. Hut 8.5 16:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Deizio talk 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I actually really like the videos but it doesn't seem notable enough to deserve its own article. Also there are just too many problems with the article itself. Blatant POV, an article about "the long wait" that could probably be summarized in a sentence. My vote might have been swayed otherwise if the article was updated by anyone besides his 12 year old fans. Thores 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I like it, that's no reason to keep it. Perhaps someday, if someone reputable outside the Youtube community recognizes it, then it might be notable. It's not right now. 206.213.209.31 17:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of AfDed article. RGTraynor 19:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G4. See previous AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series. This makes the fourth time --TheFarix (Talk) 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the videos, but it fails notability by a longshot. Someone from a newspaper or something do an article on this so we can put it in the Wiki. Please? -Ryanbomber 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt because this is just going to keep getting recreated. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's pointless to salt because it gets recreated under a different name. --TheFarix (Talk) 05:11, 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 delete. --Core desat 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape Wiki[edit]

Non-notable wiki. No reliable sources, not notable outside of a small group of people. Prod removed by User:Otherone - "a search for 'runescape wiki' gets 3,050 Google hits and is mentioned in the Finnish Wikipedia's article on RuneScape." --- RockMFR 16:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but it seems reasonable to include as an external link on the RuneScape page. Tarinth 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and it's already an external link in that article (actually only pseudo-external, [[wikia:RuneScape]] links there). -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree - delete it (non-notable), but include it in an external reference on the RuneScape page. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's non-notable. TSO1D 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RuneScape's editors are not shy about pointing readers to the RS wiki to gain information useful to players, it's been linked from the RS page for some time. None of the RS fan/help sites have their own article (wouldn't pass WP:WEB) and they'd most likely generate more traffic. Our visitors' needs have been taken into consideration so this article is redundant. QuagmireDog 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eh. At least there's some consensus. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, without prejudice to recreation if greater notability is found. Sorry guys, but Wookieepedia is quite notable, but has still paid a visit to AfD a couple of times. I'll be sorry to see this go, but rules are rules. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two wikis are of entirely different size and scope, though. This one has 2,000 articles, while the Star Wars one has over 40,000 articles. While article count is not an official way to judge a wiki's notability, it does work well enough. --- RockMFR 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. --OriginalJunglist 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuyang[edit]

Found this patrolling prods. It's been prodded twice as a dictionary definition. Bringing it here for consensus, since it's been contested. The article starts with a Chinese definition, then refers to a TV character. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverified dicdef. Unclear how the treatment of the TV character qualifies as encyclopedic. Deizio talk 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an English-language encyclopedia. Might be appropriate for the Chinese-language Wikipedia. No evidence that it has entered the English language as a widely accepted neologism. Tarinth 17:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability and necessity for being included in an encyclopedia not established. Akradecki 18:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salad Days 23:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarinth. —ShadowHalo 04:12, 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 delete. --Core desat 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Son Of Jackass[edit]

"In production" low budget independent film. No evidence this is anything other than the pet project of a group of unknowns, also no apparent distribution deal or any other indicator of notability. Deizio talk 17:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - article does not assert the notability of the subject. Also, the only references are Myspace pages. Tarinth 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. I for one can't call speedy on this at all. --Dennisthe2 23:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, non-notable, conflict of interest. —ShadowHalo 03:18, 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 due to changes made since nomination. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JG Summit Holdings[edit]

Not notable enough to qualify under WP:CORP Walton monarchist89 17:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something comes up. Could probably be deleted as {{db-empty}}. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:VERIFY. No assertions of notability that are properly cited to reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are now serveral reliable third party published sources about this company cited in the article. --Oakshade 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article still has some unverified info, but that can be fixed. Most importantly, it now has sufficient assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party sources. Nice work. -- Satori Son 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep According to the Manila Times, it was one of the most profitable companies in the Phillipines in 2006 on the Philippine Stock Exchange. [47] and it is a component of the The Philippine Stock Exchange 30-company Blue Chip Index [48][49], another qualifier (#3) for WP:CORP. Many news stories, like this one. --Oakshade 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (Amended with index info. --Oakshade 06:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment from proposer OK fair enough. There weren't any sources in the article when I AfD'd it, but I've now changed my opinion and think it should stay. Walton monarchist89 10:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pond maintenance[edit]

Despite being mostly original research, it reads like an essay or how-to guide, something which Wikipedia is not. Crystallina 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#IINFO. Possibly transwiki to WikiBooks if they want it. Hut 8.5 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above - suggest to wikibooks. Tonytypoon 01:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, but doubt they'll want it - much better stuff available w/a quick google search. SkierRMH 11:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. —ShadowHalo 23:08, 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 merge and redirect. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder_opal[edit]

The page really isn't about Boulder opal itself, it is more about the region in which it is mined and the mining process. The discussion page even says that it is copy-and-pasted. I tried to wikify it, but realized that it really should be deleted. There was a bit of first-person writing that I removed, but there still might be POV that I missed. It's pretty much redundant with Opal. I think that this might be useful as a section under Opal, but does not deserve its own page. Maybe we could merge or redirect it. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Remove copyvio with extreme prejudice! If what Benn Newman posted is correct, I withdraw my vote. RedRollerskate 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. Please contact a person with an account on the system to confirm the permission. Link to permission (OTRS account required). --Benn Newman 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Opal. Yuser31415 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, though I recommend taking the discussion to the article's talk page and considering the move suggestions made below. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Speiden[edit]

No assertion of notability. Deleted under proposed deletion and recreated, so I'm sending it over here RedRollerskate 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable per nom, article is poorly sourced. --Eqdoktor 18:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor composition and weak sourcing are not grounds for deletion. Let's fix the problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)

If you feel that strongly about it, consider this a friendly invitation to join WikiProject Wikify. We can use your help to fix this article (and thousands of others). RedRollerskate 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & provide sources I think that the Kennedy/Goldwater connection lends some ironic notability. Coupled with his other exploits this seems to creep into notability. There is one source given (poorly formatted) which is credible and non-trivial (per Wiki standards). I think that the topic is interesting and could be expanded. --Kevin Murray 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article, Kennedy and Goldwater were associated with the Jay Six Ranch, not to Speiden personally. They might make the ranch notable enough for an article but that doesn't necessarily make Jack Speiden notable (and, interestingly, whoever created the Speiden article has not gotten around to writing an article about the ranch). Leaning towards delete. Tim Pierce 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I relisted this article on 12/30/06 to get a better consensus. RedRollerskate 07:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Jay Six Ranch. Most of the notability of this person has to do with the ranch he operated. Move the article there and reformat it as an article about the ranch. --- RockMFR 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this with a redirect from his name --Kevin Murray 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. NN. Google search found 16 hits ignoring Wikipedia & duplications. Anthony Appleyard 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The g-hit criteria will always be problematic for obscure but notable historic figues. We want WP to grow beyond the scope of a high school history text, but how can we if we just include articles about recognized people. Notability is not the same as general recognition. --Kevin Murray 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article doesn't mention this (since the source material was written in 1953) but Speiden ran for Congress in 1956 and again in 1958 losing to Stewart Udall [50]. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also "John G. Speiden, a southern Arizona rancher, drew 15114 votes in a no-contest ... his rather colorless, older opponent, John G. Speiden, 79651 to 51140. ..."[51] and [52] which lists the candidate as "John G. (Jack) Speiden" so it's the same guy. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he still notable if he lost both times? (Not trying to start a fight, just curious.) RedRollerskate 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mildly colorful life is not the same thing as notability. WMMartin 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to confuse notability with prominence. Notable is not a very high standard, just worthy of "notice." I think that the guidelines purposely avoided words like famous, important and prominent and chose "notable" as a lower threshold. --Kevin Murray 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all three as not notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Dingsdale[edit]

Apparently non-notable supposed director. Parsing through the relatively few Ghits (340 on name -wikipedia) reveals no apparent reliable sources. No apparent released projects, no real assertion of notability; website is on a free host, and contact address is via Gmail. Strong flavor of possible hoaxiness. Also nominating related articles:

Sky Raiders - with director's surname, 46 Ghits, none from reliable sources.
Last Evil of the SS - with director's surname, 40 Ghits, none from reliable sources.

Robertissimo 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. IMDB lists a James Dingsdale, but his sole contribution there is to have contributed to the bio section of the director of Gymkata. Not precisely how I would like to be remembered by the film industry. RGTraynor 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a real director - I have met him. His projects are also very real. Just because films are not released internationally or commercially, it does not mean that they don't exist. IMDB rejected Dingsdale's page because none of his projects have been released theatrically (to general audiences) or on general home video release. Deleting his page would be pointless. Jamezcd 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source for you to take a look at http://www.famouswelsh.com/cgibin/getmoreinf.cgi?pers_id=1415&media_pers=James%20Dingsdale. They are a website based in Dingsdale's home country and do thorough fact checking when users request articles to be posted on Welsh personalities. I appreciate what you guys do with the deletion process, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. He is real. Jamezcd 19:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm reasonably satisfied the bloke is real. I just see nothing to suggest he's notable. If his films have never been released to the public, then he's the moral equivalent of a fellow with a camcorder smiling at the latest family holiday party. I've also just followed that link, and see just an anonymous site with handles. It certainly doesn't strike me as a reliable secondary source. RGTraynor 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed, no one is saying he's not real; we're seeking consensus on whether or not he and the associated works meet WP standards on notability as indicated by reliable sources. Having googled him, I figured the famouswelsh listing might come up; it's in fact a free-membership apparently open-posting site (I came perilously close to adding a very non-real, non-famous "Welsh" person while finding that out -- do you suppose anyone would have eventually caught on that Bryffyn False-Gomez might not be all she seemed?). Robertissimo 20:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Merge & Redirect~~ The author's assertion of personal knowledge is primary research not pertinent to Wikipedia articles. I don't see a hoax here per web information, and 300 Ghits woudld not bother me if some of these established notabiltiy. ~~I think that this goes beyond a vanity a page and a video camera. Why not merge him into a list of independent film makers? I think that he is notable enough for a redirect.~~ Can the author provide some non-trial references from periodicals? --Kevin Murray 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the chance that in fact this might not be a case of a man-and-a-camera, I did some further checking on some of the details contained in both the two film articles and the main Dingsdale one. Here are some results: Ghits on "PBGA Film Syndicate," production company for Last Evil = 0. Second production company named, "UO Film Investors," Ghits = 0 (fuller name, "United Orme Film Investors"; Ghits = WP only). Of the Evil cast listed (the first two are the listed cast of Sky Raiders, as well), actor Andrew Etches appears to be a teenager in Llandudno, Dan Galston has Ghits only to the WP article and mirrors, and, while there is a UK musician named James Wilde (and an actor of the name had an uncredited role in a UK comedy and with it an IMDb page), there's also at least one online profile that hints that the person here may, too, be a Llandudno-based teen. In short, I don't think there's even enough here for a merge/redirect. Jamezcd, the originating editor of all three articles has himself said above that none of the director's projects have been released to general audiences, which about sums it up. Students having fun with a camera is great, but it's not encyclopedic. Robertissimo 03:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Madman 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture Ghits on Andrew Etches and Dan Galston are very old photos which were included on a bio page on Global International's old website. When I say that the projects are unreleased, I meant that they were not in cinemas. They have been shown in screenings. Also, projects which Dingsdale worked on during his time as a professional editor have been released commercially. I just don't see the point in deleting an article just because you guys haven't heard of him! 81.5.170.21 09:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The above is user's first edit) I recommend you review Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding the notability of subjects; WP:BIO and WP:V in particular. Dingsdale does not come close to meeting them. If, after you review them, you both believe that in fact he does and have verifiable evidence to that effect, we'll be happy to look it over. RGTraynor 14:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to place credibilty in a unidentified "User:81.5.170.21" --Kevin Murray 19:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was me but I forgot to sign in. I've dealt with Wikipedians several times before, and if I've learnt one thing from this site it is that everyone thinks that they are in the right. If you must delete Dingsdale's article, go ahead. However, in the process, you will be robbing the internet of just a few kilobytes of information about a genuine film maker. Jamezcd 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we'll be deleting an article from Wikipedia that does not meet Wikipedia's rules for inclusion. As far as I figure, Wikipedia cannot prevent so much as a single other website on the Internet from publishing as much about Dingsdale as anyone would like to see. RGTraynor 20:12, 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 delete. --Core desat 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of the Del Garria[edit]

A fan-made movie. Published on DVD only by its director, shown once in a cinema to a small audience of the director's friends and family. No media, no reviews, no reliable sources. I don't believe this meets our standards of notability or verifiability, so I think it should be deleted. Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(oh forgot to mention) it's a contested prod, btw. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable amateur film. (For a somewhat biased perspective on the the film's merits, read the edits made by NickR81). Caknuck 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mind you, I almost voted Keep, just because this is so hilariously fannish a small piece of me wants it preserved, so I can occasionally surf to the entry and laugh. The references alone to "Merkenbach Films PR" (let me guess, Aunt Suzie?) are priceless. RGTraynor 19:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Close: PR officer is actually his mum. (Can verify this with personal emails from Merkelbach and his mother.) Finlay: "contested prod"? Its premiere can be verified, so surely must its existence...? ChickenEater 23:06, 27 December 2006 (GMT)

Hah, I thought so ... (grins) RGTraynor 07:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fanfilm, the end. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly a fan film (it doesn't actually breach any copyright), but it might as well be. I mean, Merkelbach actively promotes it as "inspired by" Doctor Who! Some of the additions made by NickR81 that The rani later removed (e.g. "Doctor Who-esque") are entirely spot on. ChickenEater 09:23, 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 delete. --Core desat 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KG Redhead[edit]

A bio of an author whose published works are a home-made movie and a book available only from a print-on-demand press. I don't believe this person meets our standards for notability, nor the article our standards for verifiability, so I move that it be deleted. Note that the article's creator, The rani (talk · contribs), identifies himself as the subject. Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as NN. Let's review: a self-produced DVD movie starring the author, a vanity-press "published" story, and (the inevitable) online fanfic. GONG! RGTraynor 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:V. SkierRMH 21:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Movie doesn't star author, but is a self-distributed amateur production whose own entry is marked for deletion. Even worse, frankly! ChickenEater 23:00, 27 December 2006 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 04:31Z

Luke solo[edit]

Non-notable fanfic character in the Star Wars universe. A very similar article at Luke Solo was recently deleted via PROD; I'm bringing this one to AFD so that any future incarnations can be speedied under WP:CSD#G4. FreplySpang 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, and salt the earth both here and at Luke Solo. Fanfiction is generally a nice way of continuing to enjoy a series but doesn't deserve a place here. Lankybugger 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable fancruft. Even Wookieepedia doesn't have an entry so Wikipedia doesn't need one either. Inconsistent too for what it's worth, the Luke Solo article said the name is Peter Gernold, not Peter Rapp. Femto 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable original research with no external citing of sources for verification. --Eqdoktor 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uber Delete, and set anyone responsible on fire per nom. Wikipedia isn't a proper venue for the self-masturbatory fantasies of fanfic wannabees. RGTraynor 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD:G4, recreation under miscapitalization. -Freekee 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G4 only applies when there was an earlier XfD debate, which is the reason for having this one. Femto 19:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Ah. Then delete on account of subtrivial crapness. And it's still miscapitalized. -Freekee 22:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with light sabers - # [REDIRECT] fancruft. SkierRMH 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use the Delete Danny Lilithborne 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly original research. Quack 688 11:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 04:31Z

Khota Rairi Association[edit]

Unsourced, zero Google hits, and complete nonsense according to this post. A rights association for divorced donkeys? Prod contested, and not speedyable as a hoax, so here it goes. Delete as nominator. Femto 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as joke article. Tarinth 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoaxes are not patent nonsense and can't be speedied according to WP:CSD and WP:HOAX. Femto 18:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a suspected hoax; read it and you'll see that it is patent nonsense. Tarinth 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever. --Eqdoktor 19:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism - first line of WP:VANDAL: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, also per WP:SNOW. I believe the WP:CSD "hoax exception" is intended to stop deletion of articles on obscure subjects made in good faith rather than to allow this kind of prank article to slip through and get mirrored all over the web. JMHO. Tubezone 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll give a just plain Delete as nonsensical hoax garbage. RGTraynor 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete the main term 'Khota Rairis' gets 1 ghit on a blog, and even there it appears to be just nonsense! SkierRMH 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge discussions should take place on the talk pages of the respective articles, rather than AfD. Not sure quite what this editor is up to, has a pattern of edits and behavior on random topics which make no sense —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rugbyball (talk • contribs) 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Rugbyball has been adding the same confusing message in several AfDs. Femto 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete doesn't exist. -Slash-^μιλώ 03:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jibbs feat. Jibbs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:32Z

Go Too Far[edit]

This article was downgraded from a speedy delete to a prod, which was then removed by an anonymous user without explanation. It is unsourced, and refers to an unreleased single, of which there seems to be little information available. J Milburn 18:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's weird seeing an infobox with the words "Released: February 2007." Release it first, then we'll see an article, provided it meets WP:MUSIC. RGTraynor 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The artist's article does not mention this, and I couldn't find anything in a quick glance at the A&M website regarding this release either. SkierRMH 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artists's article. Tarinth 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now; the artist appears notable enough, so his album will be considered so as well per WP:MUSIC. However as of yet, the information cannot be verified. TSO1D 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. You can't tell exactly what will happen in 2007 February. Tonytypoon 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jibbs feat. Jibbs. Unsourced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 22:29, 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 Delete both as failing to make any credible (or intelligible) claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahimsaism[edit]

Self-promotion; very few Google hits _SUBWAYguy 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable self promotion. Does not cite any reference sources for verification, pretty much original research publication. --Eqdoktor 18:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Prod'er. I get three google hits, of which two are press release hits. About as non-notable as something can be and still exist at all. Seems to be a movement consisting of one non-notable artist (Ignatius xavier joseph, whose article should probably be added to this AFD). Fan-1967 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how to add another article to this AFD; it would be fine if someone went ahead and did that _SUBWAYguy 19:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fan-1967 19:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Heck, I'd support a Speedy under G1 as patent nonsense; this is all but gibberish. Ravenswing 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as per above; was there one actual sentence in there??? Marked as db-nonsense. SkierRMH 20:43, 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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the trail of the cists[edit]

Unverifiable by Google and even the website URL for the game only gives Wiki hits/mirrors and one or two forum posts. The person who first created this content on the Cist article may have had a conflict of interest either as game creator or player. ju66l3r 19:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:28, 21 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, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete. There are only eleven Google hits, and every single one is from this Wikipedia article and mirrors, or from three hits off of webforums. A more directed search for cist+hider+finder turns up only one hit in the first hundred that don't refer to medical matters or are garbled dictionary lists. I strongly suspect this of being a self-publicizing deal. RGTraynor 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - relevant ghits = 1 english, 1 french. Smells hoaxaliscious to me. SkierRMH 20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google just now found 5 hits ignoring duplications & Wikipedia pages. Anthony Appleyard 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. One Night In Hackney 07:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable. There's not really anything to merge. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Brann[edit]

Her IMDB profile only gives one credit and that's the voice work on this video game. Doesn't seem particularly notable. Metros232 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable. Also, there is another actress named Susie Brann, only slightly more important, who has done work on commercials and British sitcom and should not be confused with the subject in question. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 20:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with American McGee's Alice. Google found 226 entries ignoring duplicates & Wikipedia entries, but see above. Anthony Appleyard 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above; not notable enough for article or disambig page as of yet. SkierRMH 20:37, 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 Speedy delete per criterion G5, as this article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Andrew Levine 19:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ant Bully (TV series)[edit]

Hoax television series; violates WP:NFT Mhking 19:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - The Ant Bully is a film not a TV Series; in addition, if a TV series did exist it would be un-notable under WP:NOTABILITY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony cfc (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete This article is a hoax and was created by a sockpuppet of Mascot Guy, see Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/MascotGuy. Squirepants101 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing forthcoming from the official Warner Brothers website about a TV series (only the movie). SkierRMH 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When/if it is broadcast, then it will be notable. Anthony Appleyard 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, partial G1, partial G5 based on the sockpuppet note from user:squirepants101. I'm going on a G5. --Dennisthe2 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was tagged for speedy deletion; I have removed the speedy tag as this is inappropriate for an article being considered via the AfD process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the author may know something we don't. But if so, he or she knows something no secondary source I can find knows about, either; thus it must go until such time as it is reliably sourced. CyberAnth 02:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Whether or not there's an AfD, if the article is authored by a blocked user, it should be speedied as G5. Lots of articles on AfD get speedy tags, if they qualify for one. Tubezone 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment again removing speedy deletion tag ... please don't add such tags while the article is in the AfD Process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, why? We do it all the time, and nothing in WP:CSD or WP:SD says that this is inappropriate. Dadabib was one such article that was deleted thusly, and if you're unclear on that, check its history in the logs as well as its AFD post - in fact, I was the person who did the db-band on the article. Replacing tag for CSD G5 in the meantime. --Dennisthe2 19:00, 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 already deleted by Pilotguy for not asserting notability. GRBerry 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midanbury F.C.[edit]

The threshold for WP:CORP is level 10 of the English football league system. This club have never been higher than level 12 and were at level 14 when they demised. Finally, there is no sourcing to meet WP:V. Delete. TerriersFan 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. TerriersFan 19:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling for "Midanbury F C" OR "Midanbury FC" found nil. Anthony Appleyard 20:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nomination is hard to argue with. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. --Dennisthe2 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and WP:CORP, WP:V. Qwghlm 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when they were at Hampshire League Division One Level from 1987-1993, that was at Level 9 in the pyramid. Even today, the equivalent (second-level division of the Wessex League) is at Level 10, inside WP:CORP. Granted, the article needs work, but I think the nomination for deletion is wrong. - fchd 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and per Qwghlm. I live in Southampton and this team are way below the level required - they do not register at all in the local press. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading the article, I see that the reason they don't appear in the local press is that they have been defunct since 2001. It seems the creator of the original article has an interest in obscure Hampshire football teams as he has also created further similar articles - West End F.C., Malshanger F.C., Basing Rovers F.C., Sarisbury Green F.C., Braishfield F.C., Swanmore F.C., Michelmersh & Timsbury F.C., Awbridge F.C., and Whitenap F.C. all of which should be deleted at the same time. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it would be better to create one or more new nominations for the other clubs mentioned. We're 24 hours into this one and several people have already made comments. In my opinion, we'd be likely to be heading for a train-wreck. Just in case, I'd vote to keep Awbridge, Basing Rovers and Malshanger who reached Hampshire League Division One Status, and delete the others. - fchd 17:35, 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 Speedy keep after discussion with Seicer, in which we agreed that, in exchange for moving the article to list of unused highways and linking it to unused highway, I would drop my recommendation to delete. Thus, since no one is recommending a deletion, it can be speedily kept. NE2 05:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost ramp[edit]

Since the previous discussion two months ago, no one has given any reliable sources that define exactly what a "ghost ramp" is. I also don't believe it is useful to list every example, even if we could come up with a definition. --NE2 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article provides a source for the definition. I think we all have better things to do than AfDs for an article with dozens of cites; this one is well above the minimum bar that's been established for articles. Tarinth 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AARoads is a personal website that does not qualify as a reliable source. --NE2 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Didn't we just go through this not long ago? Since the last AFD's closure, there have been noticeable improvements in the article per suggestions by NE2 and others. The last vote certaintly did not go towards consensus, I don't see how another vote several months later will be any different. Perhaps instead of selecting articles for deletion, you could improve on the article as it contains a wealth of information. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been no improvements in the most important thing - a reliable source for what a "ghost ramp" is. --NE2 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There have been improvements in the sourcing of materials from a variety of people. For instance, there is no need to source an aerial image if it clearly shows or demonstrates that an abandoned ramp or a disused ramp is visible and/or is photographed. Many have also been sourced, see Ghost ramp#References. Most were added after the last AFD failed and range from SCSA's web-site to others, including AARoads. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But without a reliable source for what a "ghost ramp" is, we can't have an article on "ghost ramps". --NE2 06:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although ghits are low (about 1200), this seems to be a well documented article. I would, however, like to see a better initial definition (although the one there is ok). SkierRMH 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't provide a better definition, or one at all, because there are no reliable sources that define it. --NE2 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ghost ramps are a minor but noteworthy feature of modern roads. There is a ghost ramp in Manchester (UK) near UMIST and I am very familiar with it. Anthony Appleyard 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know it's a "ghost ramp"? What reliable source can you cite? --NE2 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw it every weekday for many years riding to work, and often when walking between buildings at work. It is like article Ghost ramps describes. It is listed in the first entry in Ghost ramp#United Kingdom. Whether or not the name "ghost ramp" is common knowledge, the type of thing that it describes is common knowledge. Anthony Appleyard 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you don't know it's a "ghost ramp". Can you suggest somewhere to move this article to make it match our policies? --NE2 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know no other name for them. (The example near UMIST has in the past been called a "road to nowhere".) Anthony Appleyard 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So essentially, despite an overwhelming consensus to keep and a willingness to improve the article (perhaps if more would improve instead of filing AFDs or complain...), you would rather delete outright? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think the {{Original Research}} tagging of the page is event justified; the issue seems to be more about a complain regarding the quality of the source that is used, rather than whether it truly qualifies as OR. This is just another case where time spent in an AfD debate would be far better spent improving the article... Tarinth 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ghost ramp is a phrase in common use. Regan123 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a reliable source that says this. --NE2 20:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh please, you're trying to pull the straws here and striving to base your arguments on the last failed AFD. Placing another AFD so soon after, even after there have been marked improvements to the article, is asinine. You have also failed to improve the article as well; why not contribute and improve on the article, as others have, instead of slapping AFD after AFD?
  - And it is a common term. If you don't like these references, then perhaps nothing will satisfy you (see last AFD) [[53] [54] [55] [56] Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "keep and improve" only works once. Since no sources have been provided after two months I give advance notice that I will personally close this as delete unless sources are provided by the end of the five days. WP:V is core policy, as is WP:NOR, and WP:RS is not optional simply because it's a guideline not a hard policy. Source it or lose it, folks. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was simply about a neologism, I might be inclined to agree; but the article appears to be a well-sourced article documenting the phenomena. If the article was renamed to "Roads with Incomplete Ramps" I doubt we'd be having this discussion (in which case perhaps only a rename, followed by a Redirect, is in order). On a related note, are you seriously announcing that as closing-admin you'll delete an article even in a case where the overwhelming plurality of AfD commenters have presented well-reasoned arguments in favor of keep (please don't present 'AfD is not a vote', which I don't think is the case here--because that reason is not synonymous with 'AfD is a way for admins to disregard comments and make up their own mind'). Tarinth 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has two unsourced sentences about the causes of "ghost ramps" and a huge list of things that are supposedly "ghost ramps". --NE2 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's an unsourced list with unsourced description about an unsourced concept. Which is why, if these deficiancies are not remedied, I will delete it, because WP:INTERESTING does not trump WP:V and WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please refrain from making statements that you will delete this article. I find it more than a little intimidating. You can make your points sufficiently clear without saying stuff in this manner. To be honest, at this point, I would prefer you refrain from closing this page at all. Let another admin do it, whatever the decision. FrozenPurpleCube 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially, despite an overwhelming consensus to keep and a willingness to improve the article (perhaps if more would improve instead of filing AFDs or complain...), you would rather delete outright? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely that, yes. Consensus cannot override policy. I don't want people to have a nasty surprise, so I'm giving fair warning. It's been through this process before, and we left it to be sourced, but it still is not. We don't do original research on Wikipedia, and that's exactly what this article is right now. So: please go and fix it. Soon. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, you're acting as if consensus is talking about overriding policy, to me, it seems like most people are arguing that this doesn't violate policy. I don't think this article expressly violates policy, any content that is objectionable can be removed. The principle itself isn't a problem, just the tone. As such, I'd say it's more a clean-up issue than a deletion one. Treating it the way you have is a tad heavy-handed. Try toning it down a little more. FrozenPurpleCube 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I do think this phenomena exists, but I'm not sure it should be a full article, or if this is the right title. Might Abandoned roads or a subsection of ghost town be a better choice? BTW, I'm not sure an Admin should be making a statement of intent to delete before discussion has developed, even with the caveat. It would be much more appropriate to just say "Delete, lack of reliable sources" or some such. The wording chosen has a coercive feel to it that I do not feel is a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google for "ghost ramp" OR "ghost ramps" -wikipedia -wikimedia found 976 hits with a great variety of starts to their web addresses. This looks to me like that the phrase "ghost ramp" is widely known and used. It is nothing like a ghost town, and a ghost ramp usually does not mark a road built and then abandoned, but an abandoned plan to build a road. Anthony Appleyard 22:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wouldn't say it's nothing like a ghost town, they are at least the same in that they are not use. At the least, I'd consider that there is enough in common that some linkage would be desirable. Whether the roads were abandoned, or just the plans to finish them doesn't matter to me, but I could also get behind unused roads if you think that might be better. FrozenPurpleCube 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Google results seem to show that the term "ghost ramp" may be fairly new but its use had spread via the internet etc before it was used as the nsame of a Wikipedia article. Anthony Appleyard 07:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be so, but if the usage is still limited, it may not be the appropriate title for a Wikipedia article. yet. FrozenPurpleCube 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic seems notable enough and the article is well-sourced. TSO1D 00:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reliable source for the most important thing - what exactly a "ghost ramp" is. --NE2 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the data provided would be tough to fit into another topic. While many people are entering data based on what they see with their own eyes, many users are finding corrabating evidence on sites like maps.google.com and mapquest.com. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is, of course, original research. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Checking facts is not original research. Original research requires a theory, not just an observable fact. FrozenPurpleCube 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm not convinced anything's changed to warrant deletion since the last discussion. A rename may still be proper, but this isn't the forum for it. Has anyone bothered to talk to the highway gurus about this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think your suggestion is a good one. I added {{expert}} to the page. Tarinth 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm one 'guru' who has discussed much with three state DOT's (Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia). I've discussed with them "dead roads" previously in reference to abandoned alignments and bridges - but of course, this is considered "original research" - so its not admissible. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the various keep comments. There are a substantial number of sources at this point and the term has significant non-WP Ghits. As for the concern about whether the term "ghost ramp" is in general use, it is not as if there is a more common term for it. As constituted, the article contains a compilation of information not otherwise available, and therefore has independent value even apart from the question of the name. Newyorkbrad 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, none of the sources are reliable, and the cited sources for inclusion of all the ones I've seen are maps or satellite images - which is canonical original research! Guy (Help!) 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Perhaps you should see Ghost ramp#References. I see many non-"maps or satellite images" references. Perhaps if people like yourself and NE2 would *ahem* contribute to the article than go on AFD sprees and stop wasting everyone's time with AFD after AFD, we could be more productive. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my major area of subject-matter expertise, so I don't know what print resources one would seek out to locate terminology of this nature. I could see a redirect to "stub ramp" (rather than vice versa) as an outcome here if that is used more commonly. But we are dealing with something that certainly exists, and is entitled to an article, irrespective of what it's called.

To overintellectualize this more than it might deserve, there are three separate issues here. One is whether the type of ramp described is entitled to its own article. The consensus is yes. Second is what to call the article. "Ghost ramp" seems to be supported by at least some non-Wikipedia sources; the term isn't a hoax or anything of that nature, even if no one has yet checked the Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Highway Terminology or whatever might exist for such a thing. Third is whether the listing of examples is accurate. The list itself seems to be reasonably sourced, and to the extent individual sources are inadequate they should evolve over time consistent with the standards applicable to other roads and highways articles.

In any event, I would like to think I am as strong a proponent of maintaining the standards of the encyclopedia as anyone, but I don't see a sufficiently serious violation of policy here to justify deleting against not just consensus but pretty much unanimity, and I will personally climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man should you do so. Newyorkbrad 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I appreciate the concerns, but I think that we need to be more tolerant of verifyably accurate, but not well referenced, articles. I don't see any dispute about the accuracy of the article, or the widespread usage of the term. Only lack of Wikipedia-reliable-standards meeting reliable sources for that information. That deserves a tag, not a deletion. Someone should make a better effort to find real sources, though. Georgewilliamherbert 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There ARE NO "real sources" for the term. It only sees use by roadgeeks. --NE2 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks for highlighting this article by putting it in AfD. Now that I know about it, I'll probably add an Australian section sometime soon. --Athol Mullen 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've started writing unused highway, which is a phrase with an obvious meaning rather than a neologism. It also covers things that are not ramps. If ghost ramp is kept, it should be moved to list of unused highways. --NE2 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, sorry, THAT is a terrible neologism. "Ghost ramp", along with "Ramp stub" and "Stub ramp", are in use out there. Creating a new term/phrase to describe it is worse. Georgewilliamherbert 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Unused highway" is not a neologism - it is a phrase like "list of North American rail-based transit systems". There are examples listed on ghost ramp of roadways that are not ramps - what shall we do with them? --NE2 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support unused highway as it isn't a negloism. Unused is in reference to a disused highway - can't go around that; highway is in reference to a roadway. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "stub ramp" is in wider usage, the article should just be renamed to that but not deleted; and I see no reason not to Redirect "Ghost ramp" to the renamed article. Tarinth 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you knowingly create a new article that deals with the same subject, one that will inevitably result in a requests to merge in one way or another? Tarinth 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It deals with a rather larger subject - that of all roadways that are unused. --NE2 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why are you saying that the existing article that's up for AfD should be renamed to a list of the type of thing you are describing? Either the new article you are creating is equivalent to this subject, and its list would be the same; or it would deal with expanded subject matter, and need a new list to satisfy its informational needs. Tarinth 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because ghost ramp is a list. Have you looked at it? --NE2 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, its a list that fits well within Wikipedia. There is no citation that states lists must be deleted, especially one that is becoming well sourced and referenced. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And now I'm saying that it should be moved to list of unused highways. Ghost ramp should redirect to unused highway, but all uses of it should be changed to "stub ramp" or "ramp stub". --NE2 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would be in full support of move to unused highway as long as the article can continue to be improved on. What we have seen since the last AFD is a marked improvement in referencing. I've added numerous ones today (I forgot to go back and work on it for a long time) and can cite the ones for Ohio fairly soon. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see three issues here.

The title: it's a neologism. Is there a title which is not a neologism? Does "stub ramp" have reliable sources?

The summary: it need sourcing for things like the connecting road never being built (are there other reasons? were some roads closed and removed? are some of them relics of the construction crews?)

The entires, many of which are sourced entirely from maps and photos. Some are not, they are fine, but many are, and that is OR.

I am pretty sure these things can be fixed. They need to be fixed. Please. It's an interesting subject, but... Guy (Help!) 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that we can find sources (newspaper articles, etc) that describe specific examples of the connecting road never being built. For instance: "Near the junction of Route 128 and Interstate 95 in Canton, amid a whir of wheels, there sits an old, unused overpass to nowhere." There's nothing reliable saying it's a "ghost ramp", but it's definitely a highway that's unused. --NE2 23:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused highway is a neologism in the sense of not being used anywhere to refer to these unused ramps. It is verifyable that there are web and print uses of "Ghost ramp" and "Stub ramp". The article refers to highway ramps, not highways as a whole. An unused or abandoned highway article is fine, but it's not a redo of this article. Unused highway ramps would be more more precisely aligned, but again, it's not what's used out there: people use "Ghost ramp" and "Stub ramp". Creating a new article title, even if it's self-evident, when that's not what is used in practice, is committing neologism. Please don't! Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So list of Florida railroads is a neologism? Commuter rail in North America is a neologism? --NE2 00:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because "railroad" and "commuter rail" are the standard terms used widely for those technologies. 'Unused highway ramp' has 7 ghits, none of which are official documents; '"Ghost ramp" freeway' 1,340, and '"stub ramp" freeway' 74. The only reason "stub ramp" is a valid option is that a couple of those hits are US state highway department publications, one of which I noted and cited in the article. Ghost ramp wins. The term is past the line from mere neologism into common usage, even if it is not verifyably referenced yet. Georgewilliamherbert 03:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Unused" and "highway" are common words, just as "commuter rail" and "North America" are. "Ghost ramp", on the other hand, would mean a sloped surface related to ghosts, unless someone can find a reliable source that says otherwise. --NE2 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I am pretty sure these things can be fixed. They need to be fixed. Please. It's an interesting subject..." See, I have no problem with that. Yes, there are issues, but it doesn't warrant deletion (see below). I am more interested in hearing constructive comments like that than ones that state, "I am going to delete the article because it doesn't suit my tastes." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am backing NE2 on the neologism issue. Unused is defined as something that is "not yet used" or "not finished." Highway is defined as "road or way open to the use of the public." Combine the two and you have: "Not finished road (snip)." Not hard to determine that from those two words, and from the contributions and the widespread use, it's appearant others have no problems putting two and two together. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What the article describes is real; I've seen them. The instances are slowly being sourced. We should not delete articles over a concern over the article title. Many of our articles have titles we make up because we need a title - especially dealing with minor elements of other articles that have gotten too long. Find a better name if you wish, but don't delete. WAS 4.250 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Well said -- Tarinth 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So is the issue now not on full deletion but on moving the article to a more appropriate name and adding sources? If so, the topic shifts away from one that isn't pertant to Wikipedia to one that can be improved upon; this AFD should be closed and a more detailed discussion regarding the name and sourcing should be instigated. Having an AFD looming over isn't very conductive to conversations on naming, etc. if one thinks that it has a chance of failing IMO. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous three hundred people excluding the nominator. Ford MF 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation if and when reliable referenced proof of notability (as per WP:MUSIC) can be established, beyond those in this version of the article. Proto::► 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blak Jak[edit]

Repeatedly deleted by a long string of admins, but a DRV endorsed deletion but allowed for recreation. OK, it's been recreated, but there are still zero claims of notability and no references. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt permanently per nom. No references, no assertion of notability, has been perpetually deleted and recreated. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hit me Hit me Stay~~ Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 19:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect until someone writes about him in a reliable source, and said source is included as a reference. These repeated recreations are disruptive. - Aagtbdfoua 19:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeatedly deleted": was it always the same person recreates it after each deletion? Anthony Appleyard 20:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regarding notabilty:

Ghits (for 'Blak Jak' and rap) = 64,000 [57]

artistdirect = [58]

allmusic = [59] SkierRMH 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is based on the All Media Guide which is not a reliable source (low barriers of entry). don't know about artistdirect Bwithh 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know i just cited all of that, but this article is not reflective of the citations noted. I would not salt as theoretically it would be possible to come up with an appropriate article, but this isn't it. SkierRMH 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major article in Fader magazine [60], his CD came out on the 19th on a major label, Republic Records, and it appears he may have been added to Sirius Radio's hip-hop station for airplay, although I can't reliably verify that at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like it had the top number of urban radio ads before the album came out, and getting national airplay typically meets WP:MUSIC. [61] --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one album? Released a week ago? WP:MUSIC. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One major label, he also released one with another rapper who's name eludes me. Chart info isn't out for the album yet, either. I'm fairly sure he meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but restructure. I'm sure there are several reliable sources I can put up by the Google search. Tom Danson 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JzG. Both artistdirect link above and Billboard.com database are registering just the one album[62] Bwithh 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The other was a minor release called "Roll the Dice." I found album art, but not much else. Possibly a mixtape. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, with a tip of the hat to the delete/recreation history. Is this eligible for a G4? --Dennisthe2 23:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was overturned at DRV, so no. I've removed the speedy tag and added some notability stuff. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. TSO1D 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a bit of Googling, and found this Sirius playlist guide [63], and this cached page [64]. Question - how does "WP:MUSIC:Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." actually work? If we work off "light rotation", as defined in that rotation article as 5–15 times per week, do we actually have to find 5-15 exact times that song's appeared in a week? Or is it enough that prove that a track's received national airtime? Quack 688 11:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't get the site to work right now (I hope it does, I heard a song the other night that I forgot the name of), but I think if we can show that it's been played in a way that isn't on a specialty show, we'd be in good shape. DogStar Radio.com is the one I've been using, and it shows multiple plays on the hip-hop station. It may be safe to say it's hit their rotation, especially since they're playing a newer song, and his first single hit in the summer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. One album? Released a week ago? WP:MUSIC. Note that the key points are "one" and "a week ago", so label size is a completely irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The second link I added above shows that this guy's been played on a major national radio network. (That cached link still works for me, Jeff - if you're still having trouble, try a new google search for ("blak jak" site:http://www.itsonsirius.net)). No-one's answered my question above, so until someone shows me otherwise, I'm assuming that you don't have to find 15 specific instances a song's been played in a week before you can say it passes the WP:MUSIC criteria of "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.". Quack 688 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-01 04:33Z

Dan Cinotto[edit]

Some claims of notability, although such claims seem to be local to Omaha only. Only 11 Google hits, no entries at artistdirect or allmusic. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "He has been seen on stage with bands such as Idle Apathy, filling in on bass for a brief period, as well." If that's the best assertion of notability there is, then this should definitely go. All claims of notability completely unsourced and seem pretty weak anyway. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get only 10 ghits[65], 0 at artistdirect [66] and 0 at allmusic [67]. SkierRMH 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
artistdirect entry is under downshift and allmusic entry is pending.
Delete. NN. Google finds 11 pages. Anthony Appleyard 20:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Comprehensively fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 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 Speedily redirected, redundant areticle. Stuff like this doesn't have to be brought up at AfD. There is no reason to remove the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 21:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Palatine of Hungary[edit]

What is this article about? According to me, much better articles already exist on this topic, see List of Hungarian rulers and Heads of state of Hungary. Useless Frédérick Lacasse 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article says nothing about the subject and therefore fails to assert notability. There's no reason to have a timeline of rulers in an article about a particular person. Tarinth 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Title <> the content; the timeline as it stands is incomplete and appears to be inaccurate, and does not give the terminus ad quo (ending date) for the person in question. SkierRMH 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be redundant and less complete than List of Hungarian rulers --Kevin Murray 20:39, 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. --Core desat 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. A. Kemp & Co.[edit]

Non-notable UK intellectual property firm. Fails WP:CORP. Not even in the top 30 or so IP firms in the UK according to the Legal 500. Legis (talk - contributions) 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to sysops: I tagged the article for deletion on December 17, 2006. Legis apparently omitted to do so. Please consider closing the debate a little later than usually since it wasn't suitably tagged from the outset. --Edcolins 15:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The firm is on a list of leading patent firms published in 2006 by the magazine Managing Intellectual Property. [68] This nomination reminds me this one Votes for deletion/Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A., which you may find interesting. See also Category:Patent law firms... By the way, I abstain. --Edcolins 15:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable. Big top 22:40, 18 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, Conscious 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article looks like an advertisement. Google search for "J. A. Kemp" is swamped by a mathematician with the same name. Anthony Appleyard 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... (and the hope that this dosn't get relisted again!) ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP and there are insufficient independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 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 as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Da Connect[edit]

This article consists of barely one line of un-notable text; the statement in the article claiming that Da Connect "plan to release an album later in the year" is unsourced and appears to be false. In short: a lot of rubbish, completely false and a waste of space Anthony cfc (talk • email • tools) 20:15, Wednesday December 27 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Rico Wade, and then merge Rico Wade with Organized Noize. Anthony Appleyard 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, it is less than nothing, unsourced, and speculative at that. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, per Guy. Madman 23:52, 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 Speedy delete all (no claim of notability), on the grounds that an article about your (unpublished) book is essentially an article about you, and since we don't have an article about the author (Zayne Beauclerk). - Mike Rosoft 13:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older than we are[edit]

Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (per point 7). Article makes almost no sense, has no author, and does not say why it should be included. Was prodded and removed without explanation.Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 20:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete because it fails to assert the notability of the subject, and may even be patent nonsense. Tarinth 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete plot summary is all well and good, but what is it? a book, film, tv program, cartoon? no useful information in article--Bilbo B 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until User:Pine marten (who made most of the edits) puts more info in: author, publisher etc. Google search fails because "older than we are" occurs commonly as a sentence part in many contexts. Anthony Appleyard 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Tarinth. No notability asserted, and possible (likely?) nonsense. -- Kicking222 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a place to dump plot summaries without context. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find the title at AbeBooks, alibris or Amazon nor via Google search - which is indicative that this might be a plot summary for the article author's attempt at writing a novel. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per every reason above. No need to wait! - CobaltBlueTony 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Also see Aliah'. J Milburn 06:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Novel Older Than We Are is not yet published. I'm sorry, but you can't find this book anywhere... lovely. I've added a PROD tag to that one for legitimacy, but that should go once this AfD closes. Same goes for Caurina, Taya., Taya', Rotano, and Guaxinim, unless WP:CSD rightfully gets to those first. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:03, 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/dismissed, as article has been rewritten. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:45Z

Charley's[edit]

This one-liner about an obscure sandwich shop will never contain encyclopedic information. Contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 20:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete because the article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Tarinth 20:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are millions of small snack shops. Anthony Appleyard 21:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I go to Ohio State and I've never even heard of it. --- RockMFR 21:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability per WP:CORP. For what it's worth, this title could feasibly be reused as an article about the national chain Charley's Steakery. This is possibly a single non-notable franchise of that chain. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this recycling has occurred, I withdraw my recommendation, due to the nature of the new article. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 19:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article added to. 309 locations for a retailor seems inherently notable. Besides that, here are a few news stories that have been inserted into the article. [69][70][71] Seems to pass WP:CORP --Oakshade 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks good now. --- RockMFR 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to be expanded. The chain is fairly notable with it's lemonades and Fries instead of potato chips. ((Plus they are just dang good... but that really doesn't matter here..))EnsRedShirt 09:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice job rewriting and sourcing.--Kubigula (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trostre AFC[edit]

This article was originally Prod'ed by myself, but the originating editor removed the tag without explanation (although he did put a message on my talk page asking me to help him improve the article). Another editor then re-prod'ed the article and the originating editor again removed the tag. I am therefore bringing the debate to AfD. My original reason for Prod'ing the article was that I feel that, given the general quality of football in Wales, a village team that plays in one of the amateur county leagues (four levels below the League of Wales) is not notable ChrisTheDude 21:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 21:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google found one entry, excluding Wikipedia pages. Anthony Appleyard 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last year, Trostre Sports (who appear to be the club in question), won the Carmarthenshire League but did not chose to apply for promotion to the Welsh League Division Three. They lead the league again this year (WestWalesSport.com) They currently play at Level 5 in Wales, which from the limited personal experience of games at that standard is on average much lower than the Level 10 in England that we use as our guideline, so Delete. Besides that, the article is an unintelligble mess - fchd 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per fchd. 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwghlm (talk • contribs)
Delete per fchd. – Elisson • T • C • 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and protect from recreation. --Core desat 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Love of the Pimp Click Playaz[edit]

Unsourced article which makes weaselly claims to notability but fails to substantiate them per WP:MUSIC. This is, I think, the fifth try by this user, previous versions have eben deleted for various reasons including copyvio. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google finds 10 entries excluding duplicates & Wikipedia pages. Anthony Appleyard 21:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt dumb. Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article makes no attempt to establish notability with sources. Quadzilla99 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability claims not backed up. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (protected). Proto::► 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basementalism[edit]

Previously deleted as NN,copyvio, spam. Later recreated, speedy was contested, claiming it was a little different; someone changed it to a redirect, which was later diverted. At this point may be best to post here for review. May need to be protected if it does wind up as speedy or redir. Steve Sanbeg 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently no sources are cited in the article. The article claims that the show's format has been copied in other countries. I would say that if sources could be found to verify that and some other claims; then notability would be established. As for the copyvio concerns; the talk page of the article says that the show's staff wrote the page the article was copied from, and that they are the same ones contributing the article. The source website doesn't have any sort of copyright notice, so my guess is that they are agreeing to the GFDL by posting it here, negating the copyright worries. The thing that that leaves me with is conflict of interest concerns. However, if they can source their information to reliable published sources, then POV problems can be cleaned up later. Assuming the article evolves during the AFD to be sourced, then I see no reason it shouldn't be ~~kept~~. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(The following comment copied from the AFD talk page)Many of the facts posted in this wiki we are posting from our own memories although there is an article written by the Daily Camera ( local newspaper) about Basementalism that contained many of these facts as well, though they were given to the reporter from us over the course of interviews.

I will link the article, as there is an online version of it. Thank you for not deleting the page again and I hope we can maintain an open dialogue about what we need to do to keep this entry up and running.

Thanks,

Basementalism Staff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.248.198 (talk • contribs).

Redirect to KVCU, and protect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 01:10Z
REDIRECT to KVCU - clearly WP:COI - see above - and huge POV problems. SkierRMH 03:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've added citations and removed any info not fact-based. Please let me know if the current template satisfies the rules.

-JM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Judge mental13 (talk • contribs).

Since I've not heard anything I'm assuming that the new citations and changes are in accordance with the new rules and I'm going to take down the "up for deletion" headers at the top of the page. Let me know if this is a problem.

Judge mental13 19:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)JM[reply]

Merge The article has changed somewhat from the original version. It now cites some sources (though the citations are not in line), at least one of which can be considered a reliable source which is independant of the article subject. However, it only cites 3 sources total, and one of them is still the history on the Basementalism website. I'd like to see more independant sources cited. I've gone over the article and tried to reduce the point of view problems, copy-edited it, and wikified it; but it still needs more clean up. I'm not sure why this AFD's still open; usually they are closed after 5 days and it's now been 8. The concensus seems to be at this point to merge the information into the article about the radio station, and if you can't find more sources that are independent of the show and station themselves, then that's what I would recomend doing at this point. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:33, 27 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, ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. A radio show on a university station? WP:NFT. And evidently WP:COI from the above comments. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a university radio show? The articles linked (local/school papers, subject's own website) don't really constitute WP:RS indicating notability. Optionally redirect to the station. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Quarl. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge the two of you who said are pushing for a deletion because it's simply a "radio show on a university station" to read the entry a little more thoroughly. Basementalism is also a record label and promotions company.

Also there is no school paper linked as a ciatation. The Daily Camera is a Colorado newspaper, as is the Westword. Neither one of them are affiliated with the University Of Colorado. They are both reliable sources. If you like, I will remove the citation of the Basementalism website. Although the website's history section contains much of the same information found in the other two articles.

I don't think that adding all of the Basementalism info to the KVCU page is a good idea because KVCU has several specialty shows and should they all decide to start making entries it will create a logjam on the KVCU entry that is probably not all that worthy of multiple entries and links. We started the Basementalism entry not to promote the radio show but to give a history on Basementalism's place in the hip hop community in Colorado, the United States, and beyond. Calling what Basementalism is now "something that we just made up in school" is insulting, a.) because we, the people working on this entry did not make it up and b.) it has become far more than just a college radio show.

Thanks again for your input and I look forward to working with you.

Judge mental13 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Daily Camera is a local newspaper (Colorado Springs) and Westword is a (local) free alternative weekly, so they're not much of a cut above college newspapers. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Quarl or Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Daily Camera is based out of Boulder, but that's neither here nor there.

And aren't most newspapers local papers? Does each article have to be from USAToday or the AP? It doesn't say that in the rules anywhere. I have to be honest I'm very suprised that so many of you want to delete this entry. The articles do explain the history of the station as well as the show and the facts that are explained in the entry, what does it matter if the papers are based out of the same state? Judge mental13 07:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Miss Lizz[edit]

Possibly fails WP:PORNBIO. However, the subject definitely fails WP:RS and WP:V. A previous discussion resulted in no consensus. --- RockMFR 21:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

289 ghits ignoring duplicates & Wikipedia pages, but are they all for the same woman? Anthony Appleyard 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Possible attack as well, but who can tell with something like that. Additionally this is borderline speedy under CSD:A7 as there is no assertation of notability. The last AfD should have been delete, because notable within fart pornography genre does not equate to notability. I am notable in a very limited scope, but I do not deserve a wikipedia article, yet. wtfunkymonkey 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and trivial. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A pioneer in fart pornography. If you think the article is bad, go ahead and improve it. --Easyas12c 16:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same argument that was presented in the last afd. However, there are no sources to back this up. --- RockMFR 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Notability claims are unsourced. It is the responsibility of article proponents to provide verification of notability. Fan-1967 19:45, 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 speedy delete. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs in north carolina[edit]

Some sort of nonsense about the number of pigs in North Carolina. Was marked for speedy with {{db-empty}}, but author removed tag, then copied a whole section from Pig onto the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the statement about the number of pigs in North Carolina is valid, merge it into an agricultural statistics list. Anthony Appleyard 22:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 and because it does not add any particularly new notable information not already in Pig (and in fact appears to be cut-and-paste from the Pig article). Tarinth 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You know, I've heard that the number of pigs in North Carolina has tripled in the past six months... anyway, this should be trashed. -- Kicking222 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above and warn the author not to remove speedy tags from articles he created. MartinDK 22:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per common sense. One unsourceable and possibly nonsensical factoid does not make an article. And as for the second half, there's already a good article about pigs; it's at Pig. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-sense. TSO1D 00:11, 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 based on notability established here. I recommend that Quarl's links be added to the article itself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PH-DVD[edit]

Delete. This is either a press release or a hoax. Maybe both. Either way, it doesn't make much sense, and it gets less than 1000 Google hits. Lovelac7 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm guessing it's a WP:HOAX given that the press release came out just in time for April Fools' Day. A one-shot joke that doesn't appear to have gained any momentum per WP:RS; not encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search seems to show that Polar High-definition DVD = PH-DVD is genuine: if it is a hoax, then many people have believed it. Anthony Appleyard 23:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to believe the latter, since most references are to or rehashes of that one press release, and appear to have come out around that time. If this was a reality (or at the least, a legitimate topic for an article, i.e. a notable hoax), I'm sure more reliable sources would be found, not limited to that one week period around April 1. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- The moment I looked at the article, I just knew it was a hoax. Since it was "announced" on March 30, 2006, it appears that it was just an April Fools' Day joke. ~~Eugene 2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONFUSED, wait. This smells hoaxy, as stated above. HOWEVER, there are also signs that it is either real, or a hoax so elaborate that it is worth exposing. I have emailed Brainsparks (the company that allegedly has invested USD 100,000 in Polarizonics, the company allegedly developing the PH-DVD technology) for more info. Below is some info I found:

SourceWire - press release on 2006-03-30 by "John Norris" of Moonlight Media
Financial PR 2006-03-29
Job advertisement for Polarizonics
SEC filings for Polarizonics, starting 2005

Popular press articles, mostly rehashes of the press release:

Engaget 2006-03-30 by Marc Perton
TechWorld 2006-03-30
RegHardware 2006-03-31
HD TV UK 2006-06-31

And investors of Brainspark (traded under BSP.L) believe it:

iii discussion for BSP

—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 03:34Z

- Hoax or not, it is not-notable. Lovelac7 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the invention of PH-DVD was done by Polarizonics, a supposedly high-tech company, but with no website (check Google). And as for the "investment" of brainspark; its about only 100.000 dollar [72], which is nothing if the claims are true. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Hurry Up England. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:59Z

People's anthem[edit]

competition/song of at best transient notability owing to its nature;no longer relevant. Unencyclopaedic. Akihabara 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Hurry Up England. Demiurge 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- WP:NOT#IINFO. Tonytypoon 01:28, 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loks Land Island[edit]

Non-notable, non-inhabited, frozen 400 km² island in the Canadian artic. Is every speck of land notable enough to be included here? Madman 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Anthony Appleyard 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Yes, it can be expanded. When was it discovered? Who by? Who or what is Loks? A lot can be written about such a place, if one has the resources to do so... and should be. And yes, I'd say that most, though not necessarily all "specks of land" are notable enough - especially if they're half the size of NYC, like this one is. Grutness...wha? 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the article a bit, BTW, to show that it's not a lost cause... Grutness...wha? 10:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real place. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Qyd 14:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it had a DEW line site there at one time, so it's notable enough. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Madman and Qyd. Real island. Additionally, like the hotly disputed and yet smaller and seemingly insignifficant Hans Island, this area might become important if global warming comes into fruition and this will be part of an important shipping area. --Oakshade 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vickeried[edit]

Term is a neologism (Protologism?). Creator removed original {{prod}} tag. ~ Bigr Tex 22:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Salad Days 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. ~ Bigr Tex 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Bwithh 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced neologism and probably an attack page as well. Demiurge 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Google hits is 0 (zero), in fact 7, but all leading to wikipedia, or its mirrors, and to one forum mentioning wikipedia as the source. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tulkolahten. Danny Lilithborne 01:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I work in Hong Kong in an expat-heavy company and have never heard this term. Appears to be a neologism only known among the creator and his drinking buddies. cab 02:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a sneak attack page, but too obtuse to speedy. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and per WP:NEO. Kalani ^[talk] 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-01-02 02:58Z

Vertigo Haze[edit]

No assertion of notability. Salad Days 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND, conflict of interest on the part of User:Masondixonmedia. —ShadowHalo 03:41, 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 delete (although I will leave a redirect). Proto::► 10:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional products[edit]

This article is an advertising page. It is a spam magnet, in that all the changes made to it have been advertising of one form or another. The content is a clear lift from http://www.adsources.com/IDEAS/ppwhat.htm" so, as with the similar recently deleted Promotional items, there are also copyright reasons for deletion. Phaedrus86 23:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Madman 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure what we could do to fix the problems with this other than delete it. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, not encyclopedic. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless it's a copyvio. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Advertising Specialties. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:56Z
Redirect per Quarl (and hopefully that will be cleaned up, as well). Dekimasu 09:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Barnyard (film). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:53Z

Barnyard (TV series)[edit]

~~hoax series;~~announced television series, but no indication regarding production or actual airing; violates ~~WP:NFT~~ WP:CRYSTAL. Mhking 23:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barnyard (film). This time, this isn't a hoax, it's an actual animated series in development [73] [74]. This should be recreated when more information (e.g. a real summary) becomes available. Squirepants101 00:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Barnyard (film). The Internet sources only confirm the series' existence and name, and the rest of the article appears to be lifted from the commentary. So the information should probably be moved to the film's page until more information emerges. —ShadowHalo 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect; I stand corrected on the existence of the series. The poster I was pointing toward made the whole thing suspect.--Mhking 03:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until more details are confirmed. Eluchil404 18:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as CSD A7. alphachimp. 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dadabib[edit]

Contested prod, no reason given. No assertion of notability per WP:BAND Tarinth 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom, but placing here because prods and speedies keep getting removed by the editor of the page.
Speedy Delete A7, along with the one link to the one band member with an article here on WP. Salt related articles... for now. --Dennisthe2 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Speedy Tag was removed by user:deathblade70. --Dennisthe2 01:19, 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 Delete as failing to establish notability. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Boyz[edit]

Completely non-notable group. Their label "Neckstlevel Entertainment" garners three google hits [75] all of which are from MySpace. IrishGuy ^talk 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7: the article does not assert even the most tenuous form of notability. Demiurge 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 00:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Agree. WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, the article makes no assertion of notability. TSO1D 00:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as stated above, under CSD:A7. Fails WP:NOTE, WP:BAND, does not WP:CITE sources and is unencyclopedic in nature. Somebody please put this article out of it's misery. wtfunkymonkey 01:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete has already been speedied as Looney boyz. Danny Lilithborne 01:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Twice, apparently. IrishGuy ^talk 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete article states "they are working on their debut album", in other words they have not even released an album yet. Obviously fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Quadzilla99 04:12, 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. Proto::► 09:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicity (software)[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11 (spam); this was contested on the talk page and the notion that the article should be treated in a manner similar to the recently considered MaxiVista appears valid. I am nominating as a neutral party to allay contention that might arise from a contested deletion under the speedy deletion process. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT#IINFO Tonytypoon 01:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets WP:CORP (multiple instances of independent coverage) and the proposed WP:SOFTWARE (as WP:CORP, plus as a key product of a notable company). Note that I am the article creator and an employee of said company. I think that the deletion of MaxiVista was motivated as much by NPOV concerns raised by the removal of mentions of competitors by editors as by notability (which appeared to be established, though late in the deletion process). Wikipedia should probably have articles on both, since they both appear to meet inclusion criteria. I would most certainly have brought a speedy deletion up for review, as the article contains no promotional language, and mentions the closest free software equivalent, Synergy. GreenReaper 04:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It clearly violates WP:CORP "The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service." and WP:COI "Don't write about yourself or about the things you've done or created." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merithb (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- You are misunderstanding WP:CORP - when it says "the published works", it means the works that are being used to establish notability. Nobody from Stardock wrote the material that is used as references within the article - just the article itself. The latter is only a problem because people closely involved with a topic are considered more likely to make contributions that result in non-neutral articles - hence the guideline against making such contributions. If it is a bad article, then it should get deleted whoever wrote it. Conversely, if it's not, it shouldn't. GreenReaper 03:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your opinion may be strongly biased here. Additionally, if WP:CORP should not be enough, it additionally violates WP:COI. If the article about MaxiVista has been deleted for such reasons, this article would also need to be deleted.Merithb 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:COI suggests writing an article based upon reliable published sources. User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you suggests writing solely using published works from sources independent of onesself and one's company. GreenReaper states that xe has done exactly that, and the citations in the article's reference section appear to bear that out. Uncle G 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the "References" section of the article, which cites two non-trivial published works from sources independent of the software's authors and vendors (and two others: one which isn't very substantial and one which is someone's web log), the PNC of both WP:CORP and WP:SOFTWARE is satisfied. I applaud GreenReaper for writing about a subject close to xyrself in the right way. Would that everyone did the same! Keep. Uncle G 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on non-trivial coverage by PC Magazine and eWeek. Although I would respectfully request that GreenReaper allow other, non-conflicted editors to directly edit the article from this point. You should, as WP:COI strongly encourages, "submit content for community review on the article's talk page, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia." -- Satori Son 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am aware of the guideline and the arguments behind it, I respectfully decline to follow it, as I feel that it does more harm than good, particularly when it extends beyond the realm of people paid to edit Wikipedia. Instead, I try to ensure that my own contributions don't become further reasons for its existence, and work towards consensus with people who have differing views (through the regular means of talk page discussion and building on their own edits rather than reverting). I think stronger measures should be the exception, not the rule. GreenReaper 11:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the same measure should be applied for different products. If Maxivista has been deleted for less valid reasons (autor was not affiliated with the maker), then Multiplicity should not be treated differentMerithb 15:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've not seen the MaxiVista article - I am not an administrator here, and do not have access to deleted revisions. However, reading through the deletion discussion, there seem to be several reasons proposed for its deletion, some of which ("promotional" phrasing, attempts to keep mentions of other products out of the article) may have only applied to that particular instance of the article, or to the actions of certain editors over a certain period. What I would suggest is that you create a copy of the article that you would like to be there at User:Merithb/MaxiVista, and then invite others to consider it at deletion review. If it is well-written, contains appropriate references to demonstrate the notability of the product, and if you can assure the community that the other problems highlighted in the initial deletion ("references to competing products, alternatives or even the general kvm page are frequently removed by company officials", and possibly sockpuppet issues) will no longer occur, then you have a strong chance of being be able to overturn the deletion at review. Taking it to review has already been suggested by Kchase at your talk page, and he offered some help in doing so. You don't have to create the copy of the article first, but doing so may improve your chances, as people will be far more likely to believe that a neutral article can be written if it already has been written. :-) GreenReaper 18:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing the parabola[edit]

I think this artile is unencyclopedic and should be deleted, merged with Parabola, or transwikied to Wikiversity. Natl1 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article about solving quadratic equations, not about parabolas. There are other articles about quadratic solving methods: Solving quadratic equations with continued fractions, FOIL rule --Infrangible 04:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tidy, and merge with Parabola. Anthony Appleyard 07:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Its a cut and paste from Parabola! --Eqdoktor 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think it's the other way around. Take a look at the edit history. Doesn't really belong there. It should probably be in its own article. --Infrangible 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If it's going to be merged it should go somewhere like quadratic equation or FOIL rule instead of parabola, since it's about solving equations and the parabola is just the means. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eqdoktor. For those of you saying "merge" or "keep", this article is just a blatant copy and paste of the section by the same name in Parabola. It's redundant information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a cookbook, not a proper article.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. It reads like a how-to guide. —ShadowHalo 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a collection of indiscriminate information, delete this. --SunStar Net^talk 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a how-to, one which leaves several gaps and is not apparently different from the calculations in the standard formula. Gazpacho 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Island Resort[edit]

Page reports to be about a housing development in Hong Kong. It completely fails to establish notability; but more so, the article title Island Resort should be reserved for an article about island resorts, not a particular housing development by that name. CyberAnth 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly merge with or redirect to Siu Sai Wan. Orderinchaos78 04:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. If reliable sources can be found, info can be Merged into Siu Sai Wan, but a Redirect for such a generic title is not appropriate. -- Satori Son 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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