Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 4 December 6 >

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 Speedy keep. Nomination is no groudns for deletion. --Deskana talk 03:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is open to future vandalism. Those who look back far enough into the history can see that it has been in the past. Plus it is a source of pointless debates about how strong Anime character are. Which is rather ridiculous. I suggest the wretched thing be eliminated from Wikipedia, to prevent all of this!--Frieza-Bomber 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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































































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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life Liberation Army[edit]

Second Life Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable enough to deserve own article - admits only ten members.

  • Delete --Quentin Smith 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a stub with nothing that satisfies WP:V. Signpostmarv 20:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --JudahBlaze 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entertaining, but just not notable enough. AubreyEllenShomo 21:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verifiable. JChap2007 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd suggest a move to SL History Wiki --RoninBKETC 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Suggest hold for more research. Have found links, video footage, references from mainstream press e.g. New York Times, interviews, etc. Significant ramifications for future 3D worlds. 03:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) User:ScholarScola
    • Response -- You found one link to a site which requires a log on. It is my understanding such links aren't usable as sources. The interview has a large focus on the content rendered in the article for deletion, so it doesn't really hold that much weight as a source. Signpostmarv 04:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete rubbish like like shld be confined to the article on the game or whatever it is, if that is even notable  ⇒ bsnowball  10:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article: "The size of the SLLA movement is unknown but is suspected to be less than 10." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --Some recent commentary on opioniojuris.org regaring the legal implications of SL and liberation movements demonstrate why this is an important entry - no need to delete.--Slla 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - per nom. --61.114.193.19 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yanksox 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Loftus[edit]

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

Was nominated for speedy but a quick google suggested there might be notability; listing here for additional opinions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete weak Delete unless fleshed out very quickly. Clock is ticking. Hu 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Hu, did I not get the memo? The article was created only 2006-12-05T00:45:08 ! It needs to be marked as stub and allowed to grow! Is there now some policy that article must be full-length, fully referenced from day 0 ? Valters 09:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently you didn't. You couldn't be bothered to even do so little as to stub it. I did. I also moved some material from its talk page into the article. Articles don't need to be "full-length, fully referenced from day 0" (though it is recommended and has been done), but biographical articles do need to clearly indicate the notability of the subject. That is the main part of the memo you seem to have missed. Hu 09:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Apparently I didn't. I don't care about Amy per se (I apologize for this discussion here), but I am at loss why Wikipedia should not to allow articles to incubate for a few days before nominating for deletion. Now only content of stub articles is going to be why that person is notable, and of little meaning (who that person is). Valters 10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: After Morven thoughtfully added notability information to the article, I have changed my "vote" to "keep" because now the notability is properly asserted and referenced. So ironic that the deletionists saved the article and the inclusionists made no edits on it (see earlier discussion, which is posted below). Hu 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup Notable enough, but this looks like it'll need a complete rewrite from the ground up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Has received airplay on BBC Radio 2 by Bob Harris which is the only thing swaying me away from a Delete per WP:NMG - Bob is so highly regarded in the UK and I when I saw Amy Loftus I instantly thought of Bob. Dunno if she's any good though ;-) Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a stub, but about a seemingly notable person. Stubs are how many articles start. Let it expand, don't simply remove it. --Falcorian (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DEFINETLY cleanup though. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO Sharkface217 03:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sharkface. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heligoland made a clear assertion of her notability per WP:NMG in his comment above. Unless you can explain why this would be incorrect, I don't think your 'vote' should be counted. - Mgm|(talk) 13:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reference, so the BBC airplay assertion counts as original research. Anyone can hire a producer to make a record. That doesn't make a person notable. The Songwriting Competition seems to be non-notable too, and being unsourced, is a dubious clami at this moment. Hu 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To keep up the oddness of things, I just added those references into the article. No sense in it being deleted just because nobody could be bothered to actually improve it. I can't find any references to the claimed acting (Tracey Takes On episode, etc) but an "Amy Loftus" is in IMDB with a credit on Playboy Video Centerfold: The Dahm Triplets. Bizarre indeed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but of course clean.--Meno25 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stubby, yes, but definitely needs an urgent cleanup. Terence Ong 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep some notability but needs a good scrub.
  • Delete - Delete unless sourced. Only assertion of notability is, "Positive reviews". Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - and source. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I am a little concerned about the notability but I think that if we can clean up and provide proper refs then we can definitly keep this article. — Seadog (Talk) 15:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So many advocates for the article and yet not a single one has enhanced it, not even the "Strong Keep" or the article's creator, despite being notified. The only two people to enhance it proposed the deletion and voted for deletion. What a joke all these "keep" votes turn out to be! Hu 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, Hu, this is not a helpful comment. hateless 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very mindful of being civil. I very carefully wrote that the votes were the joke, not the editors. I choose my words carefully and I always hope that people will read carefully. The comment did turn out to be helpful as it stimulated some positive edits on the article, which was one of my purposes in making the remark, and which none of the "keep" votes accomplished. Hu 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe its appropriate nor respectful to call other opinions "jokes" or to imply hypocrisy in other editors. Nor do I think editors should be taunted into editing. hateless 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is collectively that the votes were "a joke" (singular), and I pointed to the irony that the edits (and that they advanced the article) were not made by the defenders. If you read hypocrisy out of that, then I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Hu 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Hateless, but your argument doesn't hold water. Claiming Hu is being disrespectful by point out fact is not very civil either. The fact is there are people who will vote keep for an unsourced, non-notable, unwikified stub and yet will not fix it, expand it, or source it. It's not an accusation of hypocracy, it's a statement of fact. If someone thinks this article should be expanded, they should expand it, not expect others to do so. Otherwise, the keep vote is merely an empty gesture that should be discounted since it relies neither on policy nor on the intent to bring the article up to the standards that would meet policy. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't subscribe that there is a moral impetus to expand an article (afterall, we're all volunteers), and the idea that there should be social pressure that force people to do so is repugnant to me. Nor do I subscribe the idea that opinions can be automatically discounted on Wikipedia if WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF is not a factor. You also seem to miss the point of discussions and consensus if everything is as policy-driven as you claim it is (see WIkipedia is not a bureaucracy). Your tolerance of inflammatory language is also not something I agree on. To me, Hu was bullying (whatever his intentions were), and for you, I think you're wrong. hateless 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Voting for keeping an article in no way obligates one to work towards fixing and enhancing that article. We should vote keep if the given article covers a subject that is notable and verifiable, which apparently this is, although the article may be poorly written and poorly sources. A poorly done article on a notable and verifiable topic should be marked for cleanup, not deletion. --The Way 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, of course. The irony remains, nonetheless (as does the doubt on notability). I've been on the other side of the fence too, voting to keep an article and not having time or knowledge to improve it. And now this AfD has been vandalized.[1] Strange. Hu 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent evidence presented, in the the article or in this discussion, that Amy Loftus is yet a musician of any importance. The only sources cited are her website and an online store that sells nothing but CDs from small, independent musicians. Note the absence of any reviews from mainstream media.... indeed absence of any reviews at all. Amazon sales rank for her CD, "Straight to Amy," is #330,572 in Music. (As a quick reality check, another recent CD, "Exploration," published by an independent label, by two talented young folk singers neither of whom has or ought to have their own Wikipedia biography—Sarah Lee Guthrie and Johnny Irion—ranks 34,291). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and if someone can be bothered to actually source the thing and show notability, then it can be recreated. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing anything to meet the (admittedly guideline) WP:MUSIC, nor reliable sources about her, nor many google hits . Inner Earth 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have sourced several of the statements made in the article and noted that she was Nashville Scene magazine's "Best New Singer/Songwriter" in 2005. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Mukadderat 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per new references added by Matthew Dionyseus 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deleted references to subjects website as they are not valid citations. Now, we have two left to consider. One, she is the subject of a writer's choice award, I can think of high school students who have recieved similiar awards who are known only by their family and friends. The second item, the 3rd place in one of many categories in the International Songwriter Competition, does not do it for me either. I have no idea how prominent that ISC competition is in the music industry, but it didn't appear that professional to me by reviewing their web site. Therefore I support DELETE based on lack of Verifiablity and Biography NotabilityAlan.ca 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self-published sources are not acceptable to establish notability BUT are acceptable sources of non-controversial biographical detail. I have thus reverted your changes to the article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Original research; unsourced; unsepcific, misspelled title. Fails to mention slavery and sharecropping (!). El_C 03:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black's role in farming[edit]

Black's role in farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy candidate but not IMO speedyable - listing for more opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after salvage-merging if anything is salvageable / mergeable. Intention may be commendable, but the division of encyclopedia information into a topic like this title seems ill-considered. Hu 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looks/reads like original research to me, I'd go for deletion Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TSO1D 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's OR, no question about it. -- DiegoTehMexican 03:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WTF is the only term that comes to mind for this article. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unverified and with a stupid (and grammatically incorrect) title to boot. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Heligoland . Sharkface217 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the percentages can be verified in the article and the bulk of it is pretty much OR.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is not needed.--Meno25 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Persian Poet Gal; the article appears like it would need a major overhaul, as well as sources with which to verify the information contained within were it to be kept. Kyra~(talk) 07:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, nothing encyclopedic. Terence Ong 10:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non encyclopedic and reads as if it is OR. — Seadog (Talk) 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the topic could be worthwhile, but this article is not worthwhile.-- danntm T C 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and, it's Blacks' roles in farming.Bearly541 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 08:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aigle (company)[edit]

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

This article makes no attempt at making an assertion of notability other than it has been around since 1853. The label is also privately held, & I think it may be a COI article, but I can't be sure. Other than the label's own site, I don't see any refs or sources. So because of this, I'm listing it here for deletion... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Aigle is a pretty common brand. However, I don't think the company (which should be named Aigle S.A.) meets (or met) WP:CORP. Ten minutes playing with the Euronext site is quite enough, and I couldn't find that AGL was ever a part of any of the Euronext/CAC indexes. It is ultimately owned by de:Maus Frères Holding (fr:Maus Frères Holding is spammy: "En avant vers demain!" and perhaps a copyvio, although Google says not), a notablish private holding company, majority owners of Aigle, Lacoste, and other well-known brands. On the whole, I'd be happier with a smerge with Maus Frères Holding, only that's not written yet. I'll have a go at translating the French article and de-spamming it later this week. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 4 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, W.marsh 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, listing on fr.wikipedia.org gives some kind of notability. Some subjects are hard to verify if you do not live in the state of origin. Tulkolahten 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm inclined to think just about any company with more than 150+ years of history should be able to fill out an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable. Their "about us" on their website might be helpful in beefing up the article: [2]. Gzkn 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article isn't well-developed but topic is notable. TSO1D 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most companies are privately held; that doens't make them non-notable. The French Wikipedia article is more complete. --Oakshade 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per obvious notability. Sharkface217 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Being on French Wikipedia makes it notable as above.--Meno25 06:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yanksox 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Wilson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE Tulkolahten 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fails how? Is clearly subject of at least 2 non-trivial publications and part of a notable band per WP:NMG. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 5 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, —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as a member of a notable band. User:All systems go removed the AfD notice. I restored it just now. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Panic! at the Disco or simply Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC on his own (and no, individual members of a notable band are not inherently notable). Possibly worth recreating when/if he wins his lawsuit against his former band, and manages to establish that he actually played on an album. :) Xtifr tälk 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your opinion that members of a notable band are not inherently notable themselves, or is it policy somewhere?--Dmz5 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MUSIC. Nothing there says that a member of a notable band is inherently notable! My opinion is that most members of notable bands would be notable themselves for having participated in a band's notable accomplishments. That goes beyond what the guideline actually says, but I think it's a reasonable interpretation, and a good compromise between deletionist and inclusionist stances. However, in this case, we have a musician who, according to the band, did not participate in any of their albums or singles. Xtifr tälk 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: note that the article has been twice-deleted already. Xtifr tälk 23:17, 2 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, Tulkolahten 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per nom. TJ Spyke 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The MTV and Spin Magazine articles about him demonstrate individual notability. --Oakshade 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that the articles aren't about him; they're about the lawsuit, which is notable because it involves a notable band. Suing a famous person does not magically confer notability. (Especially not in the lawsuit-happy land of the USA.) Now, if he wins the suit, then he may become notable as someone who had to sue to get properly credited on a successful album. But if he loses, then I think that will constitute strong evidence that he never actually did anything notable! Xtifr tälk 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, this is coverage about him and his lawsuit. Clearly non-trivial coverage (not directory or listing of performance dates, etc). If he wins or loses the lawsuit is completely irrelevant as he already has established notability --Oakshade 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sharkface217 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as member of a notable band and subject of several non-trivial publications. If people doubt the need to have a separate article, it can be merged too. No need to delete. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MGM. — Seadog (Talk) 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given this article's deletion history as well as the lack of actual notability, I think the contents should be merged into other articles and the article promptly deleted afterwards. Xiner 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Not enough, but certainly is something. A guy who is sueing for recognition for his playing on a an album by a notable band is a few degrees of seperation. The information is useful to Wikipedia but not here. •Elomis• 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge per above. Meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the outside source... they don't talk about him, they talk about his breakup with the band, not the guy himself. WP:NOTE failed I believe. The lawsuit deals with the same stuff, the info is correct according to the sources, but its just not woth note eitherway. MrMacMan 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talking about "his breakup with the band" is in fact talking about him. --Oakshade 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet I don't think breaking up with a band is reason enough to have an article about him. Also the comment that 'Brent is ...forming a band ... with his brother' is cited... but when i look at the citation i don't see one word about this potential band. Outside the scope of this one band he has nothing, and since even his input in the band is questioned this is hard to argue. MrMacMan 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's already notable, even if there's no mention of forming another band. --Oakshade 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. I don't see the 20+ members of the Polyphonic_spree getting their own entries despite several founding members having a band previously. Is it an extreme example? I really don't think so. In fact the Panic! at the Disco article mentions him and his current situation in two paragraphs is and should be enough. MrMacMan 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonnotable Mukadderat 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable in his own right. WMMartin 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Members of P!ATD have been tryed to be deleted in the past, and the articles were kept. --DieHard2k5 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Non-notable by himself; information could be merged into the band's article. Fairsing 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems called for. I have added the tags and concerned editors can do the merge. W.marsh 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missile Frigate[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Yanksox 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the article on TradeWars 2002; also merge the pages on the other ships used in this game. JChap2007 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination.
  • Merge into TW2002, and then rebuild as a dab page for Aegis like frigates. (FFG/FGG/FG) 132.205.93.32 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, Tulkolahten 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I reviewed parent page TradeWars 2002 and there are more pages about ships used in that game, it should be better to keep all of them as they are. Merging will lead to very long article. Tulkolahten 00:31, 5 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, Tulkolahten 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think merging will destroy uniformity of the whole article. I would agree with moving to Missile Frigate (TradeWars 2002) per Copysan. Tulkolahten 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
corrected to link to category, not categorize this AfD. BCoates 11:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Rename since this game article shows up in Google when the searcher might want info on real world missile frigates. Edison 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab and Merge to a list of tradewars ships. No need for a separate article for each ship. -- Whpq 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missile Frigate should obviously be a redirect to Frigate. Whether it should be merged is another matter. Merge per BCoates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete There's no need for a separate article. Xiner 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for lack of context/content (A1 and A3). --Coredesat 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino Drive[edit]

San Marino Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable streets, unlikely ever to get past stub status, if they even get that far. Also nominating La Canada Way, Mace Boulevard, Santa Paula Way, San Ramon Drive, Sierra Madre Way, Putah Creek Bike Path. --Daniel Olsen 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A1 on all articles. --Dennisthe2 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied as nonsense. Opabinia regalis 01:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Xavier Grade School[edit]

Saint Xavier Grade School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unverifiable hoax. Aleph-4 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squaremouth[edit]

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

The first edit of this page contained a link to squaremouth.com after its entry—a quite obscure site (see infra). I prodded as advertizing disguised as an article/disambiguation page. Prod was removed by creator who stated as his basis that he had removed the external link, thus apparently removing the advert. I still think this is disguised advertising and remains so with the text still listing the site. Since we do not have articles for either of the other two squaremouth definitions (which I think are pretextual), I do not think we need a disambiguation page for this at all. In any event, even if kept, the website should not be listed as it fails to meet WP:WEB. The website returns 4 hits for a Google link search [3], and has an Alexa rank of 501,921 [4].--Fuhghettaboutit 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Eagle 101 (talk · contribs) (log). Gzkn 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kart Nintendo Wii[edit]

Mario Kart Nintendo Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mario Kart Wii most likely had similar content, and that page has been deleted and protected. —The Great Llamamoo? 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the article's creator has been blocked indefinitely as a vandal only account. Gzkn 01:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Eagle 101 (talk · contribs) (log). Gzkn 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Fox[edit]

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

Contested prod; non-notable voice actress who does not meet criteria for inclusion. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree, does not meet criteria. Grouse 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might even merit a speedy. IMDB lists only one project she has worked on: [5]. Google suggests that Molly Fox the fitness instructor is more notable. Gzkn 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crum375 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sharkface217 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yanksox 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles (alphabetical)[edit]

This page is impossible to maintain. There are thousands of battles in human history and they would all be impossible to organize into one page. This page is only biased toward some of the most famous battles. Also, this page now includes many non-battles (sieges, etc..). Some battles listed in red font actually exist so this page is becoming misleading. All battles on Wikipedia are already contained in Category: Battles.

  • Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may just need cleanup. Obviously, there are thousands of battles, but only the notable ones make it onto Wikipedia, so I don't think it would be too impossible to maintain. Of course, there is the problem of deciding which name of a battle to use when placing it on this list. If you're going to delete this one, though, take a look at List of battles. Gzkn 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - some lists in List of battles are very good. The page List of battles does need expansion however. Some lists of battles will be impossible to maintain and should be deleted. I work with Wikiproject Military History and it is our goal to add every single battle in human history to Wikipedia, no matter how big or small it is. All battle are inherently notable (as historical events). Creating a list of The Most Important Battles would violate WP:POV. A list of battles with the most casualties already exists. If this list of battles is deleted, I will consider nominating other obsolete lists for deletion. Categories work well for many of the battles. Lists are only required for Battles of certain characteristics (casualties, certain event, etc.) --Ineffable3000 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Please, please, please remember that WP:N would keep "every" battle from having an article, thus restricting the list to only the most important and historically notable ones. I cannot overemphasize that enough. --Hemlock Martinis 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Oh I know. I probably should have clarified...I meant the alphabetical list is not really that much different in scope than say the geographic list; some users might find alphabetical listing useful. Gzkn 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I do not agree much with Geographic list either. It omits a lot of battles. How would a user not find a good category or just search just as useful? --Ineffable3000 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am hoping that this AfD would bring a new test which determines what battle list is necessary (and good) and which is just impossible to maintain and obsolete. Please give opinions on the matter. In my opinion, such a test would help idealize the Lists of Battles. I am acting in Good Faith and do not wish to cause any harm to Wikipedia by doing this AfD. I just want the lists of Battles to become good, and I do not think that some of the lists are good at this moment. --Ineffable3000 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks fine to me. List can be sorted multiple ways, and the red links let me know what articles still need to be written. Why is the excuse to delete a list always that a category exists, and the reason to delete a category is that a list exists? Both should always exist! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposition - Battle List Test:
The following lists of battles are good necessary:
Distinguished battles (by number of casualties, by number of forces, etc..)
Battles of each country (List of Battles of Russia, List of Battles of USA, etc..)
Battles of a certain conflict (Battles of the American Civil War, Battles of WWII, etc..)
The following lists of battles are not necessary, impossible to maintain, and are confusing:
Battles by century/millenium/decade (Battles of 100-200, etc..)
List of all battles (List of battles (alphabetical), List of battles (geographical), etc..)
List of most important battles in world history

Please add to my proposition or explain your support/opposition to it. --Ineffable3000 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dude, the "list of battles 1200-1300" is just a subheading in a "list of battles chronologiocally" page. It divides it up and allows you to jump to a particular time period. You can have them all in 1 big list with no divisions if you like, or you can dividde them by war, or into centuries, or by war, as well as by century. It just serves to make it more manageble. Some battles weren't really part of a major war, or perhaps a war only had one battle, so you'd only give the title of the war where there were an appreciable number of battles in it. Others would be group together.

I'm not sure why naval battles isn't an acceptable category for you, while "battles during ramadan" is. Does ramadan change the nature of the fighting considerably? How about "battles conducted on a thursday"? SpookyMulder 12:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Application of Proposition - I have evaluated the Lists of battles using my proposition:

List of battles before 601 - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of Roman battles - ACCEPTABLE
List of battles 601-1400 - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of battles 1401-1800 - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of battles 1801-1900 - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of battles 1901-2000 - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of battles 2001-current - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of battles (alphabetical) - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of battles (geographic), i.e., by country - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of Chinese battles - ACCEPTABLE
List of Islamic battles fought during Ramadan - ACCEPTABLE
List of Japanese battles - ACCEPTABLE
List of naval battles - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of World War I battles - ACCEPTABLE
List of World War II battles - ACCEPTABLE
Most lethal American battles - ACCEPTABLE
Most lethal battles in world history - ACCEPTABLE

List of orders of battle - ACCEPTABLE
List of wars - ACCEPTABLE
List of Routs - NOT ACCEPTABLE
List of raids - NOT ACCEPTABLE
The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World - ACCEPTABLE

What do you think? --Ineffable3000 02:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ammendment to Proposition
Lists of wars are acceptable.
Lists of battles listed in a book are acceptable.
List of sieges is acceptable.

Please comment. Thank You. --Ineffable3000 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am just interpreting WP:LIST for the case of lists of battles. --Ineffable3000 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
after fourth edit conflict :) Hmmm, I do feel that a chronological list (separated somehow into different time periods) might be useful. But it might be a pain do decide how to break it up. Perhaps this might be better on a talk page somewhere, though, maybe the Military History project talk page. Gzkn 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD page is fine for discussion. We can always copy final policies. I will put up a link to this page on the Wikiproject Military History page. --Ineffable3000 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, AFD pages are generally pretty bad for holding general discussions, as they operate under a seven-day limit and force things towards an artificial keep/delete dichotomy. Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have put a link to this AfD page on the Wikiproject talk page. Hopefully some experts will come and speak. But either way, in my opinion, a list of ALL BATTLES, should not exist. --Ineffable3000 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see an alphabetical listing as a particularly useful axis for navigation, especially when there are lists/categories that organize the material much more effectively. Carom 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alphabetical list is, admittedly, pretty useless, as it's redundant to the categories (which already follow alphabetical sorting) in the local sense and to Wikipedia's search function in the global one. As it's additionally fairly difficult to maintain, I don't see a problem with deleting it.
More generally, the intent of lists is to provide a form of navigation that categories and templates do not. For battles, navigation by country (via Category:Battles by country) and war (via Category:Battles by war and campaignbox templates) are done fairly well without lists; the lists of battles for each country and war are thus often redundant (although they may still be useful, in some circumstances). The major—and very obvious—form of navigation that categories do not provide, however, is the chronological; categories are sorted alphabetically, which makes it quite difficult to arrange battles in order when browsing them. Here, lists—in particular, the lists of battles split into centuries (which are really just chunks of a single timeline of battles that has been broken apart due to size constraints)—really excel; I think that this application of lists is the primary one that ought to be retained.
Which is not to say that the current form of these lists is the most useful, of course. In the long term, I think it would be best to combine these with the corresponding chronological list of wars to create a grand Timeline of military conflicts (which may need to be split into chunks) that would list, for each year, the wars and corresponding battles that took place. Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a good idea in the long run. But for now, why not create categories for conflict during each time period? --Ineffable3000 02:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, because the articles within the categories would still be sorted alphabetically? The point is not to have the set of battles in the Xth century, in other words; but to have a listing of battles in precise chronological order (the century part merely being a convenient way of producing readably-sized pages, nothing more). Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's get a consensus on which lists should stay and which should get deleted. --Ineffable3000 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This nomination is only discussing one list; if you want to suggest that others be deleted, you'll need to make separate nominations. (Which I don't recommend, incidentally, until after there's some sort of general consensus on what sort of lists we want to work with.) Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is what I mean. We can still discuss what other lists we would like to nominate for deletion later here. --Ineffable3000 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, here's what I would suggest:
          • List of battles (geographic) - delete; classifying battles by the modern states where their sites are located isn't very useful (and was deprecated as a category option for just that reason)
          • Lists by country or by war - some of these may be useful; others are redundant with the categories and campaignboxes
          • Lists by period (battles and wars) - combine into a single timeline, as I suggested above
          • Lists of routs/raids/etc. - delete, pretty much impossible to determine neutrally what goes into these
          • Lists by casualties - possibly combine into the timeline through the new sortable table option; alternately, rework into articles dealing with the rich historiography of these topics Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kirill Lokshin, I think that Lists of casualties should stay as an independent list or merged into an article on war casualties. I also think that Lists by period should be deleted for now. We need a verification of dates for many of them and it requires a massive cleanup. Also, when do you think the Wikiproject will begin working on the timeline? --Ineffable3000 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you think that List of orders of battle, and List of sieges should be put up for deletion? I am supporting the deletion of all chronological lists for now. We can do a better job creating a timeline later. Which Lists (by country) do you think should be deleted? --Ineffable3000 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of military routs, List of raids, List of battles (geographic), and List of naval battles are now up for deletion due to expert consensus. --Ineffable3000 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few others to AfD. Please express your opinion. --Ineffable3000
The mass nominations aren't helping things here; we haven't had a chance to discuss anything properly. I would strongly urge you to hold off on nominating more lists for deletion until we actually come to a consensus (read: lots of people in agreement) on what we want to do with them. Kirill Lokshin 09:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Delete/Other This is alphabetically sorted, thus little more useful than a category. The chronological list of battles and a category for battles could easily replace this article. A fair amount of time should be offered to make sure everything on this list is both in the battles category, and on the chronological list. Perhaps people could go through and delete the entries as they are confirmed to keep track of the progress. When the list is empty, post a redirect to the category and clean up anything linking to this article. -NorsemanII 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean and expand. We should not just delete any article because it doesn't meet one of the policies. However the article should be splitted into other articles of smaller size.--Meno25 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft, unmaintainable, duplicates categorization. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, never ending, cannot be maintained, categories will be much better. This needs a lot of work if its kept. Terence Ong 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to pinpoint the existence of new MediaWiki feature, class="sortable" tables, which you can see in operation e.g. here. While it should be used with judgment, it makes a lot of List of X (sorted by Y) lists redundant, as the user is now offered a database-like view of long lists that can be sorted at will. Perhaps converting/merging some of those lists to this format would keep the best of both worlds—maintainability and clarity on one side, and comprehensiveness and easy navigation on the other. Duja► 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and convert into the tables as above, perhaps merging in some of the smaller lists.--Jackyd101 12:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are simply too many of them. This is what categories are for. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LIST - no reason for deletion, does not duplicate categorisation. To suggest it's "crufty" is absolutely absurd. If someone thinks it's "unmaintainable" - they don't have to maintain it. Merely being a list is not a criterion for deletion, but it's the only one anyone seems to be advancing. WilyD 14:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No strong opinion, but most of these battles are well covered in lists in their respective wars. I'm really indifferent as to this particular master list, but would lean towards dumping it. Scott Mingus 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all lists of battles, and suggest that a unified discussion be made for all of these several battle lists. I frankly do not understand the animus against lists myself. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An alphabetical list is really no better than a combination of categories and a search engine, unless the list is expanded to include a brief summary of the battles, which I am not recommending here. The other problem with this list is its potentially huge size. There are many hundreds of battle articles simply in the American Civil War space. No reader could possibly find value in this list if it were expanded to be comprehensive. Hal Jespersen 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are already more focused lists to cover battles. --InShaneee 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Any kind of battle categorizations would be unfeasible or biased (e.g., should absolute number of casualties be used as a yardstick, or should the proportion as a percentage of the army be used. Or perhaps as a percentage of the country?). Xiner 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My main concern is that this topic is so staggeringly broad as to preclude it being ever completed or maintainable. Listing battles under their individual wars makes far more sense, trying to list what could be literally thousands of entries in a single category would make it an immediate candidate for subcategorization anyway. As it stands the list seems like an indiscriminate collection because it's just 'battles' coallated without context. Also, it begs the question as to what a 'battle' is in this context: only a pitched military engagement? What about longer engagements called 'battles' such as the Ardennes? What about the second battle of hastings? Also: I think this will invite inevitable POV battles over what events should properly be called 'battles', with POV pushers one way fighting for something to be called a battle and POV pushers the other way trying to get them reclassified as 'insurrections' or 'attacks' or 'massacres' or something simularly biased. It's unmaintainable, vauge, unworkably large, and bound to invite division and editor conflict. Wintermut3 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories do not replace lists - they are just another style of organization. Rmhermen 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful and encyclopedic list. Edison 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for quickl comparing several battles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.118.184 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Size does not indicate uselessness in this case. --Hemlock Martinis 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is overly broad and impossible to maintain. A better approach would be to have individual lists of "notable battles of the X War". This would restrict the database to notable battles of noteworthy wars, and eliminate confusion between multiple battles fought at the same site. Stand-alone battles that were not part of a broader conflict may merit their own article, if notable. Djcastel 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Verifiable. A very useful search tool. Without this list you will never find the Battle of Abikur ! Size is not a maintainability problem. (hint: List of diseases starting with I)`' The category:Battles is quite awkward for search by name. mikkanarxi 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis list can almost certainly never contain ever single battle held in human history and with it being so large already it can also not bring any ingomation to Wikipedia that isn't held elsewhere. Aussie King Pin 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it can. You are grossly underestimating wikipedia. `'mikkanarxi 23:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why we have notability requirements. --Hemlock Martinis 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - highly encyclopedic, and very useful browsing tool. This is the very type of material Wikipedia was created for, and battles comprise a key component of human history. Wikipedia already easily supports lists much greater in scope and size than this. See the List of mathematical articles which has grown so large that it has been split up into many sublists. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and doesn't suffer from the limitations of such.  The Transhumanist   11:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What does "unmaintainable" mean? Does it mean too long to check if it covers everything?
  • KeepIt seems obvious from the discussion that some find the list useful and appropriate. Thats enough reason-- every one here finds some things not useful, so that's hardly a criterion. DGG 07:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason onWP:LIST that is behind a deletion for this article. I feel that 'unmaintainable' isn't a reason -- if people find it useful, they will maintain it. MrMacMan 23:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kirill Lokshin (5 Dec input) ... argument makes sense that 'alphabetical lists' are largely redundant with categories, albeit without the red-link potential; however, red-links appearing in a more contextually relevant list are more likely to be targeted for authoring of new articles than those appearing in a purely alphabetical listing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, author blanked article. NawlinWiki 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwibowi[edit]

Probable hoax. Google shows no relevant hits, which should not be the case for an island that claims to contain one of the largest mountains in the southern hemisphere. The article's creator was asked to supply verification 5 days ago, but has not done so yet, although he did remove the PROD tag. Joyous! | Talk 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Gzkn 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are severe verifiability problems with this article. A search for Kiwibowi Queensland on Google comes up with nothing bar this article see [6]. A search of sources available online through the ACT public library service similarly came up with nothing. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, this is not listed on Geoscience Australia's Gazeteer of Australian place names database [7]. --Canley 02:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HOAX. Crum375 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as WP:HOAX this amazing size-changing island. Serpent's Choice 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. Sharkface217 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a bad attempt at a poking fun at New Zealand. At least the author spared us the usual lame sheep jokes. Delete Tubezone 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We don't want articles about small islands except if they are notable.--Meno25 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, that does it, Australia is next up for AfD... ;-) Tubezone 07:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please allow me to be merged somewhere else first ;-D •Elomis• 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, does appear to be a hoax. WJBscribe 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above; also, creator has edited nothing other than this article, never a good sign. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--JudahBlaze 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sink --- •Elomis• 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find any sources. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, and does appear to be a hoax.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Hoax "Not complete!"++aviper2k7++ 23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Mulroney[edit]

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

Brian Mulroney is only well known in small parts of Canada, not the entire world. JimmyCAN 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Possible bad faith nom. Gzkn 02:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Clearly bad faith nom; nominator has history of vandalism. Agent 86 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice (singer)[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable singer. No apparent web mentions beyond sites that mirror Wikipedia. DMG413 01:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom...I think...are you the nominator DMG? Gzkn 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Things have changed with the setup a bit since the last time I nominated something, and I may have screwed it up a little. --DMG413 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only ghit for subject + the single that took him to fame is this article & its mirrors. Darkspots 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--Meno25 08:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:MUSIC. Terence Ong 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. TSO1D 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --JudahBlaze 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- As said above: non-notable.--SUIT 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the puffery about the debut single, this might venture into Speedy delete territory. B.Wind 00:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vague Tidings, Elephant Micah[edit]

Vague Tidings, Elephant Micah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This was briefly up on Elephant Micah's website as his forthcoming album, but has since been taken down, and the album project he's recording has a new name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mylifeisought (talk • contribs).

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tarret 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Couldn't find anything on Google either besides Wikipedia mirrors. Gzkn 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it actually comes out or at least has some solid official information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sharkface217 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--JudahBlaze 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete improperly-named article rife with crystall balling. B.Wind 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Eagle 101 (talk · contribs) (log). Gzkn 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demisolarmon[edit]

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

Not even a real Digimon. It's some fan's recolor of an existing Digimon, plus some invented information. Delete or Speedy Delete. Shining Celebi 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per the article, which reads: "...has yet to appear in any of the forms of the franchise." Fanfic or similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kbjb 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, possibly speedy delete. --Dennisthe2 03:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete says right on the page that it has never appeared in Digimon. MightyAtom 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete' Marked it as such. It's fan-made content that has never appeared in the franchise. --Kunzite 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sharkface217 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Blatant hoax. No need for further debate. --Ineffable3000 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete article and image, per nom. Hoax Digimon. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Zero ghits. Blatant hoax. MER-C 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Apart from the sock/meatpuppets, users willing to keep failed to reply to counterarguments evoking Wikipedia's policies.--Húsönd 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jawbone Radio[edit]

Non-notable podcast fails WP:WEB. It was selected as a podcast pick by BBC radio in 2005, but I'd assert that that is not sufficient to meet our notability guidelines. Alphachimp 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - 50,800 Google Hits. [8] --Ineffable3000 04:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think 50800 is that many, and that doesn't make it specifically satisfy WP:WEB. Alphachimp 05:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. Sharkface217 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sharkface217. MER-C 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many Google results.--Meno25 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, how does this make it notable? Alphachimp 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. I don't see why if it gets a lot Google hits then its notable. It really depends, as not all the hits you get on Google are relavant. No way this can be verified with reliable sources. This is non-notable at all. Terence Ong 10:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Mark "Mr. X" Delfs & Just Julie Delfs--Jawbone was one of the very first Podcasts I listened to and actually enjoyed. They are the epitome of Podcasting and should be kept on Wikipedia. Not many shows out there have done the sheer amount and breadth of shows that Len and Nora have done. Futhermore, Len took the time to actually do sketches and drawings of the major Podcasters for FREE, for them to use as their artwork in iTunes. Please give them the satisfaction of having a Wikipedia article which really is a very simple thing to ask for!
    How does this meet WP:WEB? Alphachimp 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jawbone sets the bar for podcasting as one of the highest quality (both in content and in production)podcasts that exists on the Internet. You cannot judge podcasts by hits from any search engine or static source when determining notability. Podcasts, by definition, rely on RSS feeds. If you're going to criticize an entry in Wikipedia, at least be familiar and educated with the entry's background and source. If Jawbone isn't notable, then neither is any podcast or new media venue. It's absurd that this discussion is even being made. People that believe this podcast shouldn't be part of Wikipedia are simply showing their ignorance, and the editors shouldn't fold to ignorance. ----charleyw 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)charleyw[reply]
    I'd appreciate it if you Assumed Good Faith and refrained from personal attacks. Remember WP:NPA. You are welcome to nominate any other article for deletion. Alphachimp 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Len and Nora are very influential and well-known in the podcasting community. In addition, Len's art graces many other podcasts.--68.98.118.16 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this satisfy WP:WEB? Alphachimp 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jawbone Radio is entered here at Wikipedia Calvin and Hobbes regarding Jawbones interview/audio documentary titled "In Search of Bill Watterson". This alone is most note worthy simply because Jawbone has been recognized and substantiated within Wikipedia already as to making a substantial contribution to the legacy of Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson. Thus Jawbone Radio has made a significant contribution to the world of cartooning and podcasting and is a notable entry to Wikipedia based on Wikipedia's own recognition and acceptance of Jawbones Multimedia contribution to the Calvin and Hobbes legacy. --74.38.18.241 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Steve[reply]
    Comment: Jawbone never interviewed Bill Waterson. Even if they did, however, they would not satisfy the WP:WEB guidelines for notability. 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: However, Jawbone is notably listed within Calvin and Hobbes as a contribution to Bill Watterson's legacy. Therefore you are calling Wikipedia a trivial on-line publication thus not meeting WP:WEB So is Wikipedia trivial or non-trivial based on it's own WP:WEB policy? --74.38.18.241 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Steve[reply]
    Comment Can I just cite this article to prove this article? This reasoning is entirely circular....it could be used to prove anything. Thanks for suggesting the Watterson article, however. I'll be removing the non-notable podcast reference. Alphachimp 04:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Podcast episode was Boing Boinged[9] on November 3, 2005Nobbynees 18:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment So are you concluding from this discussion that that particular podcast episode is not interesting as an extermal link to someone who would want to see more about Bill Watterson and Calvin and Hobbes? Should we also conclude that any references at all to a non-notable podcast should be considered invalid no matter how relevant it is to a particular article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobbynees (talk • contribs)
    You should check out WP:EL. For what it's worth, maybe you should actually check the history before making personal attacks against me on your blog. I could not find and therefore did not remove the reference. Alphachimp 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the personal attack that I made? Was it me calling you "Chimpy?" I hardly think that is a personal attack. I was basing a vindictive reference on the blog from your above comment about removing the external link from the Calvin and Hobbes article. How is one to infer that it is nothing but vindictive?Nobbynees 15:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks. Alphachimp 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If WikiPedia has Dawn_and_Drew, it has to keep Jawbone Radio. Similar concept (couple podcast), maybe less "popular", but much more funny, interesting, kinder and warmer instead.
    You are welcome to nominate that article for deletion as well. Alphachimp 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As of December 5, 2006, this article was linked by this podcast's blog, with encouragement to "please let the powers that be know how you feel". Remember that this AfD is not a vote, merely a discussion to establish consensus regarding the notability of this podcast. Alphachimp 09:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just looking through almost ANY search engine alone should make you realize you must be on drugs or some bad mind altering substance to believe this entry should be deleted. Come on people, don't be as stupid as some of you seem. [10] --dcolanduno 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — dcolanduno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    I'd appreciate it if you refrained from the personal attacks. You are reminded that AfD is not a vote and that repeated statements of opinions do not increase their value. Alphachimp 13:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jawbone was the subject of an article on wired.com[11] and the subject of an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on 3/15/05 (I cannot link to this article because the Plain Dealer does not maintain web archives back to this date, however the article was scanned and published on the Jawbone Radio site here [12]) which satisfies #1 of WP:WEB because the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Jensolomon 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Jensolomon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :::Jawbone was also the subject of an article in the Lakewood Observer.[13], thus satisfying [WP:WEB]Jensolomon 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It's an entirely trivial one sentence reference. Alphachimp 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Link to photograph of front page story in Cleveland Plain Dealer as cited by user Jensolomon [14]Nobbynees 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. That it is "entirely trivial" is merely your opinion. The [WP:WEB] guidelines do not state how many times the subject needs to be mentioned in the article. Wired magazine is a non-trivial published work. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is the largest Ohio newspaper, thus making it also non-trivial.Jensolomon 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Uh, the wired reference is a single sentence. Alphachimp 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops, two lines. Alphachimp 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My point about the wired reference is that it is basically inconsequential. It is not an in-depth report. Rather, it is a brief mention of the podcast featuring purely basic information. Alphachimp 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My point about the wired reference is that a publication as large as Wired magazine would not have contacted Jawbone radio if they were not relevant force in the podcasting industry. If Jawbone relevant enough for a magazine with paid subscriptions and its related website, than it is surely relevant enough for Wikipedia.Jensolomon 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to say that a mention in wired is not a good thing for Jawbone. It's not, however, sufficient to meet criterion 1, simply because it's just a fairly basic listing. Alphachimp 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jawbone was the subject of an article in the Medina Gazette[15] in February 2006 which satisfies #1 of WP:WEB because the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.Nobbynees 14:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Nobbynees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Comment The source you are citing is on the jawbone site. I hardly think that satisfies #1. Alphachimp 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If you read the blog post, it clearly states: --what follows is a transcript. Unfortunately, there are no digital copies online to read.--. Would a photograph or scan of the article in question be suffice to satisfy WP:WEB? One would be lead to believe that your mind has already been made up, Alphachimp, before this discussion has even started.Nobbynees 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I nominated it for deletion. The same goes for you, obviously. Alphachimp 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You never answered my question. Since digital versions do not exist, would a scan or photograph of the orginal article be sufficient to prove criteria 1?Nobbynees 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, they'd be copyright violations. That said, I thought this was the exact same article as was in the other places. (Just syndicated around.) Alphachimp 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the article that appears on the Jawbone Radio site that is referenced above is an article that appeared in the Medina Gazette, a paper that does not maintain digital copies of their stories. The digital version on the Jawbone site is the only one that exists. The story uses Jawbone Radio as the donut story that helps tell the bigger story about podasting.Nobbynees 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cleveland Plain Dealer article on 3/15/05 was picked up by Newhouse News Service[16] and republished in several markets across the US.Nobbynees 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. WP:WEB says that it needs to have multiple non-trivial published references. I don't really see that being published (not being on the main site, there really isn't any way to be sure) and it's only one reference. Alphachimp 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Digital archiving does not exist for the story on online news sites. Links to photographs and scans of articles that appeared in Hunstville, AL[17] Mobile, AL[18] and Easton PA [19].Nobbynees 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Nobbynees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It's still just one article, albeit syndicated across several places. Alphachimp 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Len Peralta, one half of the couple behind Jawbone, was an early presence in the visual side of podcasting, creating many of the logos and images used by podcasters in the ID3 tags of their shows, and on their websites. Jawbone is hugely influential; a page on the podcast directory, Podcast Pickle, shows their influences in the world of podcasting and lists many podcasters that were inspired by Jawbone. And throughout numerous interviews and affiliations with singer Jonathan Coulton, and writer/comedian John Hodgeman, Jawbone is a significant contributor to the pop culture of podcasting. bibbott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.154.117 (talk • contribs)
    Comment I'm not quite sure how that goes to satisfying WP:WEB Alphachimp 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ben Rollman WP:WEB qualifications state that an article must meet 1 of the 3 criteria. The third being, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]" Wouldn't being distributed through an news aggregator or podcast directory (such as iTunes) qualify this and any other podcast that is listed as fulfilling the minimum criteria? Would including that link (as stated by the quailifications) be enough? Given the additional print sources, the site creator's artistic contributions to a premier podsafe musician as well as numerous other podcasts, I think it fits the web criteria just fine as laid out by the rules given. Also, if it helps the point of Self Promotion, I was the original creator of this article, the owners have since edited for mostly clarification and additional information.xadrian 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)xadrian[reply]
    I really didn't assume that there was any difficulty with self-promotion in the article. iTunes distributes a lot of content, podcasts included, so I don't really think that's relevant to meeting WP:WEB. Coincidentally, I don't think appearing in a news aggregrator goes to satisfying WP:WEB, but I'd be interested to hear opinions to the contrary. Alphachimp 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jawbone Radio appears on pages 53-54 of the book "Tricks of the Podcasting Masters"[20] by Rob Walch and Mur Lafferty referenced by Table 3:3 - Popular Couple Casts Nobbynees 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Nobbynees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The book is published by a relatively unheard of vanity press. Alphachimp 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually that is not true at all. Que Publishing is the Tech Part of Pearson Education Press. The Same Publisher that owns Sams, Peachpit, Wharton and others. From their site (QUE specialises in the area of applications for computing. It is one of the largest computer book publishers in the world and sets the standard for superior tutorial reference products, covering all major computer and Internet applications at every user level. ). Does not sound like a small vanity shop to me. Leo Laporte also has his books published by Que. Additionally Tricks of the Podcasting Masters, was just selelcted as one of the Top 10 Reference Books (number 3) for 2006 by the Editors at Amazon.com. Get your Facts straight before dissing something. Just Google Que Publishng. podcast411 11:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me if I offended you, but it's simply not a name that I had heard. I'd question the notability (non-triviality were that a word) of the particular publication. I was unable to find its specific listing on amazon. Perhaps you could provide readers of this discussion with a link? Alphachimp 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is amusing that a book you've never heard of is deemed irrelevant. Following that logic, if you'd never heard of War and Peace, that would be irrelevant and Tolstoy would be rolling in his grave. Here's the link to the publication on Amazon.[21]
    Great Point on Tolstoy. Here's the link to the Top 10 Reference books for 2006 according to the Editors at that little book store called Amazon.[22]


  • Comment How does this satisfy any of our notability guidelines? Alphachimp 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms... I would assume this would also include songs written with the hosts of the show and referencing the show, therefore fulfilling requirement one. I ask you, AlphaChimp. how many songs have been written referencing you personally? Must one have several songs referencing them and their show before it is considered a fulfillment of the criteria #1? Nobbynees 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, whether or not any music is written about me is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Creative commons music would seem both trivial and non-published. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people are recording music, and I'm sure their song is awesome...I'm just saying that there is a substantive difference between that and get mentioned in a notable published work. Alphachimp 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if all the Creative Commons musicians and authors would feel the same way about your assessment of their work being trivial. I assert that simply because a piece of music isn't backed by SONY or Time Warner, that it is still a published work under Creative Commons, thusly fulfilling criteria 1. I would certainly like to hear Creative Commons opinion on this.Nobbynees 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Art by Dave Devries based on art by Len and Nora's children (which was created during a visit where Dave was interviewed on Jawbone) was exhibited in a museum in NYC earlier this year, and published in a book by that artist and featured on his website. Dave Devries was interviewed on the show. [24] Yipiyuk 6 December 2006
  • Comment: How does the alleged notability of their childrens' artwork have any relevance to this AfD discussion? Alphachimp 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy sockpuppets and meatpuppets, Batman! Now that I've said that, at this point in time, no podcast is by itself sufficient enough to satisfy WP:WEB. It doesn't matter if it has its own theme song (or Christmas Song) unless the song itself meets WP:MUSIC. Of the sources that are cited, only one is independent of the podcast (thus not qualifying for "multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the site itself). While it can be argued that the BBC citation would qualify under guideline #2 of WP:WEB, a look at the linked article clearly shows otherwise: it is not one describing any awards but an article recommending six podcasts "worth listening to" (in the same sense of recommending six restaurants for a festive Friday). As for guideline #3, since the Newhouse News Service is redlinked, I cannot conclude that it (NNS) satisfies "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Thus it fails under WP:WEB - Delete. B.Wind 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Followup - Newhouse News Service does appear to be notable by itself, but I have found no evidence independent of the podcast (which actually originates from blogspot.com) supporting the article's assertion that NNS was actually distributing it (I did find an article discussing Jawbone without mentioning any relationship between the two entities). The last paragraph of the article indicates that Jawbone is self-distributed (via its own Trypod Network). Thus my position is unchanged. B.Wind 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the citation of the article in Newhouse News Service was in reference to criteria #1 of WP:WEB, not #3. Dcoulter 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but that's the syndicated article. We've already established that it's the one appearing all over the internet. Alphachimp 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point the discussion has been semi-protected to prevernt IP's and new accounts from attempting to improperly influence the proceedings - crz crztalk 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The host of Jawbone Radio was invited to speak on a panel at a Comics Symposium at Lakeland Community College in April 2006 on the above mentioned Calvin and Hobbes podcast [25] on the Watterson podcast. On the panel was former Watterson editor and current VP of Universal Press Syndicate, Lee Salem. This podcast is also worthy of note as it is the only audio interview exisiting with a close member of the Watterson family (his mother). It should be noted that Bill Watterson has steadfastly refused to give interviews to any press.
  • Keep Jawbone radio is a rather notable podcast for its episode about Bill Watterson alone. Len got an interview with Bill's mother, which is an amazing thing given the high degree of privacy Bill maintains. The article is fairly well-written -- certainly not "stubbish" -- and more information could probably be added to it as well. It may be borderline as far as WP:WEB is concerned, but that aside, I see no reason to delete this perfectly good informative article. Mike1 21:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 03:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voidism (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

This was speedy tagged. I removed the tag because this is a properly constructed article on a valid topic. The content, though, may be complete cobblers, but I am not in a position to judge. This is a procedural nomination to enable those with knowledge in this area to make a determination. I therefore abstain. TerriersFan 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - from the research I just did, it appears to be a legitimate Buddhist belief. --Ineffable3000 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I share TerriersFan's hesitation as I too know little of the area. I do suspect it may be a hoax as the three users who have contributed content to this page (one registered user and 2 IPs) have only ever edited this article or added links to this article to others. The argument on the talk page is quite suspicious, especially following the AfD for Janicism. WJBscribe 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ineffable3000 does seem to be correct actually, there are a lot of diverse hits for Buddhism + voidism if one does a google search...WJBscribe 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. Firstly "voidism" is not a Buddhist belief. A Google search of "Buddhism Voidism" (ommiting wikipedia.org) brings about 532 hits. A look through a World Religions textbook (Schmidt, R, Sager G, Carney G, et al. (2005). Patterns of Religion. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.) gives nothing. A tenuously similar Buddhist concept, Shunyata, meaning "emptiness" or "voidness", which yields 50,400 Google hits (again, ommiting wikipedia.org) and is located in aforementioned textbook. It seems to be used in a Buddhist sense by those who don't know the Sanskrit term.
Of the two citations found in the Voidism article itself, the hyperlink reference is stated in the Voidism article to be "academically well-known" is a link to a GeoCities cite. While the author does appear to have some connection to [ http://www2.creighton.edu/Creighton University], I find it odd that it is hosted on a GeoCities rather than the University's website. Furthermore, it seems to be an academic essay, but the essay itself cites no other work. Spelling mistakes and made-up terms do not lend to its credibility, either. The second citation appears to have been copied from the citations from Buddhism. As I stated above, I did not find voidism used in a Buddhist religious context in Patterns of Religion, and I doubt that it will be found in the cited book, though I have no way of making sure.
I highly doubt that there is anything that can save this article. --Limetom 11:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - First i thought Void (Buddhism) didn't exist. I started searching the net, especifically google books and found nothing that says such thing exists apart from buddhism. Ineffable3000's argument above is correct except that we already have Void (Buddhism). -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 11:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shunyata which appears to be the correct name based on Limetom's comment. - Mgm|(talk) 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 100% bullshit and original research, although calling it "research" is probably giving it too much credit. Created solely to advertise the author's website. Author (or someone who has the exact same beliefs and writing style) has been adding this kind of stuff to the Nothing article for a while now; almost time for a ban, IMO. I also don't see how keeping a redirect from a term that people who know what they're talking about don't use is helpful. Recury 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "shunya" is a Sanskrit term literally meaning "void", and is a synonym for "zero" - you may consult Georges Ifrah's "Universal History of Numbers" or simply google define it, or look it up anywhere. In that particular book, which rests upon much original research into the history of numerical concepts, and 0 itself - the most important of all - Buddhism is inextricably linked as the most prominent of early mystical philosophies of the void. Mahayana Buddhism, specifically through Nagarjuna, espouses the void to be all that can exist, and that form of Buddhism leans extremely towards nihilism in its solely-void belief. Shunyavadin (voidists) is a validly wide-used term to describe Buddhists, of every existing sect - as is shunyavada, which literally translates as "voidism" - and Nirvana is defined as the void, which is asserted as Buddhism's ultimate reality, the "true world", in Nagarjuna's terms; thus its Buddhist connection with shunya/shunyata, void/voidness is entirely accurate, from whatever reference; in fact, it seems a lesser known - yet well-established - connection, thus justifying such an article's creation. As for the connections with 0 and mathematics, they seem entirely valid, and I'd presume since Creighton is a catholic institution, they probably would be less inclined to host a voidist essay on a university website; the essay seems entirely valid as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloThere1 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Shunyata, if you read the article correctly, is not anywhere close to nihilism. In fact, the lead states that Buddhist doctrine considers nihilism a deusion. The article is not about voidism as a Buddhist concept. The article is about how the void equates to 0. If it was about void as a Buddhist concept, I would have simply said delete and redirect to Shunyata. However, it is not. It appears, as I said above, to be patent nonsense. Furthermore, there is aboslutely no reason why a Catholic, or any religiously affiliated institution cannot publish a scholarly paper that talks about other religions. The paper itself, as I pointed out above, cites no other work and is not of the greatest quality. The only connection it has to Creighton University is that the author has an email account at creighton.edu. --Limetom 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shunyata, the proper term, per Limetom. --tjstrf talk 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article itself is not about voidism in terms of a Buddhist concept, but as its own concept. I think people are missing this point. As I said above there is only one, not very reputable source verifying that claim. --Limetom 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even then, it openly admits to be wholly derived from the Buddhist concept, and it's a logical search term, hence redirection. --tjstrf talk 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is patently advertising. How can anyone not see that? Xiner 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The philosophy is gibberish, the alledged link to Buhhhism is non-existent, and the whole article build up to a advertisement for a website.--Anthony.bradbury 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The philosophy is entirely valid; the connection to Buddhism has been entirely established. Obviously the subject is a larger extension of the concept of voidism as an ontology superseding its limit to Buddhism, although that particular philosophy is cited as a prominent example . . . the void is a universal concept, the same as 0 - 0 being equivalent to the void even in Buddhism, yet of course not nihilistic - and philosophies have been developed of it around the world outside of Buddhism - see Plotinus, who is cited in the article - this article clearly represents an elucidation of voidism beyond a view of nihilism, to which the notion of 0 has been erroneously inextricably linked in western thought; that purpose alone justifies the article. It is also concerned in connecting epistemological thought around the basis of 0, thus transcending a purely religious or metaphysical connection with Buddhism, and validating its independence. The essay seems of amply sufficient quality; a reason a catholic institution wouldn't officially endorse its stance is due to the certainty asserted towards the ideas in the essay, and perhaps it was a personal wish of the author to have no such official connection with the institution. --HelloThere1 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC) — HelloThere1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep This seems entirely basic and valid; the connections are made. What's the dispute? --Jeromes 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)— Jeromes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Vote spamming won't help get the article kept. --tjstrf talk 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Valid points will however. --Jeromes 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm quoting an article from Wikipedia on Cosmology (Metaphysics): "Acosmism is the belief that neither the self nor the universe has ever existed. This is held by some forms of strict Advaita Vedanta, a Hindu philosophy. The Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, whose beliefs are called voidism, or nihilism (in the Eastern, rather than the Western sense), believed that the world neither exists, nor does it not exist." This clearly confirms and validates not only definitively the use of the term "voidism" in the aforementioned proper context, but it represents a branching beyond Buddhism alone in its Avaita Vedanta reference to identical views - that is, selfless (void) philosophies the void clearly applying to all philosophies avowing an absence or a falsification of any notions of static identity or attachment (justifying a generalized voidism category to include all such views not limited to Buddhism or even the East, as are referenced in the article), the primarily singular sense of application of the void, even in Buddhism (another Wikiquote): "The Suñña Sutta, part of the Pali Canon, relates that the monk Ananda, the attendant to Gautama Buddha asked, "It is said that the world is empty [void], the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied, "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty."" Voidism is the general term for this universal phenomenon, requiring elucidation. --HelloThere1 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nagarjuna refined shunyata, which I stated above as translating to "emptiness" or "voidness", not "voidism". And there is no "Eastern" meaning to nihilism that I'm aware of, especially if the term was invented by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi in the 18th century. The article you gave should be using a link to shunyata, not the translation of "voidism". Shunyata does not prove that the voidism theory, as presented in the article is universal in any sense. In fact, only using Buddhist philosophy limits it, because if it is Buddhist, or based on Buddhist thought, it is not universal. Again, I would like to point out that adding Buddhism into this discussion is confusing the issue.
The article has two reliable, but not nessecarily relevant sources. The first is a World Religions textbook made to back up the use of shunyata in the article, but it appears that it may have simply been copied from the Buddhism article. The other reliable source is a book attempting of cover, as the publisher calls it, "every aspect of nothingness." While this is a vaild source, from the quick look I gave it, it seems to be talking more about nihilism than this article's theory, voidism. The theory that the article is written about is covered in an unreliable source, namely a self-published webiste which was written by a non-notable author. According to both WP:V and WP:RS, this is not a valid source. --Limetom 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not only have you successfully failed to refute anything previously mentioned in the slightest, you haven't brought up a single valid point. The widely referencable term "shunyavadin" (shunya = void; vadin = ists) and its application to Nagarjuna's "middle-way system" sufficiently validates beyond further necessity the translatable (and widely-used) term "voidism". You seem to be emphasizing "shunyata" (meaning "voidness") while entirely displaying your ignorance of its root, the term "SHUNYA" (literally meaning only "void", no -ness or emptiness), a literal synonym for zero whose etymology is in fact in the extremely reputable source John D. Barrow's popular "Book of Nothing", which also links the concept to Buddhism. So, that totally cancels all your hopes to dismiss the connection of Voidism - a specific philosophy of the "void" - as it is established with Buddhism. As previously established, since this voidism pertains specifically entirely to the denial of multiplicity, duality, or the concept of a static aggregate, egoistic sort of "self", it is a universal philosophy of monism in its purest form which is to be found the world over and is an alternative indeed to an erroneous perception of voidist nihilism which you've also confirmed, which itself again justifies a specification in its own article for enlightenment. QED. --HelloThere1 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A rarily praticed but actual philosophy. I will cite my resources later. MrMacMan 07:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI do not like to delete concepts in people's religions, even if relatively unfamiliar.DGG 07:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lobb[edit]

Dan Lobb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

non-notable Gretnagod 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Presentor/anchor on a major national cable network (Sky Sports). --Oakshade 23:57, 4 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 02:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) for his athletic career alone, unless I'm missing something here. Article needs cleanup, no doubt. Is the "lunch roll" incident necessary? Darkspots 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Appears on notable websites. [26] --Ineffable3000 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per his obvious notability. Sharkface217 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. `'mikkanarxi 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horilka[edit]

del. The word simply means vodka in Ukrainian language. Pertsivka is a brand, horilka is not. `'mikkanarxi 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, you should know better than to sneak this on to AFD, whether on purpose or by accident. WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion requires a clear edit summary to be posted when you add the notice to the top of the page. I'll do that now, and let's restart the clock. —Michael Z. 2006-12-09 17:43 Z
Michael Z you should know better that there is a small button with the text "page history" on it:
(cur) (last) 07:04, 5 December 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) ({{subst:afd}})
`'mikkanarxi 02:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that when I went through the history before I went back and did it the right way. I had missed the shorthand on my watchlist, and only realized this article was up for deletion when Mukadderat posted it to the portal announcements. The deletion guideline is specific about what should be in the edit summary, and you failed to follow it.
And my note at the top of this page is correct; it's disingenuous of you to delete it with an empty edit summary. —Michael Z. 2006-12-11 18:00 Z
Nope, the edit summary was exactly what I did: subst:afd. There is no ironclad demand to write summary exactly to the letter. `'mikkanarxi 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it absolutely inacceptable to discuss this issue without notifying people who could shed the light on the issue, namely Ukrainian wikipedians. So far it is a competition of amateurs doing original research, with the exception of Russian wikipedians who may be biased. Therefore I notified Ukrainian, Polish and Russian notice boards and suggest the extension of the voting period. Mukadderat 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - added this link. I think it's a notable and verifiable cultural drink. Crum375 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't you read what I have written? "Horilka" means vodka. Even your linked article says so; quoting for lazy readers: I could never understand why people drink horilka (horilka is Ukrainian for vodka). Of course, vodka is a notable and verifiable cultural drink in Poland (called wódka or gorzałka there), Belarus (водка, гарэлка ), Russia (водка), and Lithuania (degtine). `'mikkanarxi 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I quote from the reference: "a story of horilka, Ukrainian vodka". It may mean generic vodka, but in the Ukranian language and context it refers to the Ukranian vodka; even the WP vodka article mentions the Ukranian variety. Hence it is not just a translation but part of the Ukranian culture, per the reference, which does a good job of putting it in perpective. If there are equivalent sources describing local beverage varieties in other countries, they would be includable also. I guess the issue is whether it merits its own article vs. being merged into vodka, which is of course an option. Crum375 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a fairly common trick to slip in some national words to add some national flavor. Even in "brotherly" Russian language sometimes Ukrainian words are used, eg. "divchina" (a girl), to stress that we are speaking about an Ukrainian maiden, as, eg in the song "Chernobrovaya divchina" ("Black-eyebrowed Girl"). But of course I hope no one will come up with a crazy idea to write an article "divchina", despite 42,700(!) google hits and despite the fact that divchinas are a quite distinctive subclass of girls :-).`'mikkanarxi 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you'd agree that generically, vodka is at least as famous as whiskey. If whiskey can have separate articles for many of its famous national varieties (Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian, as DvonD notes below), why can't vodka? Just because this is the English Wikipedia doesn't mean that Eastern varieties get lumped into a single article while Western varieties warrant individual articles. This is not a WP:DICDEF issue, as horilka has significant cultural connotations, per the reference. The only issue is justification of separate article-hood vs. being shoved (merged) into a one-size-fits-all 'vodka'. Crum375 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Didi you notice some significant differences betweeen Scotch whiskey, Canadian whisky etc. and horilka? First, all of them are "whiskeys", and "Scothch" is a just a popular shorthand. Second, I cannot imagine a sentence like this: To be called Scotch whisky, the spirit must conform to the standards of the Scotch Whisky Order of 1990 (UK), in horilka article. Horilka is not a brand. See eg. this horilka pic. The label says it is "vodka", not "horilka". `'mikkanarxi 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not a slang dictionary. I am Russian and I know that gorilka is a slang word for Ukranian pepper vodka. --Ineffable3000 03:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case in the Russian language, how does that affect its definition in Ukrainian (which is not a slang term)? The question is not what the word means in Russian, it's what it means to English speakers. Is it the same as vodka or somehow different either because it is different in substance or because of its national origin? DvonD 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WINAD. Not that useful a redirect because it doesn't appear to be a search term. MER-C 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dictionary definition. I would advocate a transwiki to wiktionary, but I think urbandictionary's a better place for slang. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is. Horilka, however, is not slang. The debate is whether it is in fact a word for vodka in a different language or it is another beverage. DvonD 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although the horilka I tasted in Dnepropetrovsk differed from Russian vodka significantly :) --Ghirla -трёп- 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If your personal experience indicates to you that it is different, what is your reasoning for voting to delete? DvonD 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef, it may deserve a place on Wiktionary. Terence Ong 10:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Vodka. Just H 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have specifically purchased horilka as it is prepared somewhat differently and frequently flavored differently than vodka and other similar distilled spirits. It likely has informed and been informed by vodka distillation as they have much in common, but it is at least as different from the latter as various forms of whisk(e)y are from each other, e.g., Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian, and others, all of which are whiskies or whiskeys, but none of which are referred to generically. Also, I understand that horilka has political and nationalistic connotations in Ukraine, and while I do not know much more about these myself, it is an area of the article that could yet be added. DvonD 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was the exact name of horilka you specifically purchased? Reference, please. `'mikkanarxi 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Vodka and redirect. While it may be somewhat distinct (as a subtype of vodka), it doesn't seem to warrant its own article. AubreyEllenShomo 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation stands as merge and redirect, but I would like to note I would not be adverse to a merge and delete, should the consensus trend to delete. AubreyEllenShomo 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chinese beer has about 4% alcohol content, unlike US (5%). I'm not about to argue for a separate article for Chinese beer (although Tsingtao would justify its own article). Xiner 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What many here seem to miss is that the criteria for inclusion of an article have little if anything to do with what we 'think' or 'feel', and mostly to do with verifiable notability. Either you have the right reliable sources showing notability or you don't. In this case, this source appears to show that horilka, i.e. the specific Ukranian variety of vodka, is part of the Ukranian tradition and culture. No less than Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian are in their own countries, all justifying their own articles and not lumped into a single one. If there was an article showing that Chinese beer is an important part of Chinese culture, then yes, by all means it could have an article. But the criterion is, like any WP article, the availability of the appropriate and acceptable sources, not our subjective feelings here. Crum375 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source is bulshit. See comment below. `'mikkanarxi 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't. See below comment. DvonD 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The whiskey example is a compelling one. This does demonstrate our natural tendency to favor topics that fall more clearly within a Western European idiom.--Dmz5 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment the webpage in the reference list is a journalism bullshit. Like, "My research indicates that vodka was a product borrowed by Russians from the Ukrainian Cossacks some time in the fifteenth or sixteenth century." Not a trace of references in his babble (who the heck is he, by the way). A fun to read, but inadmissible for wikipedia. `'mikkanarxi 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bullshit, but it is light writing. The author covers a lot of oral folklore, unfortunately without sources. He makes it clear, several times, that the origin of horilka/vodka as a mystery, and that he is repeating his favourite myth. I'd like to find better academic sources, but there's nothing wrong with this article. —Michael Z. 2006-12-09 22:38 Z
The "journalism bullshit" is from a tourism and cultural journal with an editorial board that fact-checks articles (that's what a journal's editorial board does). It has international distribution in English-speaking countries with over 200,000 of each issue printed. Calling it "journalism bullshit" is much like calling the New York Times' webpages, editorials, or articles bullshit. Furthermore, I have never seen an editor become so personally entangled in the article flagged for deletion as to engage in edit wars and POV -although incorrect- attacks on decent sources. What's the deal? DvonD 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are valid sources for news. A tourism website to check facts? Dont make me laugh. Their job is to sell tours, not to write encyclopedias. I provided an example of a bullshit in his text. And it lost any credibility for me. Re: "I have never seen": huh? Whose sockpuppet you are? `'mikkanarxi 02:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...which would be right if that's what the site was. It isn't though, it's a cultural journal intended to promote tourism, not a tourism website. And you are the one who's been editing from more than one user name, Mikki. DvonD 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About sockpuppetry issue: you have only done a dozen or two edits and now writing "I have never seen an editor" meaning that you have a reasonably long experience in wikipedia do draw such a conclusion. Usually this happens to sockpuppets who are forgetting that they are writing under new account and start acting as aged editors. `'mikkanarxi 04:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am withdrawing from editing and discussing the article in question. I have found Mikkalai, mikkanarxi to be unreasonable, offensive, and agenda-driven and will no longer participate in the discussion with him. My previous discussion points, if so desired, may be voided. DvonD 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with agenda besides being an offensive version of the expression "strong position"? And I am defensive not offensive here: I am defending wikipedia from unreasonable speculations. `'mikkanarxi 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have done some more work on the article, added sources and spruced it up some. I am sure it can be improved further. Crum375 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delele. No solid evidence provided that horilka is anything else but vodka (which may be flavored, as the vodka article says). May I also bring to your attention the fact that when googling for "horilka" in the first several pages (of not co big number of hits, by the way) I didn't find any manufacturers or importers of this drink. Whereas "vodka + ukraine" immediately gives plenty links to "Manufactureres, Suppliers, Factories, Exporters" and of course, brands.
And recent addition about "traditions" is simply funny: a tradition to get drunk on a good occasion is worldwide and is certainly doesn't make "horilka" something different from vodka. Mukadderat 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think ridiculing or belittling a national custom is contrary to WP rules. The source clearly mentions Horilka as part of the Wedding tradition. It doesn't say 'Vodka'. Someone reading that article, who is not sure what Horilka is, could then click on 'Horilka' in WP and learn all about it. This is WP's mission. Remember the only issue for us to decide at an AfD is "is the subject's notability well sourced". IMO there is little doubt that Horilka is notable as the Ukranian variety of Vodka. And per above, lumping all Vodka varieties inside one Vodka article because it is an Eastern European drink, while all Whiskey variants get their own articles because they are Western, runs counter to WP's mission to inform all people about all cultures, not just focus on Western culture. Crum375 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe the the national custom I ridiculed from which it is clear that hiorilka is something different than vodka. Drinking dead during weddings is not a national custom. The article you quoted about "tradition" merely lists a purchase of various food for wedding, with vodka just one item. To call a feast after wedding a "national tradition" is ridiculous. It is a worldwide tradition. Please provide reference where it describes that horilka is something else than flavored vodka, i.e., horilka is a brand of vodka like champagne or cabernet. Please provide a reverence to ukrainiab brands of vodka that are labelled as "horilka" in English. Tnen we may talk seriously. Mukadderat 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one example, the 'Taras Bulba Horilka'. There are many more in the article, if you look at the Gallery of Horilka brands. Please don't be so negative. There are clearly good references. Many nations have a favorite drink, often several local varieties. The national varieties often are similar in different countries, but they are not identical, and they have a national characteristic and identity. As long as a given country has well sourced notability for its own local drink variety, it is acceptable on WP. Just because en-WP is English doesn't mean it has to focus on and specialize in the English speaking countries. If country X has local drink Y (with its local flavoring and additives) and it is published in a reliable source, WP can have an article for it. WP is not paper and has room for all countries of the world, not just the English speaking ones, with their Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian. WP has room for Horilka. Crum375 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also find it absolutely ridiculous to discuss thi issue without notifying people who could shed the light on the issue, namely Ukrainian wikipedians. So far it is a competition of amateurs doing original research, with the exception of Russian wikipedians who may be biased. Therefore I am notifying the corresponding message boards and suggest the extension of the voting period. Mukadderat 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. Crum375 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no problem with keeping it. —dmytro/s-ko/ 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—In Taras Bulba, Nikolai Gogol wrote gorelka, and not vodka, because he knew the drink has a cultural significance. His translators simply write "vodka" or "corn-brandy," because the English language doesn't acknowledge the significance, and they didn't think they could convey what all Russians and Ukrainians know in a brief footnote. And so the English reader's understanding of Gogol's work is diminished in a small way. But fortunately, we now have Wikipedia to make things clear. —Michael Z. 2006-12-09 22:00 Z
  • Keep Seems ligit. Sources seem ok. Whats the problem? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Vodka whatever differences these two beverages have it can be explained in a section of Vodka article Alex Bakharev 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we merge with Vodka, we are back to square one. It will then be the case that for Western cultures WP offers an article per Whiskey-variant (Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian), whereas for those 'foreign' Eastern European cultures we just lump all their Vodka-variants into one article. I think WP is big enough to support variants for both Western and Eastern cultures. Crum375 23:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the list of Whiskey-variants provided by Crum375 two lines above. --KPbIC 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete the article itself says that horilka "may also be used in a generic sense in the Ukrainian language to mean whisky, or other strong spirits," therefore it's no surprise that it is used to refer to vodka in Ukraine. While a look at Whisky tells you what makes the particular variant different, Horilka has nothing in it to differentiate it from vodka, so by WP:WINAD, this should be deleted. --Daniel Olsen 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a hard discision, but I have to go to delete, first of all the term is abstract, and whilst it plays a key role in Ukrainian culture, it can not only reffer to Vodka but also to Moonshine, and the countries in the latter are clearly lablled as having their own cultural link to the drink. If anything then what's next? How different villages locals call the vodkas? I will laugh when I see an article on our local name sorokogradusnik --Kuban Cossack 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why not! If we have articles such as Lett's Brewery or Macardle Moore Brewery, why not Horilka or even sorokogradusnik? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Remember again that WP is not paper. This means that once reliable notability is established, our goal is to help our readers. All you need to do is imagine someone reading an article related to Ukraine, seeing Horilka mentioned, then clicking on the WP entry, and getting all s/he wants to know about it. Label pictures, the cultural connections, the Taras Bulba quote, the various peppers and spices that are added for taste, the reference articles, etc. IOW, once that person reads our article s/he would become educated as to what Horilka means, much more (and easier) than searching some Ukranian dictionary which will never have this potential wealth of information. Our not being paper allows us to better serve our readers, and this would be a good example. Crum375 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • all reasonable articles say that "horilka is ukrainian word for vodka". Cultural connections about drinking vodka during various feasts is laughable to present as "national ukrainian tradition". It is a misinformation of readers, not information. `'mikkanarxi 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source #2 says: "The Scots drink Scotch whisky; the French drink wine; the Germans drink beer, and the Arabs drink coffee — to provide just a few obvious examples. For the Ukrainians horilka is probably the most widely consumed liquor and it sort of gives it the status of “a national drink.”". You say it's the same as the Russian vodka, just a different word. If so, it would not be a "national" drink. It also says "Ukrainian horilka for quite the wrong reasons is often referred to in the west as “Russian vodka.”". Again, there is a distinction made. All I am saying is that Horilka can stand on its own feet in its own article, without getting lumped into a common Vodka article, just like the Western Whiskey varieties have their own individual articles, per WP is not paper, as we noted above. Crum375 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is "source #2"? This is wiki, sir, and quite soon it may become "source #31". Link, please. `'mikkanarxi 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I looked thru all of them, (it is #1 now, btw), and I see it is "Welcome to Ukraine". A piece of advertisement bullshitting again: "most widely consumed liquor". Who run the statistics? Who separated Ukrainian vodka from Polish, belarussian, russian, moonsihine, etc.? I can agree that all brands of vodka together give "the most drinkable" status. But the quoted statment without any solid ref is just a random speculation. `'mikkanarxi 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was not to show there is scientific statistical proof that Horilka labeled bottles are consumed more than others in the Ukraine, although I suspect it's true. My point was simply to show that we have a source saying that Ukrainians consider Horilka, not 'vodka', their national drink. We also know that Horlika (as a bottle label) typically contains various spices that make it 'stronger and spicier' than Russian vodka. Bottom line: Ukranians consider Horilka, not vodka, their national drink, and Horilka is typically stronger and spicier than Russian vodka, hence it deserves its own article, just like the Western national varieties of Whiskey have theirs. Crum375 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No !vote. Tough one. Although it appears well established that horilka indeed just means vodka[27] or even any booze[28], the contents of the article appear a reasonable subject for an encyclopedia that is not made of paper: "vodka in Ukrania: how we spice it, what local brands we have, how we drink it". Weregerbil 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 amount of cleanup will fix this problem. You cannot have lists with subjective inclusion criteria. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of military routs[edit]

Read expert discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical)

  • Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 03:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does need some work, but it can be kept. Many geological routes are used by the armies of countless nations and peoples throughout the world. Sharkface217 04:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    This is not about routes but routs. There is a difference. MER-C 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reads well to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article is impossible to maintain and members of Wikiproject Military History believe that it should be deleted. --Ineffable3000 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is an article impossible to maintain? I don't get that concept. Wikipedia isn't a "crystal ball" so if your thinking or future battles, relax.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are numerous military routs and adding all of them to this list is physically impossible. --Ineffable3000 05:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous isn't impossible. If thats true, Wikipedia must be impossible. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Please keep WP:N in mind, which ensures that only the most notable routs are made into articles on Wikipedia. --Hemlock Martinis 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective criteria. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, has ambigious scope. Yes it defines rout, but how chaotic does a retreat have to be to be a rout? MER-C 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no objective criteria for inclusion. Kirill Lokshin 09:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, never going to adhere to NPOV, listcruft. Terence Ong 10:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV will be a problem. TSO1D 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment err - neither NPOV or "subjectiveness" are a problem, but lack of sourcing is. If sources are added, this is an obvious keep. Without it, it cannot stand. Still, I hope someone who cares has the time to add sources. WilyD 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far to arbitrary of a list criteria.-- danntm T C 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV City. History is written by the winners. If the Nazis had won WWII, would Dunkirk have been considered a "rout"? --Dweller 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kirill, Briangotss, TSO1D, etc. etc. Carom 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' As per my nomination on 'list of battles' I think this is far too large a topic to be one category, in addition, it invites POV warring with the use of imprecise terms and/or terms with no working definition in this context. Renaming it to the more precise "List of decisive military victories" shows how hard the term is to both define and apply. Wintermut3 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The definition should be clarified and the article cleaned up. See WP:Deletion policy. Step 1 is to see if the article can be fixed. If so, don't propose deletion, and try to fix the article. I have seen no attempt to discuss that first step, here or on the discussion page, or to suggest that it is impossible, so I consider the deletion votes above to be moot. There is no reason that this list shouldn't exist, only that it should be improved. -NorsemanII 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The definition of a rout is arbitrary and of questionable merit, but more importantly, a thorough list of lopsided military engagements would be staggeringly large. I would file this under WP:NOT#DIR. Djcastel 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, arbitrary/indiscriminate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Norseman, the reason that I voted 'delete' without considering how the article might be improved is that it contained what I felt to be a fatal and inevitable POV problem with the term 'rout', and the massive size any list on the topic would have to have to do the topic a modicum of justice. per WP:not, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, therefore I feel that any list cannot simply address part of the topic without reason for disinclusion. Because of that, I feel this list is doomed to forever be indiscriminate, because undertaking a total and comprehensive list of the last six thousand years of military history I worry is beyond the scope of what could be done with this page. Subcategorization and conversion might solve those problems, and I would not vote 'delete' on, say, 'list of routs in the trojan war' or even 'list of routs in WWII' provided the criteria for inclusion were specific enough to preclude POV issues. Wintermut3 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete questionable criterion. `'mikkanarxi 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've merged this list into Rout, where this tiny list now serves perfectly as examples for that article. Even the picture fits that article's context and helps illuminate the explanation given in the history section. There's no need for this standalone list anymore.  The Transhumanist   11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The merge was good, but the list allows more to be listed. The Rout article does not seem to have POV problems. The list introduction can be cleaned up if it doesn't explain the contents sufficiently. --Zigger «º» 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of raids[edit]

Read expert discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical)

Yes. --Ineffable3000 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep To my knowledge, this article already contains every raid on wikipedia. Even if somehow the number of raids on wikipedia quadrupled suddenly, or more, it would be very easy to just split off the raids into subsections by era, century, or major conflict. Lists are inherently pretty low maintenance, so there's no reason it couldn't be maintained as needed indefinitely. If you have any current issue with its state of maintenance, you need only place a cleanup tag and state what you wanted fixed. If it gets to a point where maintainability becomes an actual concern, I would suggest first using the cleanup tag to find out if people are willing and capable of cleaning it up. If not, then I might consider replacing it with a category.
Furthermore, it should be noted that there is no raid category, so, at the moment, there is no alternative source of this information. Even with a raid category, you don't get sorting by date which is much more useful for historical analysis than alphabetical sorting. If it were a list of pokemon, I could see a category being more appropriate. However, alphabetically sorted history is about as helpful as a dictionary sorted by the approximate order the words came into use. They are different kinds of categorization specialized for sorting different kinds of information. This isn't just theory either. For example, due to this method of sorting, I was able to spot two identical entries with different names, the Indian Ocean raid, and the Japanese Raids into Indian Ocean (I added the merger tags to them when I found out). If you put this information in alphabetical format as a category, it becomes more difficult to maintain, thereby making the problem worse. I don't think I can stress enough the importance of using the right type of categorization for the information you're sorting. -NorsemanII 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define a raid? How is it different from a battle? If a category exists, a person can just visit the page of the raid to learn more about it. There are definitely many raids that are not included in this list. --Ineffable3000 05:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Raid (military) and battle for definitions. The category is as useful as the search. If you're looking for something very specific, you don't even need the category, so there's no point bothering with it. If you're checking to see if your new raid article already exists under another name then this is much more useful than sorting through every entry manually. Likewise if you find a raid that isn't on the list yet. If you want to study the progression of raids, or possible influences that raids had on one another, this method of sorting is far more useful. Any time you want to place information into a historical context, particularly with reference to precedents, sorting chronologically makes the task much easier.
Edit: What raids are you referring to? -NorsemanII 05:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, never ending list, will be better if served as a category. Listcruft. Terence Ong 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A category couldn't order the raids chronologically as this list does. Seems pretty maintainable to me. - Mgm|(talk) 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is obviously encyclopaedic - "unmaintainable" is just code for delete for no reason - but the article is unsourced. That's problematic. WilyD 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize This is a category and would be far easier to maintain as such. Please don't keep it the way it is. Xiner 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary/indiscriminate/open-ended list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - raid is a very vague term. A list of raids is very ambigious. Also it is almost impossible to complete due to the enormous number of 'raids' that occured in human history. --Ineffable3000 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You're forgetting the notability requirements, which ensure that only the most important raids (which are well defined by their main article, Raid (military)) are in Wikipedia. --Hemlock Martinis 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep `'mikkanarxi 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous notion about incomparable things: such categories as raids of Mongols, raids of American Indians, air raids nave only english word "raid" in common, but these are quite different types of warfare. Mukadderat 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The definition of a raid found at raid (military) is what unifies those three types you listed: A raid is an attack into enemy territory for a specific purpose, with no intent to gain or hold terrain, and where the unit returns to friendly territory immediately after the attack.. All three of your examples fit into those parameters. --Hemlock Martinis 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - a very informative list and useful browsing aid on military history, which also serves as a timeline because it is sorted chronologically. Very good list. Please don't delete quality lists like this.  The Transhumanist   11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chronological lists are useful. User gives no reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ditto RockMFR, no adequate reason is given for deletion. Considering that AfD's are kept by default unless concensus is achieved to delete it, the same should apply for deletion reasoning. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yanksox 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles (geographic)[edit]

Read expert discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical)

  • Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful as an index. I have used it several times to find the correct name of a battle. I see no value from deleting it. How else would I find the information if I don't know the name? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Using a category or another list. The main objection to this list is that it doesn't matter what present-day nation the battle occured in. --Ineffable3000 04:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Eh, so add in the ancient countries that make up the modern countries as subcategories. Adam Cuerden talk 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the point of doing so? There already exist lists and categoories that categorize battles by Ancient country. This list is useless. Read the expert discussion. --Ineffable3000 05:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the jumble of information you have provided and it seems like your trying to clear out existing lists to make room for your new system of organizing the data. The beauty of lists is that there can be many, each organized in a different manner, and each useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical). MER-C 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful and encyclopedic. Edison 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It doesn't matter in what present-day country the battles occured. It matters more in which ancient country they occured and who fought in them. (and we are working on those lists). --Ineffable3000 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep See WP:Deletion policy. A problem such as this is not a reason to delete an article, it's a reason to fix the article. This list is quite useful as it is already, and it can be made more useful. Deleting it would be like using execution to treat a fever. Such a mild problem not inherent to the article's content is not a reason to delete it. -NorsemanII 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep There is the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to watch these things. You think they are bunch of videogamers ? `'mikkanarxi 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - This is a very useful structured list. Of high quality too. Lists of events, like timelines, have a long-standing precedent on Wikipedia, and serve as aids for browsing the history-related articles on Wikipedia. The extensiveness of such lists is irrelevent as long as each item listed is notable, verifiable, etc. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It exists precisely for presentation of topics such as those presented on this list, and it exists to present lists precisely like this one. Lists are an integrated component of Wikipedia. Removing this list would hamper access to these articles.  The Transhumanist   12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please keep This list is exactly what I was looking for, I can't understand why their would be a problem with another distinct list regardless of whether these Battles are on other lists, is there some lack of space on Wikipedia that I'm unaware of?.--74.120.33.251 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) that was my "please keep" I forgot to log in.--Colin 8 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable college drinking game. (aeropagitica) 09:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Uncle Game[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - per WP:V. --Ineffable3000 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. "...an [sic] drinking game originally started by Brian Metz at the University of Michigan." -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete almost said we should merge this into an article about drinking games... but since it was just derived by a non-notable one day, it doesn't have a place here. -WarthogDemon 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Sharkface217 04:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete waste of valuable wiki disk space. wtfunkymonkey 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and per previous precedent. --Dennisthe2 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Have also censured user:Eglyck for his/her blanking of this afd. Grutness...wha? 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - let's get this over and done with. MER-C 08:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of naval battles[edit]

Read expert discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical)

  • Strong Delete as nom. It reads well. However, it is incomplete (and will remain that way for a long time), it is impossible to maintain. A category will do a much better job than this list. --Ineffable3000 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reads well to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lists allow for discussion of the battles. Categories don't. Adam Cuerden talk 04:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But listing all naval battles is impossible. Pages for the battles exist for the in-depth discussion of the battles. --Ineffable3000 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about listing every naval battle in the history of history, just the notable ones. --Hemlock Martinis 05:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now your triple voting on this one. Wikipedia is incomplete, yet we still maintain it. I don't get your rationale. Mathematically there is a finite number of naval battles worthy of having a name. And as always, you can't sort the categories multiple ways, only the lists. You can't have empty records waiting to get filled in categories. Are you philosophically against lists? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical). MER-C 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per my reasons in previous AFDs of the same type. Terence Ong 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The reason for this page is to give an idea of the chronological arrangement of battles, listed often under the title of the war they were a part of. A page of "category - naval battles" is a haphazard listing in no order making it impossible to tell if the "battle of Ecnomus" and the "battle of Cos" had any relation to each other or were even in the same milennium! It is NOT meant to list all naval battles, just all FLEET battles - usually large-scale battles which affected the course of the war or were interesting from some other point of view. As a matter of fact the page has not greatly expanded for a number of months now and is likely almost completed. The only things needed are to write some more battle articles and link them to this page, and perhaps get more precise dates for some of the earlier battles mentioned. I find it strange indeed that the people talking on this talk page are not people who have contributed to the page in question nor to any of its linked pages. Why are you here? You can find much more productive action in deleting all the "list of songs on album X by some obscure band" type pages. List pages are fine. They serve as a better variation on the category pages for the reasons given above. Thankyou. It's not an alphabetical list, either. That would indeed be pointless as it would duplicate the category - battles page. This is like an index page, not a random list. it gives form.SpookyMulder 12:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists and categories are not redundant with each other. Lists allow redlinks, and can be sourced. Lists also allow for things like alternate names, confusing names, etc. As SpookyMulder points out, a Cat:Naval Battles page would be quite difficult to navigate and potentially misleading about connections between articles. Dina 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories can't do chronological listings either. - Mgm|(talk) 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful and encyclopedic. Edison 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fail to see anything wrong with this article. --Hemlock Martinis 05:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Listing all information of any sort is impossible. That doesn't mean we should delete every article on wikipedia just because we can't list all human knowledge about it. On the contrary, we should list what we know and list more as we find it. The article reads well, it's content is useful, there's no reason to delete it, so I maintain strongly that it should be kept. -NorsemanII 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - We have even articles on wresting, porn, pop music weirdos here, and someones dares to list this entry for deletion? --Attilios 10:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is only slightly less problematic than the list of battles. If it is practically impossible to develop anything close to a complete list of all naval battles, why not restrict the scope to something feasible? Lists of naval battles for specific wars are feasible, as are lists of major naval battles for a specific time period and region. I think it's foolhardy to create a single article that promises far more than any reference work in existence can offer. Instead of creating lists that are perpetually inadequate by design, we should restrict these lists to a scope where we can deliver what we promise. A substantially incomplete list would be a misleading reference, as it misrepresents the frequency and distribution of naval battles throughout history. Djcastel 19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this page is doomed to be POV and impossible to fix. Read WP:SNOW. --Ineffable3000 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep There is the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to watch these things. You think they are bunch of videogamers ? `'mikkanarxi 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears as though some people have not read the title of the page they want to delete. It says "List of naval fleet battles". That means, battles in which (by my definition) more than 6 ships (ie 3 per side) participated. This distinguishes these battles from the famous "single-ship battles" because in many of those "single-ship" battles there were actually 2 ships on each side. There is a separate page for such single-ship battles, and that page will only list the notable ones, not all ship fighting ever, because that would likely be impossible and very lengthy anyway. But the fleet battle page isn't impossible. If you lok at the no. of ships in all these battles, incidentally, there really is no clear cut-off point. Any number of ships have taken part in battles, from 1vs1 through 3vs20 through 100vs100. And I picked 3vs3 as the cutoff. *shrugs*. And switched anything less than that to the single-ship battles page. I also agree that lists which can't be completed, or which might not be completed for a while are still perfectly OK. They do allow you to link to things which don't yet have an article, making it more likely that those missing articles will be created. You can't do this on a "category" page.SpookyMulder 10:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - The nominator's argument that this extensive list should be deleted because it is incomplete is disconcerting. Does this mean he believes we should delete all stub articles as well? (There are hundreds of thousands of them on Wikipedia). Most lists on Wikipedia are incomplete, because they are works in progress. In fact, most articles are incomplete for the same reason. If only complete articles were allowed to be posted on Wikipedia, how would the contributors who add a sentence here and there be able to help this fine project? And how would readers benefit if articles weren't displayed until they were 100% complete? Wikipedia would be a shadow of what it is now.  The Transhumanist   12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Very interesting list. I disagree with the nominator's assertion that it would be impossible to list every naval battle, I believe naval technology has existed for only a small portion of the time that hominids have existed. Furthermoe, even if he were correct about his assertion, we would still be able to list the notable naval battles. Dionyseus 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chronological lists are useful, not impossible to maintain. --- RockMFR 04:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It will be incomplete, but what article is totally complete? Sbmcmull
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 05:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of Darkness[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Reads like a movie poster. Unreferenced. Contested prod. Conflict of interest, see below. MER-C 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - vanity - [29] --Ineffable3000 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Here is something written on their myspace wall.
Look Ma, we're on Wikipedia!
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Darkness
made by yours truly. feel free to add or edit whatever you want. I just wanted to get it started =)

They don't seem to take Wikipedia very seriously. --Ineffable3000 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 02:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Pierce[edit]

Tony Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This AfD is the result of the first, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Pierce being restarted due to being unsalvagable by trolls. As such, I must (regrettably) sprotect this page for the duration. --Deskana talk 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There appear to be a lot of sleeper accounts being used here, though curiously, they don't seem to all express the same opinion as one might expect. --Deskana talk 13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO hard. Vanity and self-promotion. Apparently this guy did nothing in his life except writing in blogs. Femmina 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Please see my reasons from the first page. --lesalle 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity, Lysol, I request that you dig up the reasons and write them on this page. --Deskana talk 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, I don't want to toot my own horn here, but I'm a pretty notable blogger--I don't want to mention my name just in case these trolls decide to screw with my shit, but this guy just isn't notable. He's a nobody hack. I've never even heard of him before today. --lesalle 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be rewritten, but its subject is notable, and, contrary to several comments above, does meet WP:BIO (even though this is not a requirement to keep the article). He has been the subject of published works, such as this article in the New York Times. He has won awards in his field, which is notable. It should be noted that there appear to be an extraordinary number of suspicious votes (WP:SOCK); it should also be noted that there is a concentrated effort to delete all blogging-related articles, without regard for notability or for following Wikipedia's guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First it should be noted that before the nominator was blocked indefinitely [30] for being a troll, they demonstrated an extreme bias against blogs. [31]. Now to duplicate my original comment: As bloggers go, he appears popular, popular enough that G4tv interviewed him [32]. --Oakshade 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note This is an AFD, not a place for ad hominem personal attacks against the nominator Adamn 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a personal attack, just a description of facts. Anyone is free to interpret what they will.--Oakshade 16:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though they may not be definitive tests, neither [33] nor Special:Whatlinkshere/Tony_Pierce suggest Tony Pierce is notable enough to justify having a wikipedia article. TerraFrost 04:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity, TerraFrost, I request that you dig up the reasons and write them on this page. --Deskana talk 04:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 1) This AFD appears to be part of a concentrated and definitely NPOV effort to remove blogging related pages from Wikipedia. 2) Tony Pierce meets the Wikipedia qualifications as an award winning and notable figure within his field, as a published writer and as the subject of media interest. 3) The article does need a re-write - which this process should have began with, in the first place. Glowimperial 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - He is not a 'published writer'. He has some self-published books on cafepress. Those don't count. --timecop 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - He is a published writer - aside from his self-published works, he is paid to blog by Gothamist and his writing is published by them on a daily basis. While his individual posts may not be Gravity's Rainbow or anything, the body of his professional work is published online. I really don't see the difference between his gig and that of a magazine or newspaper writer. Glowimperial 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Are you suggesting that every magazine or newspaper writer in the world get their own Wikipedia article? cacophony 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I am not. I would think it appropriate for writers who are pioneering in their field or those who have won the field's major awards be considered to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I still lean towards a "Weak Keep" on this on the basis of notability. Glowimperial 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - And what, praytell, official blogging institute gave him this "major award"? What? It's just some random guy? Okay. cacophony 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - He's been the recipient of a "bloggy" award as part of the SXSW Interactive conference for his widely distributed post "How to Blog". That's the closest thing the blogging community really has to a major award right now (that I can think of) - as I've stated before it's a new, developing field. 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
further comment - for reference, here's a link to the Wikipedia entry regarding blog awards. According to Wikipedia, "The best known set of blog awards are the Bloggies". Glowimperial 04:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per my previous comments, nothing in Mr, Pierce's missive on the other page is notable. Many people have shelves full of minor awards. Many people have contributed on the editorial staff of some small school or local periodical. Many people have kept diaries and influenced others to do the same. Many people have been interviewed by mid-market media for insights on their niche interests. None of the above, even in combination, is notable, and as such neither is Mr. Pierce's bio. Tfg 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His blog meets WP:WEB given the number of other sources talking about him. JoshuaZ 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:WEB is not a set of guidelines for the notability of people (including bloggers), but a set of guidelines for the notability of web content (including blogs). It should have no bearing on the discussion.
      • If his blog is notable then we should have an article about his blog. What do you know? This would do nicely for it. Whether we have the article at his name or at his blog is a matter of semantics and not a reason to keep or delete. In either case the content should stay. What to call the article can be addressed after the AfD. JoshuaZ 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This wouldn't do nicely for it; this article is about the blogger, not the blog, and I think the article fails WP:BIO, the guideline most apropos for this article, in every way. I would argue that by WP:WEB, his blog is not notable, either, but that, again, is not relevant to the discussion. We're not discussing an article about his blog. Tfg 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading the article, I'm not convinced that this deserves its own Wiki entry. Having inspired others to create their own blogs is not sufficient. Perhaps when Tony truly does something substantial for humanity I will feel differently. Mattucd 04:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Mattucd; clearly not-notable. Jmax- 04:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a well known editor and writer who happens to use the blog form. In Los Angeles he is very well known.Metrofeed
    • And he's well known, too! Mattucd 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way is he well-known in LA? BCoates 11:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least rewrite. The article reads like a resume with very little that can be verified. If the notability of the person is from awards and external sources, then they should be cited. Jaydjenkins 04:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    — Possible single purpose account: Jaydjenkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (talk • contribs) Jaydjenkins 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should sign when you accuse me and scroll down on my contributions Jaydjenkins 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I am disappointed that Oakshade has stooped to this accusation due to a discussion further down the page. I have been registered since Dec 15, 2005. I have contributed to 2 other articles outside of this topic. I use my real name. I'm sorry that I'm not as prolific as some others. Jaydjenkins 03:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep He's notable within his field, which just happens to be blogging. That blogging is considered a niche by some - or is unpopular with a select group - is not grounds for deletion. --Sprhodes 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But how is he notable? That is what the article is missing. If I were to replace blogging with knitting does he deserve an entry? If he has inspired people to blog, who are they and how has he inspired them? Are they notable? Jaydjenkins 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The ways in which he's notable have been mentioned repeatedly here... From my perspective your question argues for a re-write and the addition of citations, but not for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprhodes (talk • contribs)
        • Comment I would certainly agree with a rewrite if there could be some notability (not to be confused with notariety) from independent sources. Articles linked to in the discussion and in the article only mention Mr. Pierce in passing. One could receive as much mention being interviewed in line for a PS3 (no offense intended). Jaydjenkins 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mikemill 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and enough reasons have already been stated. I also do not appriciate that the front page of Digg implies that anyone who votes delete on this article is a troll. - Abscissa 05:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wil Wheaton lost a lot of my respect when I read that. Tfg 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ah, so Wil Wheaton is behind this. He was targeted by the GNAA (which Timecop runs) and hates them as a result. This is him being a petty little girl. -Ich (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Same reasons as last time, same reservations as well. Sean Bonner 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

connection to the origin of that term makes him notable enough for inclusion? At worst maybe it suggest merging the Tony Pierce stuff into the Blook entry? --Sprhodes 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Just because there have been no discussion on a related article's relevancy does not affect the discussion here. Jmax- 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most bloggers are not notable. Some are and he is not one of them. --Ineffable3000
  • Keep He has been the subject of multiple "non-trivial" works. Further, the article is informative. --Falcorian (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - g4tv has also mentioned GNAA, and that was chosen to be deleted. Therefore, I believe a precedence has been set that being the subject of a non-trivial work, does not make one notable. Jmax- 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Jeff 06:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. Awards have been from very minor sources and publications. Viscid 06:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable and vanity. Maintains a personal blog which contributes little value to the internet as a whole. alexa ranking in 350,000s, clearly showing non-notability (no, alexa test IS valid here because ACTUAL NOTABLE BLOGS have a MUCH LOWER alexa ranking. Every 'news source' (which are mostly blogs) mentioning Tony do not have anything more than a passing reference about some of his blog-related activities. Spams his blog to other sites repeatedly (no need to prove this, I hope), and begs for money from his very few readers. All in all, non-notable, personal, vanity, irrelevant for encyclopedia, etc. --timecop 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As Mr. Pierce does not have an account and cannot post here to defend himself since this AfD is protected, he has indicated to me and others that this statement is an outright libelous lie, and due to this lie and an easy link path to this AfD from this article about this AfD in Digg, already people he knows in real life are asking him about his job record. This user tried to post a hacked link (they might try again) to an old resumé of Mr. Pierce's dated from 2000 as alleged "evidence" of this claim. The resumé ironically indicates Mr. Pierce held several jobs more than a year. This kind of behavior is extremely inappropriate to say the least. --Oakshade 06:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - I just noticed this. Hacked link? Its a file off his own site! If he wanted it gone so bad, why not just delete it from the webserver?... >_< confused. --timecop 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Individual made no notable innovation in the field, nor was the first to blog. Article is mere vanity fluff, and the efforts of the noted individual to keep the page up is only further proof of his desperation for fame and noteriety. LordFate 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For one thing, a lot of people end up on G4TV and do not belong on here. My friend, Brian has appeared on G4 before, and he is certainly not notable to end up on Wikipedia, save for a piece of software he wrote. There is nothing notable about this particular individual. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. yandman 09:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this mix of original research, puffery and resume padding. Note: books available form Cafepress are self-published. This is almost certainly vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly, the blog as a media format is not going to be going away any time soon. As a blogger prominent enough to have won a Bloggie Award at SXSW, this article should be kept. No doubt that in years future, there will be numerous wikipedia cross-links for articles on Bloggy Award winners in various years and categories. In fact, there already is an entry for the Bloggie Awards. --Barneyg 10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a blog is, and always will be, self produced original content involving only oneself, most bloggers will probably always fail Wikipedia's notability reqs, unless there's something really special about it like Matt Drudge. I could go start the Jeffy awards and give myself an award; does that entitle me to a wikipedia article? --Jeff 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the vast majority of the thousands (millions?) of bloggers out there would most certainly fail such a notability requirement. However, as an artist with a large following and recognized numerous times by multiple major media sources, Tony Pierce is an obvious exception. As to your Jeffy Award, keep in mind that most artistic awards—such as the Oscars (a.k.a. the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Awards) and the Bloggies—are given by organizations representing the artistic community producing same said art. While your Jeffy Award might not offer much credibility in terms of representing the larger community, a Bloggie Award IMHO would. --Barneyg 13:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO and smacks of vanity and self-promotion. Eusebeus 11:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VSCA. Don't see any good reason why such a person deserves an article here on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 11:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blogging is not notable, inventing a word is not notable, delete. more vanity blogcruft Adamn 12:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blogging is indeed notable. Despite attempts to vandalize Wikipedia, the nominatee has been banned indefinitely. Notable pages about notable people should not be kept on the chopping block. Cipherswarm 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Banned indefinitely? Are you sure you are looking at the right page? cacophony 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's been blocked depite attempts to vandalise Wikipedia... That's ad-hominem, by the way. yandman 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom 凸 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in his field; many press mentions. Certainly far more worthy of inclusion than, say, the ridiculously extensive Wikipedia articles on the extended Star Wars universe. Note that opposition to the entry seems to be driven mostly by an irrational animus towards bloggers. As noted elsewhere, charges of vanity and self-promotion seem too be inaccurate, as TP isn't the author of the article. Pfrankenstein 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note see: Logical Fallacies, just because Star Wars is kept, doesnt mean another unrelated article should be kept. Keep your arguments to WikiPediA Policy please ♡ 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This type of rubbish, if left to contaminate wikipedia unchecked, will result in even more useless content.--Impi.za 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) — Impi.za (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per JoshuaZTfg--Trödel 15:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trodel, perhaps you could elaborate a bit, as JoshuaZ actually voted keep. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL - that is pretty good - I just looked down one line User:Tfg is the comment I was reading.
  • Delete The non-trivial sources I have examined make mention to Mr. Pierce as "a blogger" and are not interviewing him explicitly. All of the articles content would remain primarily unchanged if another (I will say popular) blogger were substituted. Wikipedia is not a directory of people who have been interviewed by newspapers. Mr. Pierce does seem to be popular within the blogging community, but it is unclear what he has "contributed" to it outside the existence of his own blog posts. I think perhaps in retrospect, historically, we will be able to determine if he has had an "impact" on some industry. However, being listed as a contemporary, I do not think it is obvious that Mr. Pierce is notable, instead of just popular; thus I vote deleted. There's also the matter that notable people should not mention, and especially not get personally involved in their own listing in an encyclopedia; and while being singularly not evidence of anything, along with other things it slants my opinion in the direction that this is a vanity entry being supported by Pierce and friends. Xiphoris 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article starting with “$SUBJECT is a blogger who…” is strong indication of weak notability. Sam Hocevar 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bbatsell. I think we're going down a slippery slope here when we start deleting even prominent bloggers from WP. The fact is that bloggers are notable in the year 2006, and deleting a subject simply because he/she is a blogger is a very bad idea (I think I hear some people using this argument). These people make major contributions to the web. What, are we going to be deleting bloggers who are getting 100000 hits a day on their blog because they're non-notable? And I really doubt that anyone will appreciate us putting up a WP:WEB article about them later (though their site fits the criteria). This is all a very very bad idea IMHO. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question isn't whether or not bloggers are notable; it's whether or not this blogger is. I think I speak for many of the editors here when I say that if there were a discussion of deleting an article of a blogger as notable as, say, rms, then we would probably have different opinions. Jmax- 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Denis Paradis. Just the fact that this discussion is ongoing here is enough to mark him as being "Notable".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis Paradis (talk • contribs) JoshuaZ 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Under that logic whenever we have socks and junk flooding us from other websites that somehow makes them notable? JoshuaZ 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should the article on the GNAA be recreated, then, since it's being nominated for deletion ten times surely must constitute notability, in your eyes?
I agree with above. Meta-discussion does not constitute notability. I am here because I noticed it in the Digg.com article, and that constitutes popularity. Xiphoris 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if meta discussions such as this constitute notability, then surely the Jordanhill railway station should mention the fact that it was the one millionth article within its article? Atleast in your eyes? TerraFrost 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I am amazed that another round of deleting entries about famous bloggers have popped up again.--LifeStar 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe there’s a lesson to be learned from the AfD results, then. Sam Hocevar 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User is non-notable sufferer of chronic blogharrea. Recomend speedy deletion followed by all of us making a very minor effort to forget he ever existed .d2america
    • Go read the speedy deletion criteria and tell me exactly which one you're talking about, there. --Deskana talk 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the other AfD, subject claims to either be 428th or 520th most popular blogger, depending on how you measure it. Like any subject with internet-fame, attracts much non-useful attention (like the collapse of previous AfD), making a good article less likely. "The blogfather" is Glenn Reynolds. BCoates 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of importance presented. No verifiable source citations to reliable sources. The only source mentioned at all is an interview on the G4TV website. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Blogging itself is article worthy, somepeople who has done work outside the blog area are worth articles but I just don't feel Mr. Pierce has done enough outside his area of expertise. Also people are finding it necessary to talk about their blog experience or comment on blogs themselves -- thats not on debate here. A rewrite is necessary, and if a rewrite fails to pass the tests again this needs deletion. I believe it fails to pass theWP:BIO test and follows WP:VSCA in most cases fairly well. MrMacMan 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. All of the (now removed) links were back to his own blog. One interview on a gaming cable channel does not make someone famous. Nonforma 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Modesty84 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After reviewing other articles, I've been finding it hard to come up with a list of sources we're considering as establishing Mr. Pierce's notability. I have only found one source, the G4 article. I would appreciate if anyone would list other non-trivial sources about Mr. Pierce below. Also please consider Wikipedia's guidelines regarding blogs as sources before listing any blogs here. I also feel I should point out that I have previously voted delete earlier in this AfD. I think it's worthwhile to continue discussing. Xiphoris 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News Archive search shows that he is notable enough for mine. [34]. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Per Capitalistroadster excellent research, 2 new stories on the subject have been added to the article. One from the PC Magazine and the other from the LA Weekly. [35][36]. --Oakshade 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The LA Weekly article in the "LA People" section is specifically about Tony Pierce the blogger. The other from PC Magazine mentions him in a quote about blogging. He is not the focus of the article. I will also note that removing the word blog from that search ends up with much different results. Most results seem to be for ASU coach Tony Pierce. Searches on current news show no results for Tony Pierce the blogger. Jaydjenkins 02:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      — Possible single purpose account: Jaydjenkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (talk • contribs) Jaydjenkins 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should sign when you accuse me and scroll down on my contributions Jaydjenkins 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know which articles you're reading, but the PC Magazine article not only "mentions" him, he's in the title and the whole openning is about him. As for the LA Weekly article, you seem to confirm that the article is primarly about Tony Pierce the blogger (that's this article's subject). What you find in othe seaches has nothing to do with these references. --Oakshade 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • People can read the PC Magazine article and decide for themselves. I do confirm that the LA People article is primarily about Tony Pierce. It should also be noted that the LA Weekly LA People issues included everything from waitresses to actors that you would see around LA. Jaydjenkins 02:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO states as a criterion for inclusion: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." It continues, "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles..." etc. Pierce meets that criterion. A quick search of the Dow Jones/Reuters Factiva service shows Pierce has been the subject of articles from the New York Times (27 May 2004) (followed by an echo to the Times-owned Int'l Herald Tribune on 29 May); Reuters (10 July 2004); Straits Times (Singapore) (5 March 2006); Reforma (Mexico City) (2 April 2006); EL PAIS (Madrid) (20 April 2006); Los Angeles Times (16 October 2003, 27 Feb 2003, 12 July 2004, others); Le Monde (25 June 2005); and others. The search string was (Tony Pierce AND blog). Factiva is a proprietary service, and thus articles in it cannot be pointed to easily. Re the argument that these appearances are "trivial", to maintain that you also have to implicitly maintain that all the reporters involved, in different countries, continents, and languages, all just happened to stumble upon the same "non-notable" source by random chance. While not impossible, Occam's Razor suggests the simpler explanation -- that Pierce is known worldwide as an expert on blogging, and worth getting a quote from -- seems more likely. Re the argument, "But I've never heard of him" -- neither had I, prior to this discussion. I am modest enough, though, to regard my own limited knowledge as not the end-all and be-all. Re the observation I may be a sock puppet -- I've been on Wikipedia since January 2005, and have over 100 edits. If I'm a sock puppet, it seems I may well pass the Turing test. Hal 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to say that based on the articles cited here in this section, I have to say that I think he meets the criteria for inclusion, certainly well above that used for bit-characters in Looney Tunes cartoons. wraithe 12/5/06 16:39:22 PM (UTC) — wraithe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jmax- 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You underestimate the fact that Looney Tunes has been watched by millions, while Tony is still as non-notable as it gets. --timecop 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I thought quite a bit about this, and I think there is more of a slippery-slope danger in letting the article stay than in deleting it. There are a gazillion blogs out there and each one claims a gazillion readers who will gladly come to wikipedia and create an article on it and then vote a gazillion times to keep it. I think we have to use a stricter rubric with these kinds of things, and in the absence of WP:BLOGGERS, I think the notability guidelines have to be applied ruthlessly. Having been quoted in this or that newspaper, having won an award for knitting given by a community of knitters who do nothing but sit and knit ALL day, this is not the stuff of notability.--Dmz5 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey look, a knitter in Wikipedia! Pierce is surely more notable than Mrs. Pearl-McPhee. She did write several books about knitting but Pierce wrote several books about blogging. Oh, and according to her article, "Pearl-McPhee’s writing and work is best known through her blog." Actually, the reason we're having this discussion is because Tony is notable, there are many less notable people in Wikipedia, no one would know or care if Pearl-McPhee's page was deleted. PermanentE 08:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — PermanentE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I defend myself of this spurious charge below. PermanentE 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would seem you are not a single-purpose account; However, Your comment leads me to believe that you feel that the existance of one article is enough proof to keep another. That is simply not true. That is to say, this discussion is for the notability of this article, and has no relation to that article whatsoever (which is actually of a somewhat-notable person) Jmax- 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, Being in Wikipedia is not in itself a sign that an article actually meets Wikipedia's notabaility standards. Secondly, Pearl-McPhee is vastly more notable than Pierce; I type her surname into Amazon and get a list of books written by her, one of them with #686 sales rank despite being a special-interest book released 9 months ago. I put in "Tony Pierce" and get... one book by him that they don't even sell, with no sign of his blogging book at all. Pearl-McPhee vs. Pierce is a perfect example of how web-fame and the ability to throw readers at Wikipedia in realtime causes people to vastly overstate the notability of full-time bloggers compared to people who are known for something else, and may or may not have a website. BCoates 09:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Considering the New York Times, LA Weekly, G4TV, and Washington Post have all used him in their pieces on blogging, that SXSW has invited him to speak about blogging, that the country of Amsterdam handpicked him among twenty other bloggers to visit and write about their country, would all indicate that he is, indeed, notable in his field. Timecop and others fail to distinguish the difference between FAME and NOTABLITY. Arguing that someone is not notable because you haven't heard of them defies all logic. A "random article" click on Wikipedia will likely turnup someone or something you've never heard of - this doesn't mean the piece should be excluded. Moreover, Wikipedia isn't catalog of things everyone knows, as Timecop and Deskana seem to be in favor of. --LADude 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — LADude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment An awful lot of "keep" votes are coming from spa's or people who haven't edited wikipedia in months (LADude's last edit was in June, and PermanentE's was in September), leaving me to believe that this is due to pierce complaining about his deletion here. yandman 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you're right, this is getting a little fishy. However, there's a good chance he's written about it on his blog, and his fans are coming back to comment. I think it's time for an anonafd tag. I'm going to put an spa tag for the sake of the closing admins, simply because I believe this qualifies as meatpuppetry, even if it's WP:AGF meatpuppetry. Still, that point by LADude is an awful good one. Patstuarttalk|edits 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If Pierce writing about it on his blog matters, so should the fact that this and other of timescop's desired deletions are discussed on the GNAA chatroom that encourages members to vote en masse. --LADude 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why does the fact that I haven't edited since September make mine a Single Purpose Account? I'm sure there are administrators that don't edit for longer periods. I have been a minor contributor for almost 3 years on diverse topics and have always tried to be respectful of Wikipedia. It just so happens that I read Pierce's blog and I've had a long standing Wikipedia account, I think that qualifies me perfectly to participate in this discussion. What is suspicious about that? You are assuming I'm operating in bad faith just because I have a different opinion than you. PermanentE 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self publication on Cafepress does not count as publication. An award on blogging by some random guy does not count as an official award. This is completely non-notable. What is notable is that this article was started by a user named Shakey Bear, who has no edit history whatsoever other than on this article, and even uploaded a picture of Tony Pierce before it was successfully deleted. Because of the lack of preexisting edit history, because of the creation of the article by such an amateur account (which doesn't even have a talk page, indicating that it was created for the sole purpose of creating this article), because of the possession of a picture of Tony Pierce by said account, I can only conclude that THIS ARTICLE WAS CREATED BY NONE OTHER THAN TONY PIERCE HIMSELF, AND IS THUS DIRECTLY IN VIOLATION OF WP:Vanity. cacophony 09:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Certainly you can't know that for sure. It could be him or maybe not. I mean it could be a friend or just someone who reads his blogs -- who knows, its not very clear that its him and so push the vanity issue aside for the fact that is is nn and fails WP:Bio by very large margins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMacMan (talk • contribs)

***WHOA, EXCUSE ME, something suspicious is going on. The previous comment was NOT added by LADude, but by the contributer MrMacMan. LADude then came along and added the unsigned template claiming the comment was made by him, when MrMacMan was the one who wrote it. Is this a case of template misuse, or something far more sinister? cacophony 10:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment I have to agree with LADude in this instance. It's extremely common for people to make new accounts, make a page, and have few other contributions. In fact, the good majority of the new pages created come from newly created accounts; and I can tell you, from personal experience, that most of them never return (try going through some of the Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. Besides, we're bound by policy that, unless it becomes obvious otherwise, we must assume good faith and assume it wasn't Tony; not the other way around (assume it was him until it's not obvious). Secondly, as noted above, he wasn't just on cafepress, he was on several major newspapers. Patstuarttalk|edits 10:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There's too many coincidences to not be true. If I may direct you to the original revision, you'll note several claims that couldn't have been made by just a friend or somebody who reads his blogs:
        • "His writing style is impromptu, frank, respectfully opinionated, humorous, and uniquely careless of capitalization."
        • "He is patriotic but politically critical, while at the same time charismatic and quite the ladies man."
        • "He has published much other material online including photo essays, podcasts, and photos. He has completed several books via cafe press including How to Blog in which he discloses some of his blogging secrets, and Stiff, a novella in which he travels to hell, to meet Kurt Cobain."
        • "He has also been known to converse with such celebrities as Howard Stern, and Matthew Good."
        • "He ... believes in writing straight from the heart, and encourages others to do the same.
So here we have somebody who knows about Tony's writing style, in great detail, knows about Tony's political views and behavior around women, his publication and the content of each publication, who he talks with, what he believes in, and what he does. If this were written by anybody other than him, then the police should get involved, as it would clearly be a case of stalking. Also notable is that this first revision is clearly devoid of any negative claims. Reguards, cacophony 10:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, pretty much all of these details you mention have specifically been covered in his blog postings over the years, many of them on numerous occasions. Any regular reader could easily have written this article. Barneyg 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have to assume good faith on this issue. Regardless of the final decision on Pierce's notability, it has been well established that he is a popular and well-known figure within his field. From my observation, it's highly likely that this article was started by an enthusiastic fan. The problem with this debate is that the irrelevant vanity issue (if vanity was the issue, but the subject is notable, we could do a re-write and be done with this) is muddling the more relevant notability issue. Glowimperial 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - His work is good, but I don't find him to be more notable than, say, editors of weekly alternative newspapers around the country. Norg 14:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has independent non-trivial mentions. This seems to pass. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What he has are just what you said - mentions - passing references - which are by their very nature, trivial. cacophony
  • Delete per Xiphoris. Tizio 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In terms of references, all I've seen are passing mentions in articles about blogging, or short interview blurbs used alongside many others. Is there anything specifically about this person? I can appreciate that he's been interviewed, but lots of people have been interviewed and it doesn't establish notability. I don't see references which would allow us to write more than "He is a blogger, he invented a word". I also don't see any evidence to support him being a blogging pioneer. Am I missing something here? Would there even be a debate if he operated a non-blog website? If I'm wrong about the references, please show me. shotwell 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly one of the most worthless articles I have ever seen. Time to send it to the great recycling bin in the sky. We must be avenging User:Timecop for great justice! The Mirror of the Sea 00:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - perhaps you could specify why you think this, as afd is a discussion, not a vote. -
      • Comment - Its mere existence violates both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policies. Delete per nom and others. The Mirror of the Sea 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patstuarttalk|edits 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep please has references in pc magazine and la weekly and should be notable for bio guidelines as a award winning and notable figure of media interest Yuckfoo 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What leads you to believe that he is "a award winning and notable figure of media interest"? Slight mentions on the LA Weekly website, and the PC Magazine website do not make one award-winning or notable. They simply make you the basis of an article. Once, when I was about 17, I was in the local paper for breaking the county track record. I don't deserve a wikipedia article whatsoever, and am hardly notable in any respects. Jmax- 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Mukadderat 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Does it need to be pointed out that according to WP:AFD: "The accusation VANITY should be avoided [37], and is not in itself a reason for deletion." --LADude 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Comment could you elaborate? We've already stated above that's it's quite possibly not vanity, but written by fans, that we must AGF and assume it's not (besides, LADude is right; that's not a basis for deletion alone).

Keep - per User:wraithe. He is more notable than most of the Loony Tunes bit characters. Tony Pierce has 592,000 Google hits. Bosko has 434,000 Google hits. Pussyfoot has 181,000 Google hits. Gossamer has 1,210,000 Google hits. Petunia Pig has 16,500 Google hits. Pete Puma has 9,750 Google hits. Slowpoke Rodriguez has 638 Google hits. Henery Hawk has 15,500 Google hits. He's even more notable than some Looney Tunes primary characters. Yosemite Sam has 307,000 Google hits. Tweety Bird has 449,000 Google hits. Elmer Fudd has 430,000 Google hits. Bugs Bunny has 1,210,000 Google hits. Daffy Duck has 746,000 Google hits. Pepé Le Pew has 138,000 Google hits. Porky Pig has 393,000 Google hits. Jecowa 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking, right? First of all there are a number of other 'Tony Pierces', including an actor, a soccer coach and probably countless others, ALL of which are MORE notable than 'Tony Pierce the blogger'. Secondly, Loony Tunes have been watched probably by billions, as the cartoons have been around since 1930s. --timecop 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on those criteria, Tony Pierce is more notable then James Garfield, William Taft, or Warran Harding (all US presidents). TerraFrost 06:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hal; the fact that the subject has received attention internationally carries some weight - if multiple well-thought-of sources solicit his opinion, its hard to imagine that he doesn't have some kind of prominence in his field. Blogs/bloggers don't lend themselves to our typical notability tests (yet), but its also a good sign that the blog can pass WP:WEB. Shell babelfish 06:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because he's non-noteable, simple as that. Self-published does not mean notable. Real publishers do. -Ich (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blogcruft. Being notable in the blog world means nothing in the real world. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While untrue, totally irrelevent, and surprsing coming from a user who spends a great deal of time editing articles on random episodes and characters of lesser known TV shows. Unless you can show otherwise, Wikipedia doesn't exclude "the blog world" from being a field that one can be notable in. --LADude 08:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That's Ad-Hominem. Please abide by WP:CIVIL by refraining from insulting other users and/or their contributions. cacophony 09:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Nothing I wrote even verges on being an insult - should I remind you of WP:AGF?? --LADude 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Directing your argument to Mr. Scott's editing history rather than to his argument is an ad hominem argument, which has repeatedly been shown to be a personal attack as per WP:CIVIL. No good faith argument can be made to refute this, I think, as you have repeatedly directed arguments against the person in this discussion. Tfg 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Reguarding your comment, being notable in an obscure "field" does not satisfy the notability requirements. One has to be notable in general. Otherwise people would demand an article on themselves, saying they are notable "in the field of eating lima beans" or "in the field of raising weasels" or "in the field of writing in blogs" cacophony 09:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Now you're changing the guidelines of Wikipedia itself, which asks for notability in a given field. And blogging is hardly obscure. --LADude 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I delete a lot of fancruft and non-notable crap from such articles. There is a lot of clean up to be done in these articles. And I would like to point out that I hate episode articles. You've made a very inaccurate assumption from my contributions, and I am very much insulted. You are basically suggesting that because I edit such articles that my opinion shouldn't matter. The irony of this is that more people probably know those fictional characters than those who know a real flesh-and-blood Tony Pierce. -- Ned Scott 10:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Cacophony - If you're really serious in your analogy that "raising weasels" or "eating lima beans" are activities comparative in nature to writing blogs then you should probably recluse yourself from this discussion - your bias is showing. If you can't tackle the subject's notability/non-notability without expressing your personal disdain for his field of work, then maybe this isn't a disucssion you should be taking part in. Blogging is no longer an obscure field, it has certainly become a functional part of mass media - accept it. Glowimperial 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was interested in these "more popular than Loony Tunes" comments, so I did the search myself. I got a slightly different result after specifying that I was looking for Tony Pierce the blogger, rather than Tony Pierce the actor. He got fewer results than all the Loony Tunes characters. Of course, that's only half the equation. The other half is who actually searched. Intrigued, I decided to consult google trends to see who's been searching for Tony Pierce, compared to the Loony Tunes characters. The resultsweren't very surprising - all the characters are more popular than him. What was surprising was that, according to Google Trends, Nobody has ever searched for "Tony Pierce", except in mid-2006. I think that says something. cacophony 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hasn't it been established time and time again that the number of Google hits is irrelevent? Besides, your logic and evidence is flawed, as 1. Google trends is a Google labs product that only searched some news articles and doesn't give an actual count. 2. You assume that anyone searching for Tony Pierce "the blogger" would make the distinction in a search. 3. Comparing a living person to Looney Tunes characters and arguing notability? A true disservice to Wikipedia that the comparison keeps coming up, regardless of your feelings towards Pierce or the residents of Toon Town. --LADude 09:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, your notibility is the discussion at hand. I don't believe you are permitted to have a say in it. (If any editor would like to correct me, please feel free) Jmax- 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) -- I thought you were Tony Pierce -- My mistake. Jmax- 09:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it had ranked him higher, judging the importance of a blog by ghits is akin to judging the importance of a band by asking people at their concert. yandman 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, though, 600,000 ghits is a freaking truckload. I realize it's inflated because he's a blogger, but even if you remove some possible people with the same name and cut it into a tenth, you get 40,000, which is a heck of a lot. With a number that high, it's hard to dismiss.Patstuarttalk|edits 09:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to dismiss unless you check the true number of results, I have taken the liberty of removing some fairly obvious blog to blog traffic (blogspot,blogging.la,blogcritics,typepad.com,buzzmachine.com) and it comes back with only 58,500 results. Seems like a lot until you you look at the last page of that search and see that there are only 496 unsimilar results. Jaydjenkins 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Four hundred ninety six is a very high number of unsimilar results. For comparison Bugs Bunny has 829 unsimilar results. Jecowa 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you go through those 429 results I think you'll see that almost all are still blog sites. The removal of a few major blogging sites removed ~550,000 hits. This surely indicates the Google slanting for bloggers (you are searching in their medium). I am sure that if Bugs Bunny had a blog site that he would have a lot more hits and it would still be a foot note in the Bugs Bunny bio. Jaydjenkins 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy doesn't appear to have done anything worthy of an encyclopedia article (like most of humanity). I don't see how this material enhances Wikipedia in any way. Orpheus 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can't accept that articles about a Wikipedia deletion debate contribute in any way to notability. They don't have anything whatsoever to do with the subject of the article, just the debate about it. You could apply the same reasoning to getting my cat his own Wikipedia article - I'm sure I could drum up some media attention if that was created and then nominated for deletion. Orpheus 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Logic compels me per nom. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone's doing it! Lunarctic 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we keep articles about self proclaimed "professional bloggers" we'll have to start writing articles about beggers on the streets also. --Baldur 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria in my opinion. I've seen exactly one reasonable and well thought out keep opinion here based on WP:BIO (by Hal) and I simply disagree with his conclusion that the published works he's referenced are non-trivial in nature in regards to their coverage of Mr. Pierce (all the piece I see that are directly about him are rather short blurbs). The rest of the keep votes seem to hinge on Google/Alexa hits (which is a worthless measure of "notability", misapplication of WP:WEB to a person, or attempts to establish comparative notability with other biographical articles here; none of which are very valid reasons for retention in my opinion. I just don't see a strong case for an article per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reviewing the history, the primary contributors to the article have few or no significant contributions to any other articles. While this isn't a certain indication of WP:SOCK, it is suspicious, and that it is likely a vanity page, as has already been mentioned. Regardless of his notability, I feel it's not unreasonable to expect contributions to be significantly from people that are not solely interested in contributing to a single article, whch is a biography of a living person. --Puellanivis 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and many other comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, Delete per nom. I'm not sure that winning a "bloggie" counts for much in the great scheme of things, and I don't care for the sensation that I'm reading someone's PR rather than a serious entry in an encyclopedia. WMMartin 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn vanity, self promotion, not notable. Skrewler 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do have to say nn in this case. If history proves otherwise, so be it, but as of now, WP is not a bloggers directory -- Tawker 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable and vanity. Reading the article, there is really nothing of any significant substance - that he started some moderately successful blogs and that he can be searched in google isn't grounds for an encyclopedia entry. I honestly don't think that he's culturally or historically significant at all. Just because his achievements are based online, it doesn't make them any more important. James Pinnell 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing but vanity. --dj28 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I knew about {{SPA}} I just made normal written out notes, so I'll just do that. It should be noted that Dj28 has made very few edits outside of vandalism and "the war on blogs". [38] [39] [40] He seems to be in direct relation to the GNAA and Timecop. This does not invalidate his vote, but noting this might help others put this user's view into a better prospective. It could be vote stacking, or it could be completely valid. If you want to remove the SPA notes then just remove all of them, or move them to the talk page. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, but I agree that there are an awful lot of editors, on both sides, that are rather fishy to say the least. The closing admin would be well advised to take extra care when making the final deicision. yandman 08:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that DJ28 is associated with the GNAA? cacophony 08:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[41], [42] -- Ned Scott 08:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty explicit. yandman 09:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking there should be some community consensus for banning gnaa members on sight. Not only have they disrupted and used mass sockpuppetry in the past, but the stated aim of their organization is to be trolls. I see no need to pussy foot around with this; if someone says, "I'm a troll", ban him. Patstuarttalk|edits 15:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone's a member of a troll community doesn't mean all of their actions are trolling. Certainly members of GNAA have real lives and jobs; so certainly they don't spend 100% of their time trolling. It's possible a member of GNAA might troll other mediums, but not Wikipedia. Unless you have evidence that a user has trolled Wikipedia, it is not just to make such accusations. Please follow the wiki policy of assume good faith. For example, someone might be a member of the Klu Klux Klan and contribute positively to an article on blogging or electrical engineering. Being prejudiced or having an interest in trolling doesn't mean everything an individual does in his life is therefore trash. Xiphoris 20:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it says something that he publicly declared his membership with GNAA. If he really wanted to "troll"-style influence the process, wouldn't he have kept it secret? Xiphoris 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One last point: if you started instituting a policy of banning things like that on sight, it seems like it would be far too easy to get people banned. I'll go start posting on troll forums with the username "Patstuart", then some other innocent Wiki admin will find you and insta-ban you for it. Too much potential for abuse. Ban people based on their actions, not your presumptions about how you think they might act. Xiphoris 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all about freedom of speech, but 1) he admitted he was a troll, 2) all people from his organization admit as much. That's not the same as a username mistake. Someone doesn't, by chance, end up stating their allegiance to GNAA, but actually they were mistaken with someone else. If someone goes around downtown New York city, and screams "I'm a member and the founder of al-Qaeda", or "I'm an active member of the local gang that's been guilty of constant murder" - then they would be arrested (especially if other gang members had done the same). Sorry, if you admit you're a troll, then, um, you're a troll. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about this user. However, I think you're wrong about people in general. Having trolled in the past or being a member of a troll organization does not mean someone is trolling currently. Admitting being a troll means what? Having trolled in the past? It doesn't mean anything about someone's current actions. That's what we judge them on. Or do you think people can never change? Xiphoris 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The world is not black and white. Someone can be a troll one place and also positively contribute some other place. As I mentioned previously, presumably some of these people have jobs, and it's unlikely they troll in real life. Someone might troll Slashdot but not Wikipedia. You can't make assumptions, nor can you characterize someone's entire personality by the word "troll". That's called prejudice, and it's unjustified. In the past it was used to say black people were stupid or that women shouldn't have the right to vote. Judge someone based on that person's actions, not on some one-word label! Xiphoris 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User DJ28 has since removed the GNAA logo from his user page: history of his user page, since users pointed it out here. This is probably evidence that he actually is trolling this process. I don't know a lot about Wikipedia policy, but I suggest the admins carefully look at this user for violation of Wikipedia policies. He has something to hide. Xiphoris 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure you read the dates correctly? By your own link, he removed the logo 10 months ago. cacophony 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right. It looks like I've confused myself. He did remove it months ago. I don't know how I got the dates mixed up. Xiphoris 00:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete vanity ... this puff piece doesnt belong on wiki.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There does not appear to be any assertion of notability in the article (which is actually a speedy deletion criteria), but either way I do not think the topic is notable. --Deskana talk 10:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Vyse 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this afd has 76 votes according to Dragons flight's tool. (!) And by the way, I still vote keep. -Patstuarttalk|edits 15:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is NOT a vote - simply "voting" doesn't cut it -- Tawker 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew someone would say that. I only used the words because that's the term the tool uses, thank you very much. -Patstuarttalk|edits 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO --Strothra 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is amazing to me that there is even a question about Tony Pierce deserving a Wikipedia entry. I've been blogging since 2002, and when I started Tony was already a well established blogfather. He has spawned and inspired so many bloggers. He has been featured in so much media coverage. If you don't include Tony Pierce, then there isn't a blogger in the world who should be included. The only reason I can think this issue even came up is pure T jealousy. It's very existence is unfair and unjust to Tony.--swearenger
  • I have to agree it's a bit of a sham that we're not keeping this guy. We have every single episode, character, and other nuance of the so-called Buffyverse on here (look a this travesty), which no one asks for deletion (as if they couldn't just create their own wiki). But then, when someone notable comes along, everyone wants to delete him. What a shame. -Patstuarttalk|edits 06:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of those articles should be deleted too, but one thing at a time.. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide verifiable evidence that he's "a well established blogfather"? cacophony 07:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If being "a blogfather" is all that significant, maybe you should go create an article on it. As is, I don't see how his being "a blogfather" is notable when, right now, near as I can tell, the word, itself, isn't. Also, your "there isn't a blogger in the world who should be included [if Tony Pierce isn't]" argument makes it sound as though Tony Pierce is the most notable blogger to have ever lived. Is that what you think? TerraFrost 16:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The guy is notable, but Wikipedia perhaps isn't the place for this. --Staos 12:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I just read his blog -- gotta get rid of that tripe. --Staos 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Personal opinion of Pierce's website is irrelevent. --LADude 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would agree if it were not for the fact that Mr. Pierce has interfered in this process via his website, friends, and directly. He, as a biased party, should not ever have commented on the deletion page of his own article. That he did speaks of something; perhaps the article's vanity, perhaps something else. Whatever it is, I find myself resenting it. Xiphoris 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Builder[edit]

No reliable source for notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I played it when it was called Pontifex, and under that name you may find several reviews and mentions: here, here, here, and doubtless others. SnurksTC 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, considering a few writeups in places like this. It's also cited as an inspiration for Armadillo Run here. The third game in the series, Pontifex 2, won the Audience award from Independent Games Festival (source) (edit conflict: Ain't google great?) Nifboy 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rewrote the article to be more WP:V-compliant (and just as well, I wrote the majority of it in the first place, one of my first few edits). Nifboy 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For best results, please cite any independent in-depth articles that you haven't used as sources in a "Further reading" section of the article, so that editors can use them to expand the article and so that the question of notability doesn't arise again. Uncle G 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd still like to see some more notable sources. Andre (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently sourced, encyclopaedic. WP:SOFTWARE is not a guideline or a policy, so it shouldn't be mentioned. I'm not sure if this article passes it, nor do I care in the least. WilyD 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no reason not to mention it. Being used in practice is one way that things get to be guidelines. Uncle G 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Booksworm Talk to me! 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, verifiable. Mukadderat 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Snurks, Nifboy. Thanks to Uncle G for the idea for future use. --Kizor 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete W.marsh 03:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apprentice (software)[edit]

No reliable source for notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and I've practically never even played it. I had been intending on going to bed and was hinting when I deprodded it that I would be willing to go back and add references later, but so it goes. Anyway, the program is somewhat handicapped by the fact that it has a very generic name and, for obvious reasons, Wizards of the Coast's official websites would not want to bring too much attention to it. Additionally, many commercial sites make money selling real cards, and so would downplay a free alternative. Even in spite of all that, it seems that it was fairly important "back in the day," and is even still used today to some extent. It easily satisfies being written about by other sources. To wit:
    • [43] Starcitygames.com, the major news/articles site for Magic. 4,930 internal Google hits; even if 3/4 of them are phantom hits (which I doubt), that's 1,250 articles, with all the handicaps mentioned above.
    • [44] New set releases are still being done today. This is an independent site that has maintained it.
    • [45] Another site found by Google that has in its news log that someone else is restarting their Apprentice league.
...I could post more Google hits, but I think the point is made. As a further argument, this article was spun off the main Magic: The Gathering article (where occasionally people would try and put in information hawking this, which at least says something about player base), and I for one would prefer to have a place to move it to rather than have it pile up in the already over-long main article. SnowFire 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP has articles on plenty of games that no one plays anymore and were utter commericial flops; their only reviews were perfunctory "this game exists and sucks," and even that may be hard to find if the game is old enough. I think that even such commercially published games are still worth an article, and I think that Apprentice is a step above that. SnowFire 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of those links appear to be from Star City Games. How about non-Magic related sources? Andre (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I offered some non-SCG links above in my original post; it's just that SCG happens to be easily searchable. As for non-Magic sources... er... how to say this. If you read the article, you'll note that Apprentice is simply an implementation of Magic: The Gathering's rules. Unlike, say, Magic: The Gathering - Battlegrounds, which was more a spinoff and may well have had people buy it without familiarity with the license, the set of people interested in Apprentice coincides pretty exactly with those interested in Magic.
As an additional comment, while I stand by my keep vote, if you really believe the topic is non-notable, I would suggest that Merge would be a more proper vote, as this is mentioned in the article Magic: The Gathering video games (which should perhaps be renamed to List of Magic: The Gathering video games?) SnowFire 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and failing to show evidence of being the principal subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've played it, and the list of articles above seems convincing enough to me. Mrjeff 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --InShaneee 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While AfD should not be cleanup, I have edited in various citations that should qualify as independent notice, and removed a section that was mostly not written by me which is probably difficult to verify. SnowFire 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The real problem with this software is the whole premise around the software -- its a card game now made into a computer software that emulates game activity. You can't have a review of this type of software. Its like asking someone to review Microsoft Word based on an essay they wrote using it. You can't 'grade' or judge a software like this -- its purely a utility for players of the card game to use. I myself has used this application before switching to Magic Workstation but nevertheless. MrMacMan 09:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that's strong keep on the grounds that it can't ever be sourced per policy? Er, right :-) Guy (Help!) 07:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I remember seeing a lengthy mention in local computer game mag, can't remember which issue. Would imagine it being covered elsewhere too. Anyway, Apprentice is sufficiently widely known program of its type; probably the most famous M:tG computer program ever devised. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Starcitygames is a reliable source. There are other sites that also mention it. For all I know, Scrye and Inquest had articles about it, but even if they didn't, I'd still say it meets Notability from association with M:TG. FrozenPurpleCube 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So all one has to do for inclusion is to demonstrate association with a notable concept? Sorry, no. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, yes, that is all you need. Take any number of articles on professional sports players, or politicians. Individually, I can't imagine how most of them are really notable, but they still have articles. Or take individual chess openings, or any of a dozen other things. FrozenPurpleCube 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This equates significance of a major league sort and MTG. They are not equivalent. Feel free to bring a better argument. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting his argument. He never claimed MTG and politics are equivalent; he merely used an example in which sometimes association is sufficient. Obviously, the degree of notability of the mother topic and the "distance" of the daughter topic from it are relevant, and I don't think MM was trying to say otherwise.
That said, even though MTG may only be "minor-league" notable, Apprentice is not a fork of unencyclopedic minutiae, and I think MTG is still notable enough to support it. Wikipedia is not paper; it can afford to go into some detail. SnowFire 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, as to whether Magic is the equivalent of any major league sports, I'd say yes, it is somewhat. 6 million players worldwide. Over a million a year in pro-tour prize money (plus who knows how many hundreds of thousands of prizes awarded in other tournaments), who knows how many millions in sales? It may not be a football or a baseball, but it's not something to be ignored. Same reason why people didn't go for deletion of pro-magic players earlier this year. However, as Snowfire said, the primary purpose of my argument was NOT equivalence, but illustration. FrozenPurpleCube 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More sources about Apprentice:
    • The Future of Free Online Magic Leagues Interviews published on November 3, 2002 about the future of free online magic leagues based on Apprentice play. It's of MTGnews.com, which was the one of the most read magic the gathering sites back then.
    • Dragonstar Studios Still Alive News item about the developer of Apprentice.
    • Help E-League to break the record News item, which displays the size of online tournaments.
    • Visitor Stats of Magic-League.com home page In a way this proves the popularity of Apprentice, because Magic-League play consists of 40% Apprentice play.
    • I just checked the website logs of Magic-League.com and found that in 1 week there were 2045 visitors clicking a link to the Apprentice download page, mostly from Google, but also from other sites that link to it. Note that this is a lot more when a new MTG set is released and people want a new patch.
Koen 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline (second nomination)

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of military commanders[edit]

Impossible to maintain. There are several thousand military commanders in world military history. A category would be sufficient and conflict infoboxes would be sufficient. --Ineffable3000

  • Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Best as a category. MER-C 07:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't provide any advantage over the categories for this. Kirill Lokshin 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant, categories are the best for such stuff. Terence Ong 12:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. TSO1D 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a single category that covers this topic. I find the list useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A list which is, of necessity, grossly incomplete is not valuable.--Anthony.bradbury 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful list, organized so as to help find one from a particluar era. The incompleteness complaint is answered by listing all those with Wikipedia articles. If one is redlinked and deserves an article, add it. This is an inportan aspect of world hisotyr, as opposed to cruft, dicdefs, and lists of or articles about randome collections of things. Edison 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful; poor reasoning behind article nomination. --Hemlock Martinis 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum. Allow me to expand my case. The crux of the argument for deletion is based on the theory that people would try to clog the list full of every military commander known to man. This argument, however, overlooks the notability requirements on Wikipedia. Instead, the argument assumes the worst without considering concurrent policies that would prevent such an overpopulation. --Hemlock Martinis 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The structure of this list and the annotations are very useful. I would suggest sorting within the locations chronologically, but otherwise it's fine as is. A category can't replace this, and can't be chronologically sorted, which is very useful for historical analysis. There's no reason it can't be maintained as needed, and I believe I am the first one to even suggest any maintenance it might need. I can do my suggestion quite easily if this article is going to be kept. Furthermore, as Richard Arthur Norton pointed out, there is presently no category for military commanders. Not being able to fill the list with every military commander ever is not a problem. It doesn't need to be complete, just as complete as wiki contributors can make it. I can see no reason to delete it, and it's a very useful article, so I must recommend strongly that we keep it. -NorsemanII 06:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found this page useful too. As a category, military commanders, would be huge with no indication of who is more important than who. It would be a pain to dig through. A category for famous military commanders couldn't tell you what they were famous for. The biggest benefit to keeping this page is that you can subdivide it into even smaller partitions like famous ancient roman generals for instance and have a short description by the names. I was looking for an ancient Greek general that did a particular deed without knowing his name or date and I was able to use the (rather short) description to find him. It would have been a lot harder trying him down through another method. If anything this article needs a little expansion and concatination with some other famous military commander articles. Sifaka talk 07:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Additional point to make, there is nothing suitable to replace it as of now. A category should be made before it goes in the rubbish bin rather than lose someone's hard work. Sifaka talk 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion rather than get rid of the whole thing, it could be changed to famous military commanders or you could could split it into separate small articles like famous ancient military commanders. Sifaka talk 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly category material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This page is an eternal POV. There were many generals who will never be included on it. Long lists are hard to maintain as well. --Ineffable3000 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-maintainable. almost every military person in wikipedia is/was a military commander. Mukadderat 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - easily maintainable. History, already having gone by, is relatively static, so once an entry has been made, what's to maintain? This is a very useful structured list. Like most other lists and articles on Wikipedia, it is a work in progress and will improve over time (it is already of high quality), as more history buffs add to it.  The Transhumanist   12:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — per The Transhumanist. Dionyseus 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily maintainable. --- RockMFR 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with previous lists, those who find them useful should have them. Anything actually used by this many interest WP people should be kept/ I do not set up to judge whether othe people "should" use articles, only that they do.DGG 07:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of invasions[edit]

The List of wars is sufficient. --Ineffable3000

  • Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an invasion is not a war. The lists serve different needs. --Karnesky 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; actually following the current (objective) criteria for inclusion will cause this to be bloated by hundreds (perhaps thousands) of trivial entries from the back-and-forth warfare over a border so common in Medieval and Early Modern warfare. Pretty much every serious war includes multiple "invasions" of enemy territory, making the list pretty useless. Kirill Lokshin 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the list gets too large, it can be split by date. I'm concerned by a possible suggestion that historical lists should be deleted because they may contain too much history, as that argument so heavily favours fictional universes over RL. What makes history useful or useless? --Zigger «º» 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my point was more that this will essentially become a copy of list of wars with all the links formatted as "Invasion of X by Y". (Indeed, I can only think of a handful of wars that didn't involve something that could be considered an "invasion".) Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: inflammatory and useless. We never stop arguing which military operation may be classed as invasion. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about the list has been relatively calm and quiet compared to most other articles dealing with international relations. The list introduction does not define the contents well enough yet, but that's a clean-up issue, not a criteria for deletion. Controversy is also not a criteria for deletion. --Zigger «º» 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If controversy qualifies an article for deletion, then we should get rid of all entries on anything political or religious, plus the theory of evolution and a round earth. Controversy and argument is not a reason to delete something, it's a reason to either come to a consensus, or to make a note that the section or item is disputed. -NorsemanII 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless, just dumb, and hard to compile. Terence Ong 12:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Past invasions have been a major factor in many countries shaping politics, culture and ancestry. --Zigger «º» 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List of invasions =/= list of wars. --- RockMFR 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral — I'm unclear as to why this information would be of interest to somebody using an encyclopedia. It doesn't really tell me anything except that there have been a lot of invasions. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Per Karnesky. Rex 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists complement categories. They are a great navigation aide. Categories have minimal context. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that, although necessarily incomplete, this list provides a useful signposting to the relevant articles.--Anthony.bradbury 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wars are not necessarily invasions, e.g. the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The invasions category sorts the information alphabetically, which, as I have said before regarding history, is about as useful as a dictionary sorted by the approximate order the words came into use. Furthermore, the invasions category has the exact same controversy issues, so unless we are going to delete all listings of invasions on that justification, we shouldn't delete this. The controversy over whether or not something is an invasion must necessarily be done on a case-by-case basis, not by deleting all listings of invasions in a hope that censorship will somehow alleviate any problems. You'd still need to address whether or not it was an invasion on the actual article, so deleting this fixes nothing. As for calling this useless, it may be to you. However, historians have a lot of use for chronologically listed information. It's like saying that the numerous entries on dinosaurs are useless. If you don't care to learn about or study that information, it will be useless to you. If you're trying to understand history, they have a lot of use. -NorsemanII 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict isn't generally considered to be war, nor is it considered to be an invasion. It is a temporary conflict. --Ineffable3000 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Where did you get that from? RTFA, "The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, known in Lebanon as the July War and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War..." -NorsemanII 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. The wording of that indicates that those are partisan names for it. The article title is a more NPOV method of naming.
  • Keep. Wars and invasions are two separate things. --Hemlock Martinis 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per hemlock Sifaka talk 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate and arbitrary list. WP:BAI. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, it will be very difficult to maintain and categorize all invasions into one page. --Ineffable3000 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete war/invasion: splitting hair here. An invasion is an act of war, unless you stick to various stupid medieval rules that a war is not a war if it is not declared. Mukadderat 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You're oversimplifying the matter at hand here. Wars can have multiple invasions within them, such at the D-Day landings at Normandy or the Invasion of France by Nazi Germany, both of which took place AFTER the countries were already at war. Also, those "stupid medieval rules" are why Wikipedia's article about the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict is titled "conflict" not "war". There is an important distinction. --Hemlock Martinis 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article has to be done properly, but if done properly can be a great resource outside of 'list of wars', etc. MrMacMan 08:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - valuable chronological list. Further structured for major wars. Provides a "topography" (or feel for the flow) of history through the topics presented much better than categories ever could.  The Transhumanist   12:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does provide some useful information on invasions as invasions are different from wars.--PrestonH 06:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Even more find this one useful. DGG 07:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An invasion is not always considered a war and this article serves a valuable purpose. - Am86 16:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of military operations[edit]

Too long and impossible to maintain. Can be simply replaced by a category. --Ineffable3000

  • Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very incomplete too. MER-C 07:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can never be a complete list. Categories are better for such stuff. Terence Ong 12:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless and redundant. TSO1D 14:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selected red links into list of requested articles. — RJH (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it useful to be sorted by country, if it gets too big break it into smaller pieces. Its been very helpful in following the war in Afghanistan. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list doing things categories can't. Subdivision probably called for, though. Rmhermen 00:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Read WP:SNOW. Articles (lists) that are impossible to finish should not be created. It is impossible to list all military operations on one page. The operations of the war in Iraq alone require their own list. --Ineffable3000 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • thats someone's essay, not a guideline. By that rationale there should be no lists of world leaders or popes. Every year or so there is another one. So logically, if time is infinite, no list will be complete.
    • Comment - The list is well within the realm of possibility for completion, and there are a great many lists on Wikipedia that are far more extensive than this. Check out the List of mathematical articles. That list is so gigantic that it has been split into dozens of sublists. Military operations is a tiny subject by comparison. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and therefore, article size is not a consideration here, since this valuable subject matter can be split into sublists when the time comes fairly easily.  The Transhumanist   09:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories don't provide the proper depth that a list does, especially in this case. Poor reasoning. --Hemlock Martinis 05:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep See WP:Deletion policy. Length is definitely not a reason to delete something, and maintenance would be easy. It's a list, maintenance is inherently very easy. Replacing it with a category would destroy the structure of the article which is presently very useful despite the length. Having all of this listed by region, and sorted by the date the operation was carried out, with indicators for the country of origin is extremely useful and something a category can't even attempt to replace. It reads well, and the content is very useful. I would suggest splitting it into sub-articles for length, and I can do this myself if we're going to keep it, but otherwise it's perfect. As there is no good reason to delete it, and the article is so well structured and useful, I must strongly recommend keeping it. -NorsemanII 07:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or limit the scope to "Major 20th-century military conflicts", which is what the article currently is, anyway. Maintenance of a list of every military operation in history would most certainly not be easy. Size is indeed a reason for deletion when the nature of the list would practically make it an almanac all by itself. For anyone with an appreciation of how many military conflicts there have been throughout history, deletion should be an easy call. Djcastel
  • Delete per nom, categorise. WP:BAI++. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an annotated and a structured list, and Wikipedia's category system doesn't support either of these features. The annotations on this list make it much more useful than a category that just has a bunch of unexplained links. This list provides a useful summary of each major war (WWII, etc.), as each war is in large part characterized by the operations which took place during it. A very encyclopedic, informative list.  The Transhumanist   09:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per Hemlock and The Transhumanist. Dionyseus 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A category could not possibly replace this article. --- RockMFR 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI am really puzzled why some editors wantto delete lists that others find useful and are willing to maintain.DGG 07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ] 04:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sieges[edit]

It is too difficult to draw a line between a siege and a battle. The Siege category already serves the purpose for organization of 'Sieges'. Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical) for expert opinion. --Ineffable3000 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep are you also deleting the siege category? Siege seems well defined in the list, and in the article on sieges, and in the articles on individual sieges. Are you going to delete all the article with siege in their titles too? I am perplexed by this nomination too. Your saying the category is ok, but the list isn't, but using your rationale to only delete the list. I think you don't like lists philosophically and like categories and are using convoluted logic to justify your choice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think that the list would be better for maintain such a great volume of information. Also, it is harder to confuse a siege and a battle when you add a category (because you usually read more of the article). --Ineffable3000 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry you lost me there ... wanna try again? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reasonably informative list and quite maintainable as well. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Siege =/= battle. --- RockMFR 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is certainly a difference (and a fairly clear-cut one, at that) between a siege and a battle, and the list is more informative than a category. SnurksTC 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to chronological information, &c. — RJH (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unremarkable materials are notoriously easy to maintain. Xiner 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful sorting of sieges. Some are very notable. If a siege deserves an article, it deserves a place here. Edison 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sieges are not battles. You need only read the definitions to understand the difference. The chronological listing of this history is much better suited to a list than to sort this alphabetically in a category. It's a very useful article, and there is no good reason to delete it, so I maintain strongly that it should be kept. -NorsemanII 06:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per issues raised above. I believe this chronological list of sieges is useful, informative and easy to maintain. --Grimhelm 13:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; categorising the material is much more sensible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - nominator seems to have a bias against lists, even well-crafted ones that are continuously improving. Categories and lists supplement each other. Getting rid of one in favor of the other is not a good idea. This list is structured in ways that a category cannot be, and it presents information about each entry, also something that categories cannot do. A great many seiges are officially referred to as "The Seige of ______". That right there differentiates them from events called "The Battle of ________". Differentiating titles is a useful navigation approach. I agree with Richard that the term "seige" is well defined.  The Transhumanist   12:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ] 04:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of military tactics[edit]

The Military doctrines category is sufficient for organization. --Ineffable3000 04:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists and Categories are 100% compatible not mutually exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list presents the information in a way that a category could not. --- RockMFR 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I have personally found this list tremendously useful. -Toptomcat 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. A category would not be sufficient. SnurksTC 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unremarkable materials are notoriously easy to maintain. Xiner 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is very useful as is, largely due to the structure which is incompatible with making it a category. It's good as is, I see no valid reason to delete it. -NorsemanII 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very important list, with much usfull information. YankeeDoodle14 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 06:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is an extremely useful list, and the structure makes it far more helpful than the military doctrines category. As to Xiner's point, I don't see how being easy to maintain means we should delete it. I would think that would support the opposite position. As there is no good reason to delete this, and because it is remarkably useful, I must concur with those above me in maintaining strongly that this article should be kept. -NorsemanII 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and categorise, WP:NOT a thesaurus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Could you please explain the relevance? --Hemlock Martinis 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The relevance of the list resembling an annotated version of something one might find in a thesaurus? That seems like a clear indication of something that can be categorised rather than listified. Lists can add structure, or information, or allow navigation. This one doesn't add structure, the non-links don't seem to be a way of noting missing article topics, and the need for such a list for navigation purposes isn't obvious. The fact that there's a military tactics article is a point in its favour, but I don't see that this list supplements the information in that article. Nor is this is a case where adding articles to Category:Military tactics will be controversial, which would be one very good reason to have a list. Perhaps I'm listophobic? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the list is very well structured with layers of depth - changing it to a category would lose too much in translation. Quack 688 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - a well structured overview of military tactics. Superior to the category in the presentation of this topic selection. In other words the category is not sufficient for presenting these topics as well as this list does (a category can't present structure like this on a single page).  The Transhumanist   12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of war crimes[edit]

This list is too subjective and is bound to violate WP:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineffable3000 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 5 December 2006

  • Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep parameters are vigorous. Is this a joke, or some political maneuver? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RAN. Will also note the list is quite NPOV in that it lists precisely accusations and any resulting outcomes. Also well sourced and verifiable. --Karnesky
  • Keep The list enumerates facts that are well documented and, in mzny cases, have ben recognized as such by international bodies. --Lebob-BE 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, let's quit political campaigning on this issue Alf photoman 14:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep POV will be a problem but isn't grounds for deletion. TSO1D 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --- RockMFR 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Seems fairly well defined; PoV specifics can be resolved through references. — RJH (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Pathlessdesert 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 05:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thats not fair to say. You owe him an apology. He is not trying to delete every military list, and I resent you implying that. He is trying to delete every list he didn't create. Its a big difference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:Deletion policy specifically mentions POV as not being a reason to delete an article, but as a reason to fix it. There is no subjectivity in what should and should not be in this article. As the only reasons provided have been false or invalid, and as this list is quite important to the study of war crimes, I strongly recommend keeping it. -NorsemanII 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Defined by international law, hence verifiable. Mukadderat 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. Khoikhoi 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - per all the arguments on all the military lists this nominator has targetted.  The Transhumanist   12:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Inportant subject, even with clarifications. Note that the nominator is a POV-pusher - Skysmith 18:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ] 04:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of war criminals[edit]

This page is extremely subjective and should be removed. Who is a war criminal? (A person that was tried for a war crime, a leader responsible for a war crime but not tried, etc..? )

  • Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make criteria something like "People judged by an international body to be guilty of one or more war crimes", to avoid POV. -Amarkov blahedits

> 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Never mind that, but still keep. The criteria listed for inclusion leave absolutely no room for subjectivity. -Amarkov blahedits 05:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A person can commit a war crime but never be charged with it. The official decision of whether the person violated the agreements is also subjective and may be wrongly decided due to political reasons. --Ineffable3000 05:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets rename it [[People or peoples charged by one or more transnational agencies with war crimes against civilian populations in violation of the Geneva Code and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in the Hague: People or peoples are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the ICC]]
      • But it is objective if a specific body charged them with it, which is the criterion for inclusion. -Amarkov blahedits 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then the list should be rennamed to "Formally convicted war criminals" or something like that. --Ineffable3000 05:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you think the guidelines need to be tightened, this is NOT the venue for that. Thats for the discussion page. The parameters for the article are very clear in the opening paragraph. I notice that you are nominating articles then also voting on them. I don't think you are supposed to nominate, then second your own nomination with a "strong delete" vote, your double dipping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the admin looking at the page would just count it as one vote. --Ineffable3000 21:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, as nom and only person to vote delete has suggested a page move instead of deletion. --Karnesky 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terence Ong 12:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Lebob-BE 13:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per Karnesky. --Buridan 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Encyclopedic topic. Contains more information than can be supplied by a category. — RJH (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 05:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per Karnesky. -NorsemanII 07:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename, to exclude possible misunderstanf]ding by contributorsd. Mukadderat 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see very few people listed here who were on the winning side. I guess that confirms that the good guys always win. How reassuring! How Wikipedic! Stammer 10:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - "War criminal" is pretty well defined. But Wikipedia:Notability has more relevance here. If someone is a notable war criminal, it's because they've acquired the reputation of such. Such notability is readily verifiable.  The Transhumanist   13:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information is unreliable and questionable. Why is criteria expressed as negative: "not acquited"? I ran into the article while looking for information on Vilis Hazners - he WAS acquited. After a cursory look the next name pops up - that of Kurt Waldheim, former Secretary general of UN and Austrian president. Just delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc15071969 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. As the original creator of the article, the list had originally been intended to list who who had been charged by an international organization for war crimes. In copiling this list, I used Sheldon Glueck's War Criminals: Their Prosecution and Punishment, Victors' Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial by Richard H. Minear and partial information from Nuremberg and Vietnam: an American Tragedy by Telford Taylor, the latter being U.S. Chief Council at the Nuremburg Trials. I believe these to be both reliable enough resources to support its encyclopedic value. Unfortunatly, while I've been busy with other projects, I've not had time to go through the list to investigate the inclusion of questionable entries (many of which are listed in Category:War criminals). This issue notwithstanding, the deletion of the list seems a bit extreme given the alternative of simply cleaning up the list. MadMax 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- this is useful tabulation of disparate data, and interesting to many. Lists in general are great article organizing assets, and linked to primary articles are great aids to having nice professional looking articles that pack maximal information while presenting minimal intrusion into the main topic. One of our main strength's over deadtree encyclopedia's is being able to present more in depth, more in detail and cross linked information in the spirit of WP:Btw. This sort of this is a no brainer -- keep. If maintenance is an motivating issue for you, take a wikibreak. You'll find the project does fine whilst you need not be vexed with your pet peeves. // FrankB 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected by Quarl, seems okay... the history is still there if anyone wants to transwiki. W.marsh 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine dining[edit]

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

What is fine dining? It is dining that is ... fine...? This is unencyclopedic, and has no verification from reliable sources - not that there's anything to verify. Delete. - crz crztalk 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or maybe transwiki to Wiktionary per nom. SnurksTC 05:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a magazine nor it is an advertisement. --Ineffable3000 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I agree, maybe a transwiki would be a good idea seeing as it reads like a dictionary excerpt. --Ali K 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or delete - either way, it doesn't belong here. MER-C 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - this is legitimate information, folks from poor countries might not know what "fine dining" means (non-native english speakers too). I guess Wikipedia is not going to be a go-to source of information, but this should be preserved somewhere. Valters 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, fine dining is a very commonly used word in the F&B world. Deletion from this wiki will do more harm than good. A transwiki to Wiktionary will be the best thing as some may not understand what fine dining is. Not on Wikipedia definitely, but to Wiktionary. Terence Ong 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but Transwiki if possible. TSO1D 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references provided The main problem with the article as it stands right now is that there are no references cited verifying that the definition of "fine dining" provided in the article is an industry standard. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but the only way to know is if someone provides a cited reference demonstrating the definition is accurate. Also, note that transwiki faces the same issue. Wiktionary entries are likewise supposed to provide external published references to verify the definition is accurate. So even if you transplant this information to Wikipedia, it would face the same issue and possible deletion there as well. Bottom line: the article needs references to validate its accuracy. Dugwiki 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Given the state of the current article, this is about the only choice. The term is well used, so it should be defined someplace. I can see this coming back at some point to cover the history of the topic because the definition has changed over time. So it really is an encylopedic topic, but the current article is not encylopedic. For the record, I did look at about 50 articles that showed up in various google searches hoping to find some good references, but there were none. All of the articles used the term but none defined it and only a handful hinted at the history. Vegaswikian 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one for the dictionary, not the encyclopedia. Tim! 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are about to embark on a very serious Delete experience. Danny Lilithborne 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Having the definition somewhere is useful for non-native English speakers, just not here. --Kizor 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just searched for this very term to learn more about it (I've heard the term in many places), so I was disappointed to see that it's up for AfD. Is there a better article we could redirect this to? - Lex 02:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've boldly merged this to Types of restaurants. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-11 22:17Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-02-17 22:03Z

Baraminology[edit]

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

Pretty much this ENTIRE ARTICLE is based on http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/ alone, indeed, there was copyvio from that site until earlier today. As I thought there was reasonable consensus (50% spontaniously suggested merging) in the last afd), and Talk:Created kind), what parts of this article are verifiable and not single-source have already been merged with Created kind, but the changing of this page to a redirect proved controversial, so I ask you for permission to delete a page (making it a redirect, of course) where all the verifiable, notable material is already merged. I'd also like to point out that neither article is well-maintained (check the logs - edited maybe once a month), so merging them will make them more maintainable by focusing what minor effort there is. Adam Cuerden talk 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

  • Redirect No reason not to. I don't know what unhealthy process obsessions are creating this problem but a) they aren't good and b) are an incorrect interpretation of policy anyways. JoshuaZ 19:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and source both or delete. Neither this article, nor Created kind is actually verified by the sources in the references section. While both terms are fairly notable in the area of pseudoscience, verification is really critical for even notable subjects. i kan reed 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just two months ago the AfD conclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baraminology/Archive was keep as this is a subset of creationist belief not shared by all creationists. And it is difficult to deal with the verification issue: the holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin distinction section is not a copyvio (I wrote it in 2004) but it says similar things to what Adam Cuerden regards as a copyvio. --Henrygb 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, the old one was near word-for-word similar, you pointed out that very old ones were slightly different. Those terms still only have one source, and less than a thousand ghits each. Adam Cuerden talk 20:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is a case for reverting back to the earlier and now current non-copyvio version. Which I did, before you put up this new AfD page. So it should not be an issue here. And I see 11,000 hits for baraminology--Henrygb 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "That Adam considers a Copyvio" is implying that others wwouldn't consider it as such. You brought it up, I just said there was one previously (not naming a section), as it does make me worry that the other sections might have hidden copyvio. Also, I was referring to Holobaramin (~649 ghits), monobaramin (649 ghits as well), apobaramin (348 ghits), and polybaramin (218) - that whole section is clearly non-notable, anyway, and other sections, if anything, are *EVEN WORSE*. This is why it should be merged: there's not enough to say about it that isn't single-source. Adam Cuerden talk 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, take this section, "Recent baraminology research": In 2003, the Baraminology Study Group applied "analysis of pattern" to multidimensional biological character space data on sunflowers and fossil equids. They found a strong linear relationship and continuity among the sunflowers, and termed this relationship "biological trajectory." In applying the method of fossil equids, they found a branching relationship in the data, which indicated a divergence in ancestry. The linear relationship corresponded to the known chronological order of the fossils.[46] - This is a summary of a SINGLE, NON-NOTABLE PAPER. And I don't think that anything but the sections I put into Created kind does any better. Adam Cuerden talk 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand This is useful information for several reasons. First, it is clearly a major component of creationist pseudoscience. Creationists, and those trying to decipher creationist nonsense and blather will want to have access to this to be able to understand what they are encountering. This is the principle function of an encyclopedia; to provide a ready source of information about some subject. Second, this term will not likely be covered in standard science texts, because it is pseudoscience, but still those trying to defend against this pseudoscience need to understand it to arm themselves. This makes a WP contribution even more relevant. Third, the only other source of this sort of material will be in the copious creationist websites and tracts. None of them of course will identify it as pseudoscience, which it is. They will only talk about how wonderful it is, misleading the naive. So, in the absence of any proper scientific reference, the only information the public will have is badly biased. This is why it is REALLY important for WP to discuss it from a neutral point of view. Is it plagiarism of a single source? Possibly. Is it still pretty scanty? Yes it sure is. So it should be expanded, and fleshed out, so it can form a resource that is balanced, describing what baraminology is, its relevance, history, providing links, etc. This would be a very useful contribution. --Filll 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are other articles that wikilink to Baraminology. rossnixon 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That isn't a reason to keep it by itself, it might just mean they will all redirect to created kind. As far as I can tell, the notion of baraminology hasn't been discussed in any independent reliable sources. Heck, the TOA which is one of the most prominent pro-evolution/anti-creationist/whatever-term-you-prefer groups has not a single mention of the term. [47]. Contrast that to something like Flood geology which has gotten mentioned in major newspapers and other independent sources. JoshuaZ 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is a concept used by a considerable number of people in a definable way, and the use of it is (unfortunately) widespread enough to be notable. I have added some additional distinction to make clear that it is not a science, and that the terminology it uses is not scientifically meaningful. There are different groups of creationists, and they use different terms and have organized their field in various ways. They shouldn't be considered as a homogeneous mass, as the disputes among them make evident. There is a single biological science, biology dealing with testable relationships. This is not true of creationism, as its concepts are derived on other bases. DGG 07:56, 13 February 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. Chick Bowen 03:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBN Tower[edit]

TBN Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Dakota Public Broadcasting Tower Pierpont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Allur/Kansas City Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Smith TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WTTO-TV Tower Birmingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tri State Christian TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bluewater Broadcasting Tower Grady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baptist Bible College Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LIN TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Opelika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers that are no more than that 325 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Stubs every one of them, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the articles look like they will ever be worth expanding. Looks like towercruft to me. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the articles for now, but leave the towers in lists. --Ineffable3000 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. MER-C 07:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, just a bunch of non-notable TV towers. Not that a major tower, with no sources cited. Terence Ong 12:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, many of those turn up at list of towers in red, and then immediately get these oneliner articles Arnoutf 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, what useful information there is can be in the lists. --Sable232 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, unless notable landmarks in their own right in their area - e.g referenced in local media etc, there seems no point in the data. List would be fine without the articles Dick G 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, I think all these towers are notable enough to have stub status in an encyclopedia.--Natl1 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above and past discussions. Vegaswikian 09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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.

KCHZ Tower[edit]

KCHZ Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KLBJ Radio Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KTVI Tower 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KOMU Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saga Communications Tower Des Moines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SpectraSite Tower Communications Tower Allgood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chalmette Emmis TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bott Comm. Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nebraska Broadcasting Tower Tamora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WLNE 6 TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gannett Georgia Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nebraska Educational Telecommunication Tower Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WBRC-TV Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Further cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers that are no more than that 320 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. These are all stubs, and have been for some time, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 02:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article but keep the towers in lists. --Ineffable3000 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. MER-C 07:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in a minor tower list. These towers doesn't need a separate article, but the information is still useful in wikipedia, also because the tower are notable for much miles. Cate | Talk 09:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There is already a list containing this information.
    • Comment: They could also be merged into the article for the station that uses them. --Sable232 15:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, many of those turn up as a red wikilink at list of towers, and then immediately get these oneliner articles Arnoutf 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Since there a fair number of 'keep' votes (though still a definite minority), I took arguments into consideration, and it seems to me that to use a source as verification for something that is barely brushed on in the source is stretching WP:V further than it is meant to be stretched. Wikipedia policies are always to be understood in spirit and not in letter. Chick Bowen 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous bearded people[edit]

List of famous bearded people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Whether or not someone has a beard is not a defining characteristic. There was an AfD for a related topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bearded people, but it's debated whether or not this is close enough to constitute a repost of deleted material. -Amarkov blahedits 05:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and previous AFD. A list of all of two people isn't too much of a loss, anyway. SnurksTC 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per reasonable argument made by User:Jreferee on my talkpage. SnurksTC 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After only eight hours in existence, the list included 40+ entries and each entry is identified as a famous bearded person by a reliable published source. The previous AFD is not relevant since the present article not a repost of deleted material. -- Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would possibly support a "List of famous beards," but this is slightly different. Perhaps a move? SnurksTC 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to be basing your understanding of membership entry in the list on the name of the article. I revised the lead paragraph. Membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items. I believe the article meets your famous beards list membership requirement.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles such as List of famous people wearing a moustache and List of bald people are kept unquestionably, and I don't see any reason to maintain a double standard. If you want to debate the notability of all of those articles, that's fine. But as long as the precedent is to keep lists of people with any defining physical characteristic, you can't just decide on a whim to delete a perfectly viable article. --DLandTALK 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When precedent goes in both ways, you can't really cite it well and expect much to happen. -Amarkov blahedits 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and strongly consider AfDing the other similar lists mentioned by DLand. Where will this end? Famous people with blond hair etc. Famous people with a limp? Famous short people? These categories are surely completely unencyclopedic... WJBscribe 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statement that the article is unencyclopedic is not explained sufficiently per Discussion to allow others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered.--Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. My comment is backed up by examples. But I will happily clarify. My problem with this list is that choosing the criteria beards to classify people is arbitrary and absurd. One could classify people by all sorts of physical characteristics but what would be the point? The fact that they had beards did not make them better or worse politicians, singers etc. It was just a choice of personal grooming. Having a beard is simply not a remarkable thing and as such there is no reason to list those who have had one. WJBscribe 12:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The criteria for inclusion, the entries, and the references cited make clear that merely having a beard and being famous are not sufficient by themselves to be included in the list.--Jreferee 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your point but I'm not sure the fact that a commentator has once remarked on someone's beard is significant. To take an example: you list Richard Branson. He is famous because he founded Virgin and is a multi-millionaire. he is not famous in any way because of his beard and would be no less famous were he to never have sported a beard. Someone who has a beard may be identified by it- as may someone with hair of a distinctive colour or style, but it is not an essential element of their fame. As such I do not see how it can be notable in this form. WJBscribe 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for your reply. However, it still is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy. In particular, Wikipedia Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions identifies "the article is unencyclopedic" as a non Wikipedia policy argument. Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed. In regards to your comments, the fact that a commentator has once particularly remarked on someone's beard being notable is Wikipedia significant per Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In particular, What Wikipedia is not item 1.1.7.1 expressly permits a list if the entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Further, Wikipedia list guideline reference for list items states that articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. I revised the lead paragraph and the article meets all Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Regarding Richard Branson, the reputable source, the Daily Mail, identified that Branson is one of England's most famous beard-wearers in the context of Branson firing employees for wearing beards. The widely known event characterized and published by a Wikipedia reputable source brought notoriety to famous person Branson's beard, which is why Branson is on the list. Regarding your concerns about "Where will this end? Famous people with blond hair etc. Famous people with a limp? Famous short people?," List of famous bearded people may serve as a precedent by which all other lists of a similar vain may be judge. If those hypothetical articles maintain the high bar membership entry of List of famous bearded people, then they should be allowed. If not, they may be deleted, citing List of famous bearded people as a standard to which they need to achieve. Deleting List of famous bearded people will not discourage creation of the articles you mention, it will only povide one less basis for you to delete non Wikipedia policy lists.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is stupid. --Ineffable3000 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your reasoning is not explained sufficiently per Discussion to allow others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered.--Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Further, Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion requires that you "Always explain your reasoning" and to "Make your case clearly." You have not done either.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what about folks who grew a beard and then shaved it? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead paragraph of the article coupled with the entries provided is clear on what is and is not included.--Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Further, I revised the lead paragraph. Membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items. Thus, the inclusion in the list is not dependant upon what the famous person does with the beard after it is remarked upon by the reliable published source.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable, arbitary, useless, indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is maintained and maintainable and non-arbitrary. None of the seven indiscriminate listcruft items are applicable nor have you identified any which are.-- Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's arbitary, useless and unmaintainable because a celebrity can have a beard one day and shave it off the next. As for WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, unlike this list. MER-C 13:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. What Wikipedia is not item 1.1.7.1 expressly permits a list if the entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. I revised the lead paragraph. Membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items. Thus, the inclusion in the list is not dependant upon what the famous person does with the beard after it is remarked upon by the reliable published source. -- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encylopaedic. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statement that the article is non-encyclopedic is not explained sufficiently per Discussion to allow others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered.--Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) It still is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy. In particular, Wikipedia Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions identifies "the article is non-encylopaedic" as a non Wikipedia policy argument. Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As revised 09:57, 5 December 2006, - only 8 hours after the article was first posted mind you - the article is maintained and maintainable and non-arbitrary as evidence by the criteria for inclusion, the entries, and the references cited. Over separate forty worldwide news agencies expressly treated a beard as a defining characteristic of over forty famous people. All decisions prior to this post were made before the new 40+ footnoted entries to the article. -- Jreferee 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Further, my revisions of the article have addressed all concerns through this post.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am confused. Why do references 1,2,18,21,27,36,41&44 all link to the same blog entry which reads: "Loosen the Chin Straps - New York Times: "Floyd's Barber Shop, a hipster outlet in Denver's edgy Capitol Hill neighborhood, Justine Gallagher, a stylist, said she would clean up Plummer's beard around the edges 'so he doesn't look like a recluse who just came down from the mountains."? Are the other references of a similar nature? WJBscribe 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comment belongs on the article talk page. I linked to the abstract of the article because a link to the full article requires a member ID and password.--Jreferee 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, horribly biased in favour of blitheringly unimportant people from American culture. Even if the baseball players, folk musicians and 'The men of Zilwaukee, Michigan' were removed and replaced by Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Darwin, Ghengis Khan etc, this list would still be an enormous, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic mess.--Nydas(Talk) 12:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each entry is identified as a famous bearded person by a reliable published source. The entries are not limited to American.--Jreferee 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sources don't automatically confer notability, particularly if they're a few lines in provincial newspapers. Are we to add every bearded sportsman, mayor or musician who has ever lived?--Nydas(Talk) 13:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since every bearded sportsman, musician or mayor of any significance is likely to have been given at least as much media attention as 'The men of Zilwaukee, Michigan', this list could easily run into the thousands. Easily. Probably the hundreds of thousands. Your pedantic method of replying to criticism does not help your case.--Nydas(Talk) 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - way too broad a topic. Requires POV judgement to determine who qualifies as "famous". 23skidoo 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, so what if one has a beard? It's a very POV thing and possible original research... Terence Ong 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think it's POV to say who qualifies as famous (not overly POV anyway, as we are kind of in the business of deciding that here at Wikipedia), but its absolutely POV to say that one's whether one's beard is "the dominant aesthetic trait in the bearer, where the beard further increases the celebrity of that famous person" or not. Also, this article is stupid. Recury 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is this article even really helpful? I mean, what's the point in having a page dedicated to famous bearded people, why not just have one dedicated to famous people altogether? =S 85.12.80.128 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Unregistered user[reply]
    • Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy. Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Also, the talk page of IP 85.12.80.128 notes that 85.12.80.128 been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges.-- Jreferee 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a repository for trivia. -- Whpq 17:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy. Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed. As stated at Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I don't like it, some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what's next, list of famous clean-shaven people? --Dweller 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy. Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed. As stated at Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Just a vote, is not an argument. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. If the article List of famous clean-shaven people both states that membership entry on list of famous clean-shaven people article requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with notable clean-shaveness by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items, and the entries in such a list comply with such a high bar requirement, then the list meets Wikipedia policy and guidelines.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - If nothing else, this list is useful as an addendum to the Beard article. --Jeff 20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has been greatly improved since original nom. If nothing else, it's useful navigationally, as a cross-reference between famous beards and famous beard-wearers, and a way to find "that guy with the beard" when you can't remember their name. BCoates 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, beardedness is utterly irrelevant to anything and is subject to change without notice in any case--do we edit the list every time someone shaves? There are some actors who alternate between beard and no-beard on a nearly-monthly basis. Do goatees or soul patches count? It's just silly! Anyway, any list with the word "famous" in the title needs to be deleted or renamed! Xtifr tälk 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. As cited in the article, numerous reliable published sources, including the United States Congressional Record, found famous bearded people relevant enough to include in their published document. Since membership entry on the list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source, the inclusion in the list is not dependant upon what the famous person does with the beard after it is remarked upon by the reliable published source. Whether a famous person's goatee or soul patches counts depends on how the reliable published source treats the topic. A potential need to change the title of the article is not a sufficient reason to delete the list under Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the beard article, perhaps as a similarly-titled subsection or to illustrate different beard styles. Otherwise, delete the article as it doesn't meet Wikipedia's list guidelines of being "a valuable information source", helping the development of WP, or aiding in navigation (I doubt anyone would use this as a starting point). Black Falcon 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. However, the article meets the Wikipedia List guidelines Information main purpose as a grouped by theme structured list. The article meets the Wikipedia List guidelines Navigation main purpose as a navigation. If you look at footnote one of the article, you will see that writer John Branch of the New York Times created a Famous bearded people list as a navigation aid in his January 18, 2006. A reliable published source creating a Famous bearded people list as a navigation aid supports that others will use this Wikipedia article as a navigation aid. The article meets the Wikipedia List guidelines Development main purpose. A review of the List of famous bearded people shows additional articles that have yet to be written, thereby providing a development purpose for the list. In addition, User:Serpent's Choice statement below that Abraham Lincoln does not have an article related to his beard is a specific example that supports the Wikipedia List guideline-development purpose of this list in that this list in fact has proven useful for Wikipedia development purpose to show articles that have yet to be written.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I would go with merge. It has no place on its own, though, and citing other ridiculous articles that haven't been deleted yet is not reason to keep this one.--Dmz5 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a visual index. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting article with dozens of references. In addition to a list there is an explanatory article. What other article could in principle feature Gabby Hayes and Karl Marx?Edison 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay then. Should we have a List of people with feet? Where else are we going to get Paul Dirac and Sacajawea in the same place? -Amarkov blahedits 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, having a beard is a marked characteristic, while having feet is unmarked, in a semantic sense. List of notable people with one eye might be a marked list. Edison 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • List of people without feet (or some more polite title) would be perfectly OK. Mukadderat 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amarkov, I do understand your concerns. However, deleting one list article that complies with Wikipedia policy and guidelines to stem the creation of other potentially non-Wikipedia policy complying lists of this type will have the opposite effect of your intention. List of famous bearded people creates a Wikipedia precedent against which all other like articles may be judge. If the article List of people with feet both states that membership entry on list of people with feet list requires that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with notable feet by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia Lists guidlines References for list Items, and the entries in such a list comply with such a high bar requirement, then the list meets Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you delete List of famous bearded people, then you will not have a solid, easy to use precedent against other similarly typed lists. Thus, deleting List of famous bearded people will work against your goal of stemming the creation of other potentially non-Wikipedia policy complying lists.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD G4, recreation of deleted material --RoninBKETC 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The revisions (might) immunize this from a CSD G4 death, but that notwithstanding, this does not meet the list criteria. The inclusion conditions are arbitrary despite the advocacy demonstrated above. Lists of people by physical characteristic are valuable iff the physical characteristic is fundamental to their notability; that is not the case here. Abraham Lincoln does not have an article because he has a particular style of beard. Serpent's Choice 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comment. However, the Wikipedia List criteria does not require that the physical characteristic be fundamental to their notability. If you believe that it does, please provide a link to the an item within the Wikipedia List guideline so that it may be commented upon. I revised the lead section of the article to meet your concerns. The inclusion conditions are not arbitrary. Membership entry on the list further that the entry be famous because the entry is associated with a notable beard by a reliable published source as defined by Wikipedia List guideline references for list Items and supported by What Wikipedia is not item 1.1.7.1. Regarding Abraham Lincoln's beard, his beard has been the topic of so many difference sources,[48] including at least one book[49], that the topic could be supported on its own as a Wikipedia article. Your statement that Abraham Lincoln does not have an article related to his beard supports the Wikipedia List guideline-development purpose of this list in that this list has proven useful for Wikipedia development purpose to show articles that have yet to be written. A review of the List of famous bearded people shows additional articles that have yet to be written, thereby providing a development purpose for the list.--Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/rename. verifiable, distinctive. Must be renamed, though: List of bearded people. Mukadderat 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per nomination. Dahn 12:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy. Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed.-- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your reply. However, it is not clear as to which Wikipedia policy you are referring. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion requires a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy. Without identifying an item within a particular Wikipedia policy, your reasoning is not explained and it is not possible to determine whether your concerns have been addressed. In addition, several people already have showed support for the nominator. As stated at Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Per nominator, per nom is an argument without an argument and will not contribute significantly to the conclusion that is made by the administrator closing the discussing. -- Jreferee 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll try again. 1) A beard is not necessarily a defining characteristic. 2) Any attempt to define "famous" is POV. 3) The list is necessarily incomplete. Most importantly (here's your policy violation): 4) Linking to an internal Wikipedia policy page is blatant disregard for Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. --Spangineerws (háblame) 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A beard is often a defining characteristic of a person's appearance; having a list of people known for their beards is interesting and useful. Antony-22 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, so long as a very close eye is kept on references for the notability of the beards as an important part of the identities of the persons. If the list begins to transform into an indiscriminate collection of every person on the planet who at some point had a beard, with nothing to back up why it was important, it should be reconsidered for deletion. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well researched and referenced. Notable enough. Useful article. This nom and the comments above seem a good example of the many bureaucrats on wikipedia who are more obsessed with guidelines than encouraging good research and writing on a reasonable encyclopaedic topic. Anlace 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete ridiculous... - crz crztalk 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the dislaimer and the references prove that this is viable. I also like geejo's suggestion for this listBakaman 01:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to withdrawn nomination. No arguments to delete. --Coredesat 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Danielle (2004)[edit]

Hurricane Danielle (2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable, not every single weather event needs to be cataloged. This one didn't effect a single person as far as I can tell. Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - We have infinite amount of space. Why not have an article on every single hurricane? Hurricanes don't occur every day. --Ineffable3000 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, hurricanes are notable. -Amarkov blahedits 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - All of the refs are from the NOAA, why not just let the NOAA handle hurricanes that effected basically no-one? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the refs from <insert specialist topic> are from <insert website>, why not let them handle it? Because we're an encyclopedia. -Amarkov blahedits 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above, hurricanes are notable. Gzkn 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. MER-C 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful and readable. All of Wikipedia can be found elsewhere. An encyclopedia provides context, and easy access. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this hurricane is notable and has reliable sources. Hurricanes are always notable whatever it is. Terence Ong 13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculous nomination. So we should delete FA Hurricane Irene (2005) because it affected no-one? Strong keep. – Chacor 13:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We shouldn't delete it, but it also shouldn't be an FA. As far as Danielle is concerned, keep. -- Kicking222 14:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: No, no one said it should be an FA. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I meant that Irene shouldn't be an FA. Also, your signature is incredibly long. -- Kicking222 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above; all other tropical cyclone articles which affected no one should also be nominated following the reasoning that it didn't "[affect] a single person". - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too notable to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TSO1D (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep. The WPTC decided a few months ago that there would be articles for every storm back to an undetermined date. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Hurricane Danielle is being up for AfD? What's next Hurricane Katrina? Bearly541 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comon don't get ridiculous. Seriously no one is going to read this article. It's been up for GA for almost a month and no one wants to review it... why? Because its boring and no one, excepting weather people, cares about a hurricane in the middle of nowhere. Lets make it an FA along with every other hurricane in the middle of the Atlantic. Just take each days storm report, make a sentence or three out of it and wallah! It's FA material! I can see that people want to keep it, which is fine, but don't act like its an important article or that I am going to nominate Katrina. Everyone should keep WP:AGF in mind. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as you should respect our work and not nominate articles for deletion frivolously because "it's been up for GA for almost a month and no one wants to review it... [b]ecause its boring". That is insulting, and I'd dare say that this should be speedily kept as soon as possible by an admin as a bad-faith nomination. I see from your talk page you've been offered a possible RFA nomination, but disruptive actions like nominating well-written ENCYCLOPEDIC articles on AFD will definitely not earn you support. – Chacor 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am sorry if I offended you, the article is boring to me, it may not be to others. AFD isn't about 'respecting work' as far as amount of work done, there are plenty of articles that are deleted that have had hundreds of people hours poured into them, GNAA is a perfect example. This is about whether the article is 'notable' which I honestly do not believe it is. 1 - effected no one, 2- Less than a 1000 google hits. Any band with that many hits would be gone in a second, no matter how well written the article is. I am fine with this being closed because obviously others believe all hurricanes are notable, but DON'T treat me like I wasn't acting in good faith, I truly believe this article is not notable in any way, and the fact that it is languishing in GA was my prompt to place it here. Is there a dialog anywhere on which weather events are notable? Has a weather article ever been deleted? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, which was caused by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Cindy (2005), and no, no individual well-written encyclopedic storm articles have been deleted to my knowledge. – Chacor 06:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd like to note here that GA status wouldn't mean much. I know of at least one GA that easily was deleted. It's really quite easy to get one person to think your article is good. -Amarkov blahedits 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect I am redirecting now, feel free to merge any content over. W.marsh 23:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRUB[edit]

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

Was a speedy candidate with a reason of notability. Obviously I cannot delete with that as my reasoning. So listing here. No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bald people[edit]

Non-encyclopediac material. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Also, there are numerous bald people that will never be listed here. --Ineffable3000 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Where will this end- famous fat people? Famous people who wore glasses? Famous people who prefered not to eat red meat on a Sunday? WJBscribe 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable, arbitary, useless, indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the article on baldness is to be believed, baldness affects about 60% of men at some point. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Nydas(Talk) 12:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - way too broad a topic. 23skidoo 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, there are so many bald people in this world, it is never ending. Terence Ong 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. TSO1D 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a repository for trivia -- Whpq 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too unreasonable and unuseful of a list scope.-- danntm T C 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detete Maybe not the best idea of an article. Probably better as a cat. Dark jedi requiem 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteA wholly non-encyclopedic article.--Anthony.bradbury 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencylopedic, indiscriminate, little informational value as a list. Black Falcon 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge into bald? I dunno. It has no value as a list, I agree.--Dmz5 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom - Baldness might I suppose list a few people especially notable for being bald, vs just recording the fact of their baldness but the list will be very short. This list of anyone who is bald in unencyclopaedic. David Ruben Talk 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper above. NeoJustin 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Dahn 05:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was shaved. DS 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people wearing a moustache[edit]

Non-encyclopediac material. Does not belong on Wikipedia. --Ineffable3000 05:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 05:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and my comments in the AfD for similar lists of bald people and bearded people... WJBscribe 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable, arbitary, useless, indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - way too broad a topic and requires POV judgement as to who qualifies as famous. 23skidoo 13:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, POV, redundant, lame. Terence Ong 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a repository for trivia -- Whpq 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unreasonable and trivial scope for the list that would likely become unmaintainable.-- danntm T C 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article on moustaches (it already has a section for famous or notable moustaches). Otherwise, strong delete for reasons already listed. Black Falcon 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, why not?--Dmz5 06:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, delete for all the same reasons cited above re: bald and bearded.--Dmz5 06:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. --Dweller 12:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 03:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Metal[edit]

Pirate Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Also nominating: List of pirate metal bands

Prod contested by author. This is a non-notable term used to describe one band's music. Unverifiable, original research and already deleted through Afd once. Prolog 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - [52] --Ineffable3000 05:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, of course that search gets zero hits. I doubt "pirate metals" would come up with a lot of results. -- Kicking222 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Skeletor2112 06:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, already tagged for speedy to determine repost status. MER-C 07:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Ah, it's the 'one band' appeal again. There are more Pirate Metal bands than those on the List of pirate metal bands page. I only, however, wished to include those bands that are undeniably Pirate Metal (i.e. not bands who are only lyrically of this genre). Pratt 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep That's ridiculous. All genres have to start somewhere. Buckle 10:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) — Buckle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
  • Delete A Google search shows it to be used to describe a few other bands, but it's still a non-notable term/genre. -- Kicking222 14:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brooza 15:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please note that this is not a vote, but a discussion. Prolog 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pirate Metal is a growing genre. I see no reason it should be deleted. Wartooth 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete Neologism. --InShaneee 17:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A google search for "pirate metal" -wikipedia -myspace [53] gets 850 hits, and many of them, even on the first page, are from e-bay. Note to the several people who have argued for keep, having made little other contribution to WP: notability is not the same thing as being worthwhile or interesting. It's a matter of having multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources from which we can construct an encyclopedia article, and they just don't seem to exist for this topic. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You can't use that fact that people haven't contributed against this article. You don't have to be an avid wikipedia member to know about a subject. Also, a subject does not have to be interesting to have a page on Wikipedia (for example, the colour blue). I understand about the search results, but as is said above, a genre must start somewhere. I personally have only stumbled across Pirate Metal bands this year, and already have found there to be at least half a dozen, many of which have only started to release media in 2006, showing a tremendous initial growth. Pratt 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not holding anything except the lack of notability against the article. Please, click on the link and read. Nobody has suggested that a subject has to be interesting to have a WP article: I've argued that being interesting is not a notability criterion (my research work is interesting, but certainly shouldn't have an article devoted to it). That a 'genre has to start somewhere' is not relevant: it doesn't start here, because this is an encyclopedia. And because it's an encyclopedia, we need multiple, non-trivial, independent sources reporting on a subject. Yours, Sam Clark 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arr, me mateys, seems to be a psuedo-genre in search of a way to establish itself. No reliable sources cited; borders on original research. Genres may "have to start somewhere", but Wikipedia does not exist to get them (or unsigned garage bands, struggling actor/waiters, or trivial and obscure pieces of shareware) started. Get some reliable sources to acknowledge the genre first, then create a Wikipedia article. Xtifr tälk 23:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill... Delete as it's NN --RaiderAspect 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "all bands/genres/authors/bloggers/made-up religions have to start somewhere" is but a hair's breadth away from simply saying "this subject is not notable, but might be some day - as long as it has a wikipedia article!"--Dmz5 06:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep Why delete this? There are pirate metal bands out there that just arent understood! This needs to stay for people to understand pirate metal. If this article was deleted then bands such as Verbal Deception or Running Wild wouldnt have the correct genre labels. I bet you're all thinking "Why do they need Pirate Metal when they have the other sub-genre's of metal?", well the truth is, they do, especially Verbal Deception, a band which actually consider themselves as Pirate Metal. THIS ARTICLE MUST STAY!!!!! — Marcello.ciciriello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep - It may be a small genre, but a genre nonetheless, and there is a high demand for this type of music amongst metal-listeners. Sakuyatech 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There is not a single reliable source that calls this a genre. Neither is there anything else about this term that could be verified. Prolog 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nonnotable. Mukadderat 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. IronChris | (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that it is a genre is not really the question of debate here, the question is whether what is being posted is verifiable and not from a self published source. the only things i have found that discuss it are blogs and podcasts, get it into something that can be cited, then post itEuripides13 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael M. Stoddard[edit]

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

Found while working on the backlog in CAT:CSD, speedy reason was Not NOtable, this is not a valid speedy reason, and I can't find any other to delete it under. No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's written books and been consulted by a government for his expertise. ... discospinster talk 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reasons for keeping the article given by the above Keep vote do not confer notability.
  • Delete I'm not convinced. (1) This page says he has "top secret clearance" - not something one generally announces in a public domain encyclopedia is it? (2) I have checked with SDSU. They have confirmed that they have a part-time faculty teacher there by that name but he is NOT a professor. (3) I checked on amazon.com - no sign of his books. (4) I have checked my University library - nothing on him. DrKiernan 09:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - take your choice: either linkspam or unnotable hoax. One definitely doesn't advertise his security clearance in the Internet (or anywhere else, for that matter). No evidence of the "existence" of the books. Not only does it fail the "smell test," there is no evidence of the subject existing to the point of passing WP:PROF even if he does. B.Wind 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Even the provided website is a very cheap hoax. Mukadderat 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper above. NeoJustin 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by ChrisGriswold. MER-C 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elderly revolution of 1996[edit]

Elderly revolution of 1996 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Some sort of joke/hoax/urban-legend thing...the citation that was added appears irrelevant to the article. DMacks 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metis (reggae artist)[edit]

Metis (reggae artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while working on the backlog in CAT:CSD, was nominated as a A7, one of the people on the talk page suggested an afd, and I thought it would be best to do so. I think it should be deleted in this case, but I would like other comments. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - not enough information to verify. --Ineffable3000 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 14:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't know good sources for checking on Japanese musicians, but three albums would be enough to meet WP:MUSIC if they're on a major label or "important indie". I'd like to help avoid systemic bias, so I did a quick (and very generic) gsearch and found this as a ref for her first album, but I don't read Japanese. For obscure indies, it's usually the first album that's hard to find, so I suspect there's sufficient notability here. Especially considering that was the top link in a very generic search with many unrelated responses. ("Metis" also appears to be the name of a native American tribe, and "answer" is an extremely common word.) Xtifr tälk 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For information There are two out-of-stock CDs on amazon.com - "You And Me A One" and "Opus-1". DrKiernan 09:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, rename might be in order though. W.marsh 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of famous short people[edit]

List of famous short men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of famous short women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-encyclopedic, subjective. --Ineffable3000 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft is not an actual reason. At best it's a buzzword. It be like me saying "Keep listalicious" instead of giving an explanation for my vote.--T. Anthony 10:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it should be renamed to be "list of people with dwarfism", but not all people classed as "little people" consider themselves to have dwarfism. For example I don't. (Although being called a dwarf is acceptable to me) Having just one list of people under 150 centimeters would be acceptable to me, but shortness is a real factor in peoples' lives and public image.--T. Anthony 10:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename List of famous men by height through 5 ft 5 in (165 cm). Its a valid topic address by others Amazon, FamousHeights.com. The list requires the men to be famous - a widely-recognized person who commands a high degree of public and media attention. Dispute over whether a person is famous may be resolved by existing Wikipedia policies and guidlines. The list is limited by gender, celebrity, and height. Thus, the list is encyclopedic and is not subjective. -- Jreferee 12:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Now I'm really confused. Your link to amazon is to a list of CDs and DVDs under the heading Famous Short Men with written beneath it Qualifications: Tall Man (fat, gay, black). How does this address the same topic? WJBscribe 12:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Unlike the bald, moustached and bearded lists, there is precedent for people like Billy Barty and even Mickey Rooney to be known in part because of their height. However both articles need to be renamed as it requires POV judgement -- what constitutes famous? Also, clearly criteria needs to be set out for inclusion. A 5'6 man isn't necessarily notably short. Someone who is a dwarf or 5'1 could be. 23skidoo 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, list is somehow encyclopedic, this list could be all those who are dwarfs. A criteria needs to be added as what 23skidoo said. T. Anthony made a point, it should be renamed "List of people with dwarfism". If you use the word short, anyone will just add any ordinary person who is just shorter than average. So dwarfism will be a better word to describe it. Terence Ong 13:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a personal level I'm not real comfortable with that for reasons explained above, but I'd accept it as "dwarfism" is the most accepted blanket term.--T. Anthony 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You are confusing short stature with dwarfism, Dwarfism is a genetic change that results in short bones, and the gene for it is dominant. Short stature is caused by not enough HGH. It is not arbitrary and has a distinct cutoff. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep informative, and as long as citations continue to be added, wholly encyclopeadic. DavyJonesLocker 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BrenDJ 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article subject not well defined as "short" can mean "anything more than three inches shorter than the reader." Thus any criterion used in this list is subjective at best, which means that it doesn't meet WP:LIST. In order to keep the list (in some form), it must use a well defined term for the title and an unambiguous rule for inclusion and exclusion. Neither appear here. B.Wind 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of what you are saying is just not so. There is a cut-off point and I made the introduction state that their shortness should be part of their fame or significance. If this has not yet been achieved that doesn't mean it won't ever be.--T. Anthony 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still POV - there are many people who do not consider 5' 5" as short. At the least, the title needs to be changed to a NPOV name. Note also that Wikipedia is supposed to be global in scope and viewpoint; the list has a strong American bias in its interpretations as to what constitutes as "tall". B.Wind 06:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it could be fixable. All you'd need is sourcing that their comparative shortness was significant to their notability. Although if you prefer the cut off could be 155 centimeters for males and 142 centimeters for females. This would be noticeably shorter than any average height in major nations. ("Pygmies" like Ota Benga could also be excluded if need be).--T. Anthony 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/RENAME: wikipedia does not use the word "famous" in titles. Mukadderat 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing at all wrong with list of famous people and physical attributes. Especially if it's such notable characteristic as height. -- Freemarket 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename - Drop "famous". Hmmm, short people. Napoleon instantly comes to mind. It may be useful to browse such a list. Can be used by teachers and parents to provide examples of individuals who overcame that particular limitation. Might also be particularly relevant for short people who want more information on other short people, to learn how they coped with their shortness. Having such a list would also provide a research tool for those studying related issues such as biases, discrimination against, and social attitudes toward short people.  The Transhumanist   13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep+Rename per people who have said that. --Wizardman 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per above. HamishMacBeth 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge but don't deletePaweł ze Szczecina 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verification is needed. I'm afraid, that Kaczyński is much taller than 1,5 m :)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by ChrisGriswold. (aeropagitica) 09:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domo Music Group[edit]

Domo Music Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article is for promotion. Written by someone with the company. Additionally, the article is mainly copyrighted material taken from a myspace page. I deleted this article as a copyvio, and the editor re-created it. I am tired now, and I would prefer to get more eyes on this. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as self-acknowledged copyvio. This would be the article equivalent to {{db-noncom}}. So tagged. MER-C 08:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete copyvio. Mindmatrix 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patent1[edit]

Patent1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Clearing the CAT:CSD backlog, ran across this. WP:OR is not a valid speedy deletion reason. No stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous tall people[edit]

List of famous tall women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of famous tall men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominating lists relating to famous tall people as unencyclopedic. Totally irrelevant personal characteristic. See also AfD for famous short people above. WJBscribe 06:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of famous tall men has been included in AfD twice before. The result of the first AfD in October 2005 which reached NO CONCENSUS. The second AfD in September 2006 also reached NO CONCENSUS. I felt it should be nominated again however, as other similar lists are being considered. WJBscribe 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. WJBscribe 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and verifiable. Tighten parameters so that not "famous" but list it under a new name. Its a just a list of people in Wikipedia sorted by height with a cutoff. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of famous short people and hope they cancel each other out somehow. Failing that, delete unless it can somehow be de-POVved and de-ORed to make it worthwhile. Famous is subjective, tall is subjective... as this list stands at the moment, it needs significan work to really be saveable. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change 'famous' to 'notable'. A useful list. Edit to emove all unverified names. Lists are now accepted in Wikipedia, so long as all items are verifiable. Curtains99 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I may be missing something but I have difficulty seeing how such lists are useful. If they were lists of people who became famous substantially because they were tall (or were the first tall person to achieve something etc) there might be a purpose to the list. But these lists have simply chosen a random physical characteristic and could as easily have been lists of famous (or notable) people with blue eyes or raid hair... WJBscribe 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their tallness really should be significant to their fame or notability. People like Lock Martin certainly fit a list like this, others maybe not so much. Still I think it can be fixed to limit to those who are largely known for being tall so keep.--T. Anthony 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, I question the notability of this list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information // Laughing Man 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Same reasons given for the short people article. And rename to remove POV judgement in the title. 23skidoo 13:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I may be missing something, but why in the world would we care about people's height? And how do you make the cutoff point not entirely arbitrary? -Amarkov blahedits 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to one list, list is encyclopedic and such lists interest people. If there are sources cited and they are notable then its fine. As long as they are maintained all the time. This is one of the lists that deserves to be kept on Wikipedia. Anyone recognised is considered notable, maybe a merge plus a rename to "List of notable tall people". Terence Ong 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ooo ooo I'm 6'9" can I be on the list? This list can never be completed. Whispering 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I voted keep last time as I thought it was an interesting pair of lists. I think I have changed my mind now though. The ugly feet-and-inches the article is built around seals it for me; it would still be faintly unencyclopedic in modern units, but at least it wouldn't look so bad. --Guinnog 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as kind of petty. Metric can be put as the main measurement, Imperial units are because some of these people lived in the US or nineteenth century Britain.--T. Anthony 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm sorry to seem petty. I want to make the point though that if these articles survive the AfD process, they must be put into modern units. --Guinnog 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wiki has too many pointless lists Soon we will have a list of middleish heigh people who have worn green jumpers on Wednesday (Gnevin 01:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Gnevin // Laughing Man 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - Interesting lists, entries on the men page are sourced to a point. If that was finished and if the same was applied to the women, you'd have two perfectly acceptable articles. I don't think the merge would work because then the list would be huge. SteveLamacq43 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - my only real quarrel is what counts as a tall man, or a tall woman?--Folksong 12:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject of study. Re-sort lists by centimeters, as per the international metric system, but put imperial measurements in parentheses. - Gilgamesh 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For all the reasons in the last AFD and as is clear from the history of the List of famous tall men, I've put a lot of work into finding sources for the heights after the last AFD. As I'm pretty much doing it on my own, and have other things in my life, it's taking a while. HamishMacBeth 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my above comment, I agree with the reasons given for Rename as well. HamishMacBeth 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or restrict to people about 7 ft and over. Anything more will be too big a list to maintain accurately. If people want to know the height of a specific celeb, they can go to that article. The only people who should be in an article like this are those who are notable at least in part because of their height. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Djcastel 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep informative, and as long as citations continue to be added, wholly encyclopeadic. DavyJonesLocker 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BrenDJ 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - title is not well defined as "tall" can mean "more than three inches taller than the reader"; by this definition, some Wikipedia readers would view Mickey Rooney as a "tall" man. WAIT!, there is already a List of notable giants in which the minimum height for inclusion is 7' 6". Therefore merge both to Gigantism#List of notable giants. B.Wind 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a category called "Notable tall people". Even though this is a good reference when wanting to find the tallest people of a certain background, other than that, it is of no use. For the actual articles themselves, I say Weak Keep. --Lakeyboy 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing at all wrong with list of famous people and physical attributes. Especially if it's such a notable characteristic as height. -- Freemarket 09:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List is encyclopedic. List fits in fine with extreme physical characteristics of human people. 6ft 4 is a fine starting point
  • Keep/Rename - drop "famous", since only notable people would be allowed on the list anyways. Keep for the same reasons presented in the discussion on the lists of short people.  The Transhumanist   13:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - restrict to women above 180cm (5ft 11in) -- Koblizek 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep+Rename, but I'd like the size limits to be a little stricter, such as 5'11 or 6'0 for women and 6'6 for men. --Wizardman 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very interesting --Ysangkok 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trivial but harmless, with info of potential use or interst to some people. Agree "famous" should be dropped from article title. -- Infrogmation 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - DXRAW 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for that? HamishMacBeth 13:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes there were a lot of probable meatpuppets but even established users wanted to keep this article. W.marsh 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiki Bar TV[edit]

Tiki Bar TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing CAT:CSD backlog, tagged as {{db-spam}}, this is not a clear cut spam article as far as I can see. Opinions?

No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Forbes article establishes notability. The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. --Karnesky 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep certainly, it's one of the best video podcasts on the net right now. Featured in iTunes music sotre and many others. --madmck 02:12 pm , 5december 2006 (GMT) — Madmck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP Tiki Bar TV is an Internet phenomenon that has been widely covered in the online and print media. By now, it has been well established that it is NOT a viral marketing campaign for alcohol makers. Quite frankly, I can't understand why anyone would nominate this article for deletion. Froese 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hear, hear Froese. The assertion that this is blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service is narrow-minded. TBTV is UNCONVENTIONAL and does not benefit from the brands that have been featured in earlier episodes of the podcast. Furthermore, it should be obvious to all that every effort has been made in later episodes to try and obscure branding. Is it possible to find out what entries in this talk are considered worthy of the spam tag? These items could then easily be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursebettyrawks (talk • contribs) — Nursebettyrawks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Obvious KEEP Article may need a bit of cleanup, but Tiki Bar TV is definately notable. --Oscar Arias 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiki Bar TV was used as an example of a the capabilities of the video iPod during its big release. Jeff Macpherson also worked an agreement with Apple to show TBTV in Apple stores worldwide as apart of a 6 month promotion of the video iPod. This show has received notable press in newspapers and the creators have been interviewed on ETalk and Attack of the Show. This seems to meet WP:WEB just nicely. -Dr Haggis - Talk 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For all of you claiming this podcast has been covered in reliable sources, do you mind linking to some of this coverage? Say it's been covered in outside sources without showing that this coverage actually exists doesn't mean much. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most known reliable sources are linked to on the article. Is there a particular claim that needs citation? -Dr Haggis - Talk 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to me to define TBTV as notable. It draws 300,000 viewers per segment. It has been written about in Forbes, BusinessWeek, and National Post. Successful television and movie actors have appeared on the show (see the article for a list). Also, Jeff Macpherson (the creator of TBTV) has been featured on the television show Attack of the Show!. Bpage 19:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep While the Forbes and Business Week sources are somewhat questionable in their trivality (the articles are mainly about podcasting, with Tiki Bar TV used as an example), the National Post article does focus about the show itself, thus counting as non-trivial coverage and passing WP:V. My keep would be stronger if there was at least one more example of non-trivial coverage. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm generally disinclined to support articles about podcasts, but this one has received some mainstream press coverage. However, the article is filled with trivialities such as a list of minor characters (some of whom appeared only once), cryptic plot descriptions for the episodes, and references to crossovers with other podcasts. The article could stand to be cut down significantly. --Metropolitan90 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This little show has become a subculture hit and was one of the first successful video podcast on iTunes. --Ddspell 05:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral / Comment While I have no opinion on this particular AfD, I would like to point out that the number of votes for or against any particular afd should be held in suspicion when a number of them follow the same non-standard formart: in this case, a number of people voting keep use all CAPS when writing keep and even more fail to place an asterik before writing keep. When something unusual like this occurs many times in one particular AfD and not in others, one must wonder who is doing the voting... --The Way 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the deletion nomination was mentioned on a forum. I expect many well-meaning, but misguided editors with single purpose accounts to comment on this. Presumably, the closing admin will account accordingly. ScottW 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than looking at the style they wrote their vote in, I think it is better to look at their contribution history. --Karnesky 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Nice to see that all of you think to keep based on notability, but please read the nomination. I am also concerned about {{db-spam}}. Please keep that in mind. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the article isn't blatant spam & doesn't qualify for db-spam. The article is on a notable/encyclopedic topic, so therefore should be cleaned up. --Karnesky 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Article was tagged "Spam" by drive-by tagger "82.153.197.120" without stating any examples on how it was Spam. Make a case for deletion and we can discuss the various merits and shortcommings of Article. Without a real case for deletion, we are just going to keep getting notability arguments.-Dr Haggis - Talk 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per being the rare video podcast receiving mainstream media coverage. To the question above about db-spam, I don't think this one fits into that category. Looking back at the original article, I don't believe that the author has an affiliation with the podcast. And while the tone of certain parts of the article isn't great (ex. "the show contains seemingly effortless humour", it's not really worded as an advertisement. Certainly nothing that requires a substantial rewrite. ScottW 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has had plenty of articles written about them. Notable podcast. --Oakshade 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is spam/pure advert. No deletion necessary. MrMacMan 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The angrez[edit]

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

Found while clearing the CAT:CSD backlog, reason for deletion was - This is a non-notable film. Opinions? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - nearly 13,000 Google hits: [54]. -WarthogDemon 08:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The movie was released in only one theater" says it all... yandman 08:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, first film in a real dialect is important in my book. Aaronbrick 10:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No citation for its only claim to fame. --InShaneee 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The article needs to be cleaned up, but the film has been the subject of multiple indepdent reviews. --Chondrite 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP need more to the article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che-Lives[edit]

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

This is a non-notable political forum. No assertion of notability is made, no reliable sources are included. It fails every criterion of WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation, and the content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. This should be deleted. RWR8189 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I requested sources for this over a month ago and no one's responded with any yet. Wickethewok 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I pointed out on the talk page that the source used to establish notability is useless. MartinDK 20:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you coward, you will only be deleting an article. :) Danny Lilithborne 23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable website. Watchsmart 06:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NeoJustin 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furonda Brasfield[edit]

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

I originally prodded this, but anon editor removed prod and added the following to the bottom of the article: "Appeared at Big In '06 Awards Does not take off tiara". I tend to believe she is just a struggling model, like the majority of the failed ANTM contestants, but has managed to score a fashion gig with a brand much more well known for their Vodka than their fashion. In addition, "Appeared at xxx awards" doesn't mean squat.Delete. Ohconfucius 07:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable failed reality TV contestant. MER-C 08:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. yandman 08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Terence Ong 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely no evidence of notability, just another game-show-loser. Seems to be working as a non-notable model now, which is nice for her, but hardly makes her notable. :) Xtifr tälk 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. Hasn't done anything else that passes WP:BIO. -- Mikeblas 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reality show losers aren't any more notable than game show losers. Kafziel Talk 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NeoJustin 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Elcda0 07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nnenna Agba[edit]

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

I originally prodded this, but anon editor removed prod without comment or improving article. I tend to believe she is just a struggling model, like the majority of the failed ANTM contestants, but has managed to score a fashion gig with a local (Houston) magazine. Delete. Ohconfucius 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. yandman 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another random loser on some game show, ample precedent for deletion. Xtifr tälk 21:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not-notable loosing contestant on a reality television show. Hasn't done anything that passes WP:BIO. -- Mikeblas 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reality show losers aren't any more notable than game show losers. Kafziel Talk 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable reality contestant loser. Sounds non notable to me. NeoJustin 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BRICET[edit]

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

This page is clearly an unsorced verison of the BRIC page. This also has no content other than explaining the acromyn. I don't think this page has any scope for expansion with infomation which isn't on other pages and as such I think this page should be Delete. --Aussie King Pin 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic[edit]

Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable sporting event. I think the first sentence of the article sums it up. According to the photo, there's about 20 people in this race. yandman 08:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the only race of its kind in the world. The picture you are referring to is only part of the group involved. Log out when you are finished — Southernflower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

They're all from the local newspaper: "Anchorage Daily News". yandman 13:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not, though. Some are from Fairbanks, Seattle, and other places. Besides, Anchorage, Alaska is no one-horse town, it's the biggest city in Alaska with almost 350,000 residents. If something is Alaska-based and makes the news in Anchorage and Fairbanks, that's pretty notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan -- Whpq 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a high-profile race with a 24-year history that is frequently cited in accounts of Adventure racing. -- Shunpiker 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, SportsAddicted | discuss 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a historically important race, and as noted above is significant in the history of adventure racing and related extreme endurance events. John Turner | discuss 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Size is not always proportional to importance or influence. Romandial 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per Andrew Dionyseus 01:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code Igniter[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Unreferenced, reads like a FAQ. Contested prod. MER-C 08:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. yandman 08:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't assert notability. Hello32020 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if someone can clean it up. I'm a professional web developer and I've heard of it, so I'd say it's notable enough if only we can get a decent write-up. Ubernostrum 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not assert notability. "I've heard of it" does not establish WP:Notability. -- Chondrite 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you'd like, I can dig up all the places I've seen it referenced. I was simply making the point that, as a professional working in the same domain, this is a piece of software I've seen references to in various places (mostly roundups/comparisons of application frameworks). This in itself does not necessarily establish notability, but it does begin to build an argument for notability, if others working in the same domain also note that they're familiar with this piece of software. Ubernostrum 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia unless it has, at a minimum, been the focus of multiple, independent published works. -- Chondrite 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Underground (board game)[edit]

On the Underground (board game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Note: The page has been moved to On the Underground; please delete the redirect if the main article is deleted. Percy Snoodle 10:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable board game. Little mention of it on google. This game seems to have only a niche following yandman 08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game has only just come out (at the Essen Games Convention 2006, I believe). I'm not sure quite why it's got a Wikipedia page already. I suspect it will fairly quickly become notable, based on my experience of a couple of hundred German board games, but I'd agree it's so new that it's not yet notable. --AlexChurchill 10:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The game itself has received substantial coverage within the designer board game community, mostly in the run-up to Spiel; The co-publishing arrangement is sufficently unusual to be worthy of note. Percy Snoodle 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am concerned that the article content seems to consist solely of the blurb which is on various websites describing the game. Percy Snoodle 11:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for now to creator's userpage or to a subpage of the Board and table games Wikiproject. Not yet notable. BGG page establishes existence but no awards, no media sources outside the niche, etc. WP:NOT a crystal ball. This game is likely to get enough coverage to become notable but hasn't yet. Barno 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until notability can be established. --InShaneee 17:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, AFAIK this is just released, not notability as of now. -- Steve Hart 06:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SALT per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatlabs[edit]

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

Non-notable music studio, no references affirming that it meets WP:CORP. It's been speedy-deleted 3 times, and keeps getting re-created, so I'm moving to an AfD for a formal determination on it. --Elonka 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete for the 4th time and protect Copysan 09:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom. MER-C 10:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and NaCl. yandman 10:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but please cite some references for this article. W.marsh 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis (Japanese magazine)[edit]

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

Patrolling CAT:CSD, this was nominated as a WP:CSD#G11. Based on the conversation on the talk page I thought it was best to bring up to AfD. No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. English-language magazine with the largest circulation in Japan; hardly non-notable. - Tangotango 12:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • English-language...largest circulation in Japan That's not saying a great deal, since it's 30,000 in a metropolitan area of 12 million. I suspect the Japanese Elvis Presley Fan Club newsletter gets higher numbers. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability does not come from the absolute number of copies, but from the magazine's position as the largest in its (albeit small) market. Your opinion about the Japanese Elvis Presley Fan Club is irrelevant without verification. Sparkzilla 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you draw the lines tightly enough, you can use any superlative you like, like "the best Jewish deli in Tokyo". Free clue: how crowded IS the giveaway-magazine market in Tokyo? There's the Weekender, and ... well, that's pretty much it. --Calton | Talk 08:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "best Jewish Deli" is opinion again. Please stick to facts. Sparkzilla 08:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try highlighting the actual point instead of irrelvancies: If you draw the lines tightly enough, you can use any superlative you like. I'm sorry, but am I going have to resort to crayons and butcher paper to make the point simple enough? --Calton | Talk 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You voted "weak keep" so why exactly are you disagreeing with anyone who says "keep"? If you don't think it should be included then at least be consistent, and stop arguing against your own position. Sparkzilla 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the primary author of the article. Metropolis, as the English magazine in Japan with the largest independently verified circulation, is clearly notable. If this is categorized as spam then Time Out, Village Voice and L.A. Weekly should also be deleted. Sparkzilla 14:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:INN before you say that. But, in any case, some numbers
  • Metropolis circulation: 30,000
  • Village Voice circulation: 260,000
  • LA Weekly circulation: 215,000
  • Time Out New York circulation: 128,000 (paid)
  • Time Out London circulation: 86,000 (paid)
  • (also, 48 travel guides with their names on it)
  • Metropolis is not in the same league. Hell, it's barely in the same business. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was not comparing circulations but pointing out that the Metropolis page follows a similar format to the other magazines, which are not classified as spam. Sparkzilla 03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean they also use sentences, with verbs, nouns, objects, and adjectives? Because that's about the only similarity I see. Once again, read WP:INN, as the phrase "apples and oranges" come immediately to mind. --Calton | Talk 08:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I actually said. To clarify again: Metropolis's Wikipedia page follows a similar format to the Wikipedia pages for the other magazines. If the complaint is that the Metropolis page is spam then the pages for other city magazines are also spam, as it could be said that they also include "promotional" content. In other words, should pages about products be deleted because describing a product (even with verifiable data) also promotes it? Sparkzilla 08:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read what you actually said, and it's still actually bogus. Hint: format is irrelevant, subject is. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Metropolis seems to be one of the most well-known English magazines around in Japan. Definitely notable and warrants a keep. It needs lots of cleanup, with a total rewrite in a more encyclopedic and professional tone. Terence Ong 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of the most well-known English magazines A medium-sized fish in a very small pond. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wow glad you guys are all looking at to why this is coming under AfD, not for it being non-notable but under WP:CSD#G11. See the article no inline citations, it just one big ad; I'd love to see it back on wikipedia but as an encyclopedic article not an advertisement. --Simonkoldyk 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I'm sure Eagle 101 is acting in good faith, but this should not be on AfD. This is not "blatant advertising" by any standards. It does lack third-party sources, but that is best handled by requesting them in the first instance; and the repeated removal of requests for sources is likewise best handled by using a third opinion, or some other legitimate dispute resolution process, not by edit-warring or by (I find this incredible) actually tagging a page for speedy deletion! — Haeleth Talk 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Make no mistake, it's a very crappy magazine kept afloat by gaijin bar ads and worth every penny you pay for it, namely nothing. But it (barely) clears the bar of notability, in that a fair number of expats here read the damned thing, only for the movie listings and the aforementioned bar ads. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above. Metropolis is a very notable magazine. However, the article does need to be fixed. MightyAtom 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some strange new meaning of "very notable" I was previously unaware of. From where does this notability spring? Not from leaving giveaway stacks of copies at their advertisers' locations, surely. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a well known magazine and should not be erased Yuckfoo 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitefield Blues Linfield Supporters Club[edit]

Whitefield Blues Linfield Supporters Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Speedy nomnation was declined before that. Non-notable supporters club. Virtually zero google hits for "Whitefield Blues Linfield Supporters Club". Not many more for "Whitefield Blues", and that includes results unrelated to this club. No assertation of notability made, and it was only founded in 2005. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Not sure why it wouldn't fall under db-group criteria. Gzkn 10:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every professional club has at least one supporters club but I don't think they are notable unless they have done something especially high-profile (some sort of campaign to save the club or something like that) and even that's questionable. Could be mentioned briefly in the main article on the club but as this appears to be a local club that would suggest there are other locally-based supporters clubs so in the interests of fairness they'd need to be mentioned too..... ChrisTheDude 13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete' Non-notable supporters group. I think the addition of {{db-group}} was a valid one and should not have been contested. Whether it should be included in the main Linfield F.C. page is an issue for Talk:Linfield F.C.. Qwghlm 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, only Google reference is the group's blog. Hut 8.5 15:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Should be included into Linfield FC page. Aussie King Pin 03:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no track of notability. --Angelo 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. NeoJustin 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted CSD A7. Martinp23 10:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram Shehzad Chughtai[edit]

Khurram Shehzad Chughtai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

appears to be vanity. all i found on him is the equally adulatory http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Chughtai_Khurram_684570706.aspx . Aaronbrick 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result wasdelete. DS 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie The Steam Train[edit]

Non-notable sketch character on Comedy Inc. Part of the "Ernest the Engine and Others" sketch that is already discussed on the Comedy Inc. page. No need for a separate article Gzkn 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very non-notable, article seems just an excuse to quote some of Stevie's more "amusing" lines. --Canley 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn character. Terence Ong 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable. Hello32020 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del Del Delete says the fat controller. There are no references cited to indicate that this character is a notable sketch character. Google News Archive [55] or Google News [56] do not come up with any. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - definitely not notable. JROBBO 09:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, the comedy inc article has sufficient details on the character. Gnangarra 10:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 04:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Orefice[edit]

Matt Orefice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Human heart explodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominating these two articles for deletion. Not well known in any context: 96 Ghits, his imdb entry includes credits mainly for Production assistant, and most recently assistant to executive producer on "That's Raven". Mainly the work of Blackwellotis. Ohconfucius 09:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - looking at the IMDB filmography he hasn't had a major role in a film. Non-notable. MER-C 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per IMDB entry. There's nothing spectacular in there, but it's enough for a small bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Recury 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he's a nobody --RaiderAspect 09:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. NeoJustin 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See WP:BIO. Not notable or he does not exist.--PrestonH 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by author request endorsed nem. con.. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drimnagh Castle Primary School[edit]

Drimnagh Castle Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Random school for small children. Not notable. Curtains99 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unverifiable with 14 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 11:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry guys, I created this article a while ago, when I wasn't aware of the Notability criteria. I did this to distinguish two schools mentioned under Drimnagh Castle, while working on expanding articles about Christian Brothers schools. Delete as per previous comments. Rob Lindsey 13:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No big deal, happens all the time. I'll quietly delete it as {{db-author}} and if you later feel it justifies an article by reference to notability criteria I guess any fair-minded admin will give you the ocntent back on request. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the actual text of the article has never changed, couldn't the above comments qualify the article to be speedied by {{db-author}}? If not, delete per above as a non-notable primary school. -- Kicking222 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 04:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douwe Osinga[edit]

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

A blogger. And Google employee. Although we have no sources for either statement, or indeed anything else. Sole claim to actual notability seems to be his Google Hacks website, which is the subject of a very short review in PC magazine http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1782095,00.asp - no biographical data in reliable sources that I have found thus far. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Snalwibma 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I think Douwe's most notable achievement is co-founding World66, an Open Content wiki travel guide. Before its acquisition in April 2006, the World66 web site had some biographical info on the founders, but this seems to be gone now. Founding a successful Web site has been grounds for notability before, but it's not definite whether World66 crosses the threshold. Disclaimer: I founded Wikitravel, once a rival and now a sister site for W66, and it wouldn't be proper for me to vote here. --ESP 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If anything, this article should be expanded. World 66 was and is pretty popular in the travel community. ESP: Yes it does cross the threshold! This guy also invented and implemented Google Trends, which is a significant contribution.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile-Planet[edit]

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

Weak assertions of notability, Fails WP:V, is about a future game (WP:NOT a crystal ball) and does not appear to have been subject to multiple independent non-trivial media mentions (WP:N). One of the two sources is a blog for crissakes. The Kinslayer 11:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 11:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the nomination says it all. Terence Ong 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. —Wrathchild (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The future game template exists for a reason, to cover articles like this one and others currently under AFD siege. That said, it could use a bit of a clean up. --MegaBurn 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Software that has not yet been released, but that is widely anticipated might meet WP:N but this article does not establish notability. --Chondrite 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn WP:CRYSTAL like above. Nashville Monkey 09:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep excellent half life 2 mod--Slogankid 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Ruthven[edit]

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

The article does not contain verifiable information. Rather, it is constituted of fictional (hoax) content, of note, the reference to a "Sweedish [sic] Viking" founder, the presumable intent of which is to further some interest or goal of its only editor who has added substantive content. Correspondingly, all other editors have only made minor edits to grammar, punctuation, etc. The link to source material is associated with the personal homepage of a Virginia, USA academic who states on that page that the family by the name Ruthven was not and is not a clan. There is a historic Ruthven family in Scotland, as there is in Cornwall, however, the origins and history attributed to them on this page are false. The authentic Scottish Ruthven family is described on the article for the Ruthven (family). Also, the articles referring to various titles and peerages in Scotland relate to this latter family. There are several other sites on the web that refer to the Clan Ruthven history invented in this article, however, they are also sites with registered member or user-editor created content (e.g., www.scotclans.com, which is mainly an online store for novelty heritage goods). No such clan exists in noteworthy literary sources nor websites of more scholarly content. DvonD 11:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verified. Just H 11:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless sources are cited, and must be independent ones. Terence Ong 16:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The history of the author, Mjgm84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't appear to be that of a vandal, although (s)he has been blocked for image copyright problems. Presumably this was created with good intent but from bad sources. Bear in mind I don't know diddley about Scottish clan history. Tubezone 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless good, independent and verifiable sources are forthcoming.--Anthony.bradbury 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Ruthven family who were Earls of Gowrie are named after Ruthven, near Perth, Scotland. This, like the other places of that name, is probably (says William J. Watson) named for a red stone/rock in the locality. No Swedish pirates here. The Earls of Gowrie are covered in Earl of Gowrie and Ruthven (family), the conspiracy in Raid of Ruthven. I don't think there's anything verifiable in this article which isn't covered somewhere else, and anything that isn't covered elsewhere is probably not verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clan Ruthven is a Scottish Clan with a chief (Alexander Patrick Greysteil Hore-Ruthven THE 2ND EARL OF GOWRIE, Viscount Ruthven of Canberra, of Dirleton, E Lothian, Baron Ruthven of Gowrie, Perth, Baron Gowrie of Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia and of Dirleton, E Lothian and Chief of the Name and Arms of Ruthven) who is a member of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. Official history is here ... www.myclan.com/clans/Ruthven_121/default.php
  • Delete per above. NeoJustin 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anything worthwhile is covered elsewhere.--Sandy Scott 12:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising literacy[edit]

Appears to violate WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:POV and WP:NEO, in addition to needing copyediting, WP:MOS problems, needs wikilinks, etc. What a mess! -- Bhuston 11:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Bhuston. Tulkolahten 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yup, original research and a neologism, I think that's correct. Might be salvageable if it weren't for the fact that the currency of the term is obviously very limited. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn neologism, 548 ghits. MER-C 11:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi MER-C... To add to your argument for deletion: I also looked at ghits, and I think 548 may be exaggerated, due to some of the ghits referintg to another concept, that is, how media consumers can become critical listeners and viewers of advertising. In the context of the article however, "advertising lit" seems to refer to how well advertising techniques work in manipulating the public mind. --Bhuston 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising is one of the drawbacks of literacy. This is a long, wordy article about somebody's marketing neologism. It is spam even if it is referenced, since its chief purpose is to promote someone's advertising or consulting business, and this sort of promotional activity gives rise to dubious research that can be claimed as "references". - Smerdis of Tlön 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR, WP:NEO, lots of problems here, cannot be salvaged from keeping. Terence Ong 16:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Premier[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE, this article has been created by single purpose account Nacholibre10. Tulkolahten 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Delete per above. Tulkolahten 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Just H 15:03, 4 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, Tulkolahten 11:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If Wikipedia devoted articles to event planners and club promoters, there could easily be millions of new articles about people who are not noteworthy. Whether or not this man's name appeared in one New York City periodical (which I am not verifying in stating this), there are, again, millions upon millions of other people who are not noteworthy whose names also appear. These might include anyone from witnesses to crimes interviewed by reporters to random poll-takers whose opinions have been chosen by the periodicals' editors. The reasons listed for its deletion are also pertinent. DvonD 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:BIO. WJBscribe 12:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Terence Ong 16:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADD Records[edit]

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

Does this record label have sufficient notability? I don't think as asserted, nor do I see any other evidence that it is sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. Four of the six bands listed in the article are redlinks (one of which, The Flatliners, was repeatedly recreated after deletion and therefore protected against recreation), while A Global Threat, according to the article on that band, is no longer with this label. I will file a separate AfD on Career Soldiers. --Nlu (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of those bands seem notable and the article makes no assertion of why this label is notable so, let it go, let it go, let it go. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per Chris Dionyseus 01:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I am very sorry to comment on here, but I am doing a history of (ironically) notable punk rock labels in the 90's/early 2000's for a magazine. And was wondering if there is any way that the page was archived? Just fyi also, this was a very notable punk rock label in the late 90's and early 00's. I can't imagine why anyone would think otherwise?

Thanks a lot, and again I am very sorry to add to such an old deletion log — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.156.71 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Career Soldiers[edit]

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

This band appears to be thoroughly unnotable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On second thought, delete then redirect to standing army. --Nlu (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What you do with the material or after the delete, I am indifferent. Def a NN band. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "definitely" or "define"? -- saberwyn 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Additional - I care not about the fate of this article, but if it is deleted for wahtever reason, I support the recreation as redirect to "standing army". -- saberwyn 11:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band is not notable. Hello32020 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hello32020. NeoJustin 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This band does not appear to have anything that makes them notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion, and do not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. --SunStar Nettalk 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miele[edit]

I put this article up for deletion because it is basically one big advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not the Yellow Pages Debaser23 13:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete At least no assertion as to why they are notable. Does read like an advert so I marked it for speedy (G11). Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, I pegged that one wrong, I change my vote to keep. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - though no prejudice to a decent article being written, I believe the brand to be reasonably well known and I would therefore guess will have reliable sources and meet WP:CORP without much difficulty. --pgk 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So why delete? I don't see inverse relation on Delete and your arguments. - Cate | Talk 13:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am agreeing with deleting the article as it currently stands. The article as it currently stands does not meet the required standard. The fact that the company itself may be notable etc. etc. isn't the question being addressed. We should be looking for quality not quantity, we have no need to keep rubbish waiting for someone to make it good. If someone addresses the issues whilst the AFD is running I will likely change my mind, but in it's current state no. I've seen too many AFDs where people jump up and down saying but this is a notable company (or whatever) and 6 months later we still have the same junk article as was put up for deletion. --pgk 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DP#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: Article needs improvement. Cate | Talk 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it's improved drop me a note and I'll reconsider. --pgk 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's nothing particularly terrible about this article anyway. A total rewrite isn't needed, just some very minor tweaking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, possibly not my second reading of it and it doesn't seem quite as bad as the first, but it lacks sourcing. --pgk 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing should be no problem. They get plenty of press, and seem to be fairly often cited as a case study in business and management books. For example, the book Driving Consumer Equity (ISBN 0684864665) gives a case study on them in terms of "value equity", in that consumers are willing to pay considerably more for a durable product built to a high standard of quality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I already agreed that the company probably meets WP:CORP and finding WP:RS shouldn't be a problem. I'm not advocating deleting the compancy or saying we should never have such an article. I'm looking at the article as currently written which doesn't meet our standards. When it does no problem, but as I say above, I've seen similar debates where months (or in some cases years) after an initial afd/vfd the article is still in the same poor state. --pgk 14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep' - Miele is well know trademark (in Europe). Anyway a clean-up is needed. - Cate | Talk 13:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also the "What links here" explains the relevance of the article, and the article is also available in other 5 wikipediae. I removed the speedy delection. Cate | Talk 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG SPEEDY KEEP Miele vacuums are extremely well-known in the high-end market. Definite keep. More facts: company more than 100 years old, branches in 25 countries, more than 15,000 employees, sales (as of 2002) $2.2 billion.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep a household name (pun only partly intended). Guy (Help!) 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Significant brand. Rich Farmbrough, 14:59 5 December 2006 (GMT).
  • Keep, Miele is a very well known brand in the world. It just needs lots of expansion and cleanup, then its fine. Miele has a wide presence in Europe, US and Asia, so notability is not a problem here. It's more on the article quality. Terence Ong 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well known manufacturer of appliances. WP:RS should easily be satisifed. -- Whpq 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is reasonable in its current state, and it's a well-known manufacturer of consumer goods, so passes WP:CORP by a country mile. Chris cheese whine 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This is a well-known European white goods manufacturer and does meet WP:CORP standards. The article does require a cleanup but deletion is too far. (aeropagitica) 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference I can see why someone could think this company is non-notable, but this is not a problem of the company - rather the article is lacking and needs to be brought up to spec. Agathoclea 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historic and famous company in Europe. --Oakshade 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Realy well-known company. Deleting this article won't make it better. --ManiacK 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staff and employees of the Free Software Foundation[edit]

Staff and employees of the Free Software Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Deprodded. I think the FSF's notability is enough for this to go through a full-fledged AFD. - Sikon 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All who express an opinion in this AfD are invited back on the fifth/last day, to see if any arguments presented have changed their mind, or raise new points for them to express. Lentower 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The FSF is certainly notable, but this makes more sense as a section in the Free Software Foundation article (the board members are there already). No need to keep their whole employee directory, complete with loads o' redlinks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article started as such a section in the FSF article, and was split off with no rationale, discussion, or consensus by User:Chealer (talk|contribs). Moving it back would be a one good resolution. If it stays, it needs a more editing: cats, an intro, an external link section to the FSF web site, etc. Lentower 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Red links are just an invitation from one editor to all editors to do the hard work of writing a quality article. This will be a bit harder for those who worked for the FSF in the '80s and early '90s, before the Web and Google happened. Doing work in a research library is more effort, then a quick Google. Lentower 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Red links assume that the subject is notable. How many of these are sufficiently notable to warrant an article, sufficiently obscure in today's world to be absent from Google, and currently have no articles? My guess is not many. All of which is irrelevant: Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, just working for the FSF isn't a claim to notability in its own right. The material needs to be of some encyclopedic quality. A section in the FSF article for those employees who warrant a mention should be more than adequate. --pgk 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being employed by a notable company does not confer notability by itself. WP:NOT a directory. WJBscribe 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FSF is not a company. A little research helps AfDs, before one expresses an opinion. At least, read a few of the related articles. Lentower 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahem! You're not on safe ground by telling other editors to read the related articles. Reading non-profit organization will tell you that non-profit organizations are companies in law; and reading Free Software Foundation will tell you that the FSF is such a company incorporated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Uncle G 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This lists that, by opening this door, would be allowed. Be gone I say! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a WP argument. Each AfD and each article stands on it's own merits. Lentower 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a directory. Notability of FSF is irrelevant, really, we can safely leave this job to their webmaster. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I PRODded this in the first place. WP:NOT a directory, basically agree with all comments above. FiggyBee 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a directory, this is none of our business. These should go to their own website, we are not an advertising host. Terence Ong 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not advertising. More like gratitude to those who stood by Richard Stallman (RMS) working very long hours for very little pay, when few thought that the free software movement would succeed. Without RMS and these people there would be no Wikipeida. No FOSS software to use at very low cost. No way the WP Foundation could afford to pay Oracle royalties. Lentower 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of staff of non-profits.-- danntm T C 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - I find interesting the list, for historic reasons, But Template:GNU seems to resume better the list. - Cate | Talk 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists of staff definitely don't fall into what I consider acceptable for lists. If the persons are notable, they get an article and an entry into our nice category system (if there's a category for people associated with the GNU project). --Gwern (contribs) 19:46 5 December 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic info -- AdrianTM 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although Wikipedia may owe some thanks to the FSF, this doesn't mean that we should consider them any differently than other companies - and we don't have a list of all staff of any other companies (at least, we shouldn't), so there's no reason this should be a special case. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FSF is not a company, it's a non-profit organization. People who work for it as as much volunteers as employees - low pay; long hours. Lentower 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not quite sure how this makes a difference. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Public service of this kind is notable. Lentower 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Commendable, perhaps, but not notable. Or would you also think, if it were possible, that we should have a list (with redlinks) of the 97 million people who work/volunteer for the Red Cross/Crescent? FiggyBee 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge back. These people are notable by virtue of the effort they expended, with Richard Stallman (RMS), in the founding of the free software movement, the GNU project, the GNU operating system, and the Free Software Foundation. Even RMS could not have done it all by himself, and many of his ideas, strategies, and tactics came from this team. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory 1.7.1 notes: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." - this is one of those cases. These FSF employees all worked at well below industry scale for their job descriptions, and worked well beyond 40 hours a week, to donate to the cause and as a public service. As noted in WikiPedia#History and GNUpedia, this team contributed to the idea that became Wikipedia. This team also created and proved that free software worked -- which caused the creation of the free software that Wikipedia uses. It's unlikely that Wikipedia would exist, if it had to pay companies like Oracle, royalties to use their software. Summary: This team and it's members are notable. Lentower 01:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to. Being associated with the list topic is not enough; the entries have to have achieved some kind of fame or notoriety as a result, and I don't think every single person who has worked for the FSF qualifies. Those that do, of course, are should be mentioned on the FSF page and have their own articles already. FiggyBee 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? There are currently NO employees on the FSF page. They were ALL moved to this article. I wish that people who discussed the content of other pages, had actually read the other pages. Lentower 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I was counting the Board as employees. I'll amend my comment above from "are" to "should be". FiggyBee 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • {Ahh, ignorance of a different kind. ;-} My apologies. None of the FSF Directors have been or are paid. This is true of most non-profits. And the FSF Directors are all active, giving much donated time (rarer among non-profits), and in some cases donated funds.
    • Editing the article to delete the less notable members of the FSF team would be OK. Lentower 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would leave it a very short list though. Better to mention those who actually are notable in the FSF article proper (yes, I am aware that the article currently proposed for deletion was split from the FSF in the first place). Preferably with some sort of context or assertion of notability rather than just a list, so it's clearer who to include and who not. FiggyBee 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all FSF employees are in this article. Some of the least notable were never added. Lentower 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most significant persons associated with the FSF should be mentioned in the article Free Software Foundation. However, per WP:NOT#IINFO, I can't see why Wikipedia would want to include a list of people just because they are staff/employees/volunteers there. --Metropolitan90 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and UNDO the edit to the FSF article that split the list out. There were minimal other changes in that edit which could be redone by hand. I see no reason to have this as a standalone article. Where are the independent sources on the topic of the FSF's staff? I'd be surprised if there are any. Putting the list back in the main article is appropriate; the editors there should evaluate whether they believe each red linked individual is sufficiently notable (per WP:BIO) that an encyclopedia article could be written someday - if they are not yet so notable, either unlink or remove completely. For the blue linked folks, the answer is presumably already obvious. GRBerry 09:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Tweaked bolding per suggestion on my talk. GRBerry 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the notable members back into the FSF article, as per GRBerry. On the one hand, we don't want the FSF article to get unmanageably long (if its maintainers decide there are many notable members); on the other, having a list full of redlinks is not very useful, or encyclopedic. I believe the best course of action is to merge for now, and if in the future there start to be too many members listed in the FSF article (who have their own articles, meaning there was enough material to write at least a stub about them), *then* split off to a list. "too many" in this case meaning "enough to start a list with, so that it contains a majority of blue links". Capi 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FSF is notable, a list of individual staff and employees is not and sets a very bad precedent Dragomiloff 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MiniEgo[edit]

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

Non-notable blog 'community'. Alexa in 1.6 million, which is extremely low for a 'blog community' which usually spams itself all over the internets. timecop 13:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MiniDelete no evidence of meting notability guidelines, no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, no sources at all (i.e. probably original research). Guy (Help!) 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. - Abscissa 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jeff 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable. Hello32020 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable The Fox Man of Fire 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Skrewler 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - page contains no useful information but advertising, some unrelated internal links and an external link. - Femmina 12:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trackback Submitter[edit]

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

Tagged as speed y G11 (spam) but the article is not obviously spam, it includes a link to a very critical article http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=3829 - on the other hand, that article shows why a Google test is not going to be valid for this product, and no other evidence of significance is included. Does this pass WP:SOFTWARE? It does nmot look like it to me. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only one mention (do we have an article on every computer that is reviewed in a PC mag?), and not even a very notable journal. Not a db-spam, but a deletion nonetheless. yandman 14:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wasn't very sure about the original speedy nomination either. By the way the 'critical article' you mentioned is already listed in spam blogs (or somewehre similar, I know I've seen it before). Anyway, this is non-notable piece of spam payware. --timecop 14:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedy, not notable, self promotion. Wikipedia is not an advertisement for useless products and services Adamn 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC) shoa[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I found the information interesting. It at least has some sources, I have seen many many worse articles out there. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this information can go into splogs or comment spam or trackback spam, where as in this article it's advertising a commercial spam product. --timecop 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added a section to the trackback spam about this software, citing the searchenginejournal link as a reference. Now this can be safely deleted :) --timecop 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that sounds about right. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the content was moved somehwere more approriate, I am all for deleting it now. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United North America[edit]

United North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article cites only the website of its subject. A Google search shows no reliable, non-trivial coverage. De-prodded by anon with comment "This organization's leader has had multiple interviews on Radio stations across north america. Give us more time to update the links as he is on vacation right now." Pan Dan 14:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I search CNN.com for coverage and then did a google search, looking for possible valid external sources to cite the article with. I could not find anything good so I gotta go with delete. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to fail notability, no original research, verifiability from reliable sources, neutral point of view. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, non-notable. Terence Ong 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above; also per WP:SOAPBOX. Agent 86 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for return from Vacation Let's give a REASONABLE (say December 20th as an example) time limit on waiting for this "leader" to return from vacation. If no changes have been made by the "leader" by a certain date, then the AfD could continue, or the article can be deleted, as agreed here.--Azathar 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Anything the "leader" said would still have to be verified by external reliable sources, which won't happen. -- Kicking222 23:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't see into the future, so I don't know if he can or can't provide external reliable sources, and honestly, neither can you. So, what does it hurt by having the vote, and holding off for a set amount of days to see if the "leader" can provide us with external reliable sources before we delete it? It doesn't hurt anything.--Azathar 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any notable organization should have a press office MNewnham 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess 5 million+ visitors doesn't qualify as notable in your rigid interpretation of meaningful. But hey, you guys have allready made up your minds, so Cheers. Americalex 6:42PM 05/12/2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.165.149 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-05 23:44:09
      • No, they haven't. This is a discussion, not a vote. Opinions are not set in stone. You could change their minds by citing sources to demonstrate that the web site satisfies at least one of the WP:WEB criteria. Uncle G 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done my own searches and come to the same conclusion. The only places where I can find this organization and its founder even mentioned are a handful (literally) of pseudonymous postings to discussion fora, web logs, and the like. The only citations present in the article are for the web site itself. The WP:WEB criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This organization does not meet the WP:ORG criteria nor does its web site meet the WP:WEB criteria. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Opabinia regalis 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kodai road[edit]

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

Non notable railway station. Most of this article describes local landmarks, which may well deserve their own articles, but I don't think this station is notable simply by being near them all Ladybirdintheuk 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, content to any relavant article. Terence Ong 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, railway stations are always kept per precedent, see WP:AFDP. This one should stay, just like Winchester railway station. Kodai Road station, like Winchester station, is a stop for a popular tourist destination, in this case Kodaikanal. Really should be renamed Kodaikanal Road station. Tubezone 19:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in the article asserts notability, and I don't believe that all railway stations are inherently notable. Almost nothing in the article is about the station anyway. - fchd 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep pre long standing precedent on railroad stations inclusion. This station is also important tourist hub station. --Oakshade 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as above, a number of station articles are being nominated on the basis of notability alone, which is not an absolute criterion for deletion. A present lack of exhaustive and extensive sources is not a reason to delete either. SM247My Talk 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as above. Neier 06:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted without even one assertion of notability. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghionis & McKee[edit]

Ghionis & McKee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy, contested prod. Se here we are. Sigh. This pair would appear to be absolutely non-notable. The article name gets precisely 0 Ghits, and the individual names are scarcely any better. Would appear to be vanity and the article does not assert notability. These 2 schoolboys may well become notable, but WP:NOT a crystal ball applies. Moreschi 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These two seem to fail WP:BIO and WP:V. There might be a potential WP:COI as well. --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Folantin 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this to be an ill-founded opinion and extremely short sighted. With the allowance of this page, clearly a development would be made in making the page more accesible, more biographical, and more notable. Indeed i notice your Canadian; i fail to see how you could understand the interest in Ghionis & McKee when you fall out of their current catchment area.

    With a solid base upon Wikipedia surely their interest will grow; and indeed this will create more knowledge of them further afield - perhaps even Canada.

    You are applying a usual "deletion" process which i believe does not speak for the general public. You may not be interested; you are after all a bachelor of mathematics; yet you do not speak for the public who will witness this page with cuiosity, interest and acknowledgement. It would be prudent for you to perhaps understand this before condemning such a page of biographical notation. The fact they are school boys; are you prejudist against the younger generation? Are they not allowed to appear upon Wikipedia? Rethink please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexantonios (talk • contribs) 2006-12-05 16:53:40

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Transylvania[edit]

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

Pure speculation. No source beyond IMDB (which is no more reliable for future work than your average rumour mill). As a result, serious WP:V issues. WP:NOT#CBALL Chris cheese whine 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Added reference (press release). Not so sure about notability. - Cate | Talk 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The press release appears to be on the website of the company involved, hence not a reliable source. Chris cheese whine 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
???. The press release is not from a unknow small company. So with a quick search online you can find reliable sources that cite that press release. I.e. movies2.nytimes.com . - Cate | Talk 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who it's come from. The only source we have is published by the company behind it, and reprinted elsewhere. That sources are independent of the subject is a key requirement for WP:V, which this article otherwise clearly fails. Delete without prejudice to a sourced article appearing within a year or two of final release (but not before). Chris cheese whine 18:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia unless it has, at a minimum, been the focus of multiple, independent published works. Chondrite 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, clearly not notable. Not even listed in the all access database at IMDB. Online presence mostly directory listings and affiliate spam. -- Steve Hart 06:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Strong Dark Ale[edit]

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

this is a category created for home-brewers, it has no basis in real life Mikebe 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. What are you trying to say? It isn't a category, and only being relevant in home brewing doesn't mean it has no basis in real life. -Amarkov blahedits 15:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Where can I buy a bottle? I'd like to try it. Mikebe 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It isn't only relevant for homebrewers. It has major acceptance as a beer category, if not a true "style", all across North America (see the BeerAdvocate link, for instance), and probably elsewhere where tastes are not so refined and the number of beers in the style that are available is not so great (i.e. the further away from Belgium you get) that the main style can be broken down into useful smaller styles (where if one were to break down the style, one couldn't ever compare beers, since they'd each be of a different style). And after all that, even if it was only relevant to homebrewing, that would be enough to warrant an article. It's verifiable, referenced, not POV (since it explains its possible non-acceptance in Europe), and plain old encyclopedic. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is a North American "category" why is it called Belgian Strong Dark Ale. Remove "Belgian" and I'll withdraw the nomination for deletion.Mikebe 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Belgian" clearly refers to "in the Belgian style". The first sentence of the article makes that abundantly clear. It could possibly be moved to "Belgian-style" (although "Belgian Strong Dark Ale" is by far the most common name), but it obviously cannot be moved to simply "Strong Dark Ale", since that term misses a major aspect and is not what it is called (we cannot invent terms here on Wikipedia). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are they called "french fries"? Why are they called "english muffins"? —Wrathchild (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references supplied substantiate that this label is in fact meaningful, even if its use is confined to brewing competitions in the USA. If this is in fact so, this information should be added to the article. Nothing here really makes a case for deleting it. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terence Ong 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Afd is yet another product of a user disruptively confusing "real life" with his opinion. — goethean ॐ 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Belgium exports several excellent beers to the U.S and some are dark. What is the issue here? That Americans should not/could not brew their own similar ones? Edison 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is sourced, and I simply see no valid reason being given for deletion.--Isotope23 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a useless topic. El_C 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani nationalism[edit]

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

Useless topic purely created for trolling/nation bashing see contributor, is none other then the infamous Indian nationalist Hkelkar who is a racist and has made ethnic slurs,[57] see the Raf pending against him here StreetScholar 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hkelkar (talk · contribs) is not the sole editor of the article, and the neutrality disputes are being worked out on the talk page. The article is poorly sourced, with many citations being unusable. However, a quick Google Scholar search turns up a whole boatload of usable sources for an article on the subject of Pakistani nationalism, some of which are:
    • Sanjay Chaturvedi (May 2002). "Process of Othering in the case of India and Pakistan". Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie. 93 (2): 149. doi:10.1111/1467-9663.00191.
    • Selig S. Harrison (December 1997). "The United States and South Asia:Trapped by the Past?". Current History. Current History, Inc.
    • Iftikhar H. Malik (July 1996). "The State and Civil Society in Pakistan: From Crisis to Crisis". Asian Survey. 36 (7): 673–690.
    • Moonis Ahmar (October 1996). "Ethnicity and State Power in Pakistan: The Karachi Crisis". Asian Survey. 36 (10): 1031–1048.
    • Malik, Hafeez (1961). "The Growth of Pakistani Nationalism, 800 AD – 1947 AD". Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    • MH Khatana. "Foundations of Pakistani Nationalism: The Life and Times of Allama Iqbal". Prof. Dr. S. Razi Wasti's Collection, GC University Libraries, Lahore.
    • Feroz Ahmed (December 1971). "Why Pakistan's Unity Was Jeopardized?". Pakistan Forum. 2 (3): 4–6. doi:10.2307/2569081.
    • Anwar H. Syed (Summer 1980). "The Idea of a Pakistani Nationhood". 12 (4): 575–597. doi:10.2307/3234301. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    • Saadia Toor (September 2005). "A national culture for Pakistan: the political economy of a debate". Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. 6 (3). Routledge: 318–340. doi:10.1080/14649370500169946.
  • Thus whatever problems that there are with the article can be solved by working from sources. The nomination appears to be an attempt to mis-use AFD for solving a neutrality and sourcing dispute. The proper venue for that is the article's talk page, where indeed such discussions have been ongoing for several months. Keep. Uncle G 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did not even create the article. It was created by another Pakistani User User:S Seagal.Hkelkar 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nom from a user who himself has made racist and sexist attacks. See Street Scholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), his block log, and extensive list of complaints against this disruptive user. Hkelkar 19:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this, concerning street scholar. User routinely makes sexist, racist and drogatory comments, is extremely disruptive, blanks sourced content across pages (vandalism) and is generally trollish in behavior. Perhaps admin should close this AfD early on account of the extreme bad faith behind the nom.Hkelkar 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- bad faith nomination based purely on a content dispute with the article. While I have no desire to get involved in the content dispute, proposing an article for deletion isn't the way to fix things. (I've learned this lesson the hard way.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- can't say as I'm a big fan of Hkelkar's style, but the article is a notable subject and fails no deletion criteria. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. In the battle of policy and logic versus accusations and blank retorts, policy always wins. Yanksox 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Radd[edit]

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

Comics assertion of notability is a nomination for a WCCA and two reviews by non-notable sites. As far as I'm aware, that's insufficient to meet WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Why not delete Penny Arcade, Megatokyo, and PvP for all it's worth? --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not give an actual reason? Instead of a meaningless blank comment. Because the best the article can come up with is a nomination for an arbitrarily trivial webcomic award. -hahnchen 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The reviews are not from reliable sources, and the nomination falls just shy of the WP:WEB criterion of winning an award. -- Kicking222 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Losing this article would only harm Wikipedia as a reference work. It had a substantial following and its design is - if such a strong word is merited - unique. To the best of my knowledge, Kid Radd is also the most sophisticated pixel art webcomic in existence, and it is the only one on Wikipedia that incorporates animation, so deletion would create a substantial gap in our coverage of the art form. --Kizor 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the difference between this and Penny Arcade (webcomic) would be that the Penny Arcade has sources like Entertainment Weekly and MTV. The Difference between this and Megatokyo would be that Megatokyo has been in The New York Times. For this article, we appear to have to resort to original research, wikipedia editors' points of view, and unreliable sources. That doesn't meet our content policies. -- Dragonfiend 06:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Dragonfiend. --MattShepherd 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kizor. Kid Radd is undoubtedly a revolutionary webcomic with unparalleled presentation. If nothing else, it deserves a Wikipedia article. >_> 72.231.145.5 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, I personally believe that this article was nominated simply out of bias against sprite based webcomics. The difference between this sprite based web comic and most others is that content is orignal, hand drawn by the author. Not only that, but the author also arranged a clever html setup designed to save bandwidth for slower users, which not only allowed for easy animation in certain strips, it even allowed for the use music and was responcible for the creation of original music made just for the Kid Radd comic inself. As well as those other points, Kid Radd also presented unique story that not only served for a comedy but for emotional drama as well. Ten Surp
    • Comment. Please assume good faith. I nominated this article based on the criteria in WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What he said. I know how tempers can flare up in a deletion debate, but BradBeattie has concerned himself with inclusion criteria and not showed any kind of sprite comic bias. --Kizor 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Should the criteria listed in WP:WEB alone be used to determind whether a web-based article should be deleted or not? If something is popular enough people are going to look for it's information on it and nine times out of ten they going to go to Wikipedia. If the article is deleted, sooner or later someone is going to recreate the article. I apologized if my first comment violated AGF. But a quick question, bias against sprite comics may be what I assumed, but who here thinks the article should be deleted simply because it falls short of a set of rules that prioritizes independent notiblity over popularity to may be attributed to a clut following? --Ten Surp
          • That's what we're here to find out. --Kizor 10:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Easyas12c 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as spam advertising. (aeropagitica) 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB)[edit]

Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

With four hits on Google and an Amazon.com sales rank of 449,033, I assert that this article is an advertisement for a non-notable product. Page creator removed prod with the edit summary "Removed deletion notice, this is news that the Bible is being done by new technology for the first time." FisherQueen 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as corporate new Bible version spam. Tagged as such. -Amarkov blahedits 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above. Goochelaar 19:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 03:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain McCluskey[edit]

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

Completely pointless article on an barely significant character in The Godfather. All of the information on the character is already featured in the film's article and this article cannot be expanded any further. The Filmaker 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then delete per nom (can't believe I'm saying that). Xiner 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He gets -- what? two scenes? --Calton | Talk 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, once all of the Hayden Mullins biographical information has been discounted - WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mullins[edit]

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

Inelegant and obvious hoax. Check out extensive history, during which biographical details change a lot :) - crz crztalk 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB... but please improve referencing in article. W.marsh 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Freedom International[edit]

{{afdanons}}

Faith Freedom International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

Despite a purpotedly high number of hits, this website does not meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB (all mentions of it elsewhere seem to fall under the "trivial coverage" clause of the notability guideline). A previous AfD discussion resulted in the deletion of this article, which seems to have been created again in response to the recent deletion of the Ali Sina article. BhaiSaab talk 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one non-trivial discussion over this website and that is by worldnetdaily, which is an American conservative news blog. We need multiple to prove its notability as per WP:WEB. Other links on the article are all trivial coverages. --TruthSpreaderTalk 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unless notability is established. --Striver 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, FFI has received enough media attention to make the organization notable. -- Karl Meier 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prev. AfD, does not meet WP:WEB per trivial coverage. ITAQALLAH 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH}} 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The problem is this: There are trillions of less notable pages here and they dont get deleted. Why? Because no one cares. But in this case, in case of stuff that is critical of Islam, there are lots of believers who will do anything to get any Islam-critical article deleted. They'll apply all the policies they can to get the stuff out. Thats whats going on. There's a huge opposition to criticism of Islam. Its unfair for material that is anti-Islamic. Obviously Ali Sina is vehemently opposed by Muslims. Maybe the present Islam-critique effort should be focused on Criticms of Islam sections. The big problem there is the Revert wars. Somehow that has to be resolved. --Matt57 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that you go and "care" about the neglected articles, instead of that we treat this article as a neglected article. The issue is not what views the web site has, the issue is if it is notable. Do we have third party sources covering this web page? Why is this web page notable? . --Striver 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I'm saying. Usually any other lesser-known XYZ person wouldnt have a problem staying in on Wikipedia, but Ali Sina has a problem because of the large group of people who detest him and his views. Right? The bigger problem though is not the existence of Ali Sina. That can be solved and reliable sources can be found. I have no doubt. The bigger problem is endless revert wars in any controversial article and Wikipedia's inefficiency to deal with this scenario. I'm thinking about what can be done. Even if we focused our efforts on Islam-critical articles, Muslims want to revert every word we add in. They will do it if they can. This is the bigger problem. Its not limited to articles about Islam. It applies to any controversial article. Most of the articles on Wikipedia are not controversial. No one cares about the article Spider. You wont see revert wars going on there. But on topics with strongly different opinions and where editors of different beliefs are editing, thats where the problem lies and currently, Wikipedia doesnt have any policies about how to deal with this effectively. New policies have to be made to deal with this. This is what has to be solved before Criticism of Islam can proceed successfully. I dont know whats a good solution for this. Again, obviously when trillions of other lesser known people exist on Wikipedia, its unfair that Ali Sina was singled out. The policies were applied on him strictly, only because all the Muslims on Wikipedia are opposed to his presense. This is a fact. --Matt57 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I lack a dog in this fight, but I disagree on some points you raise and wanted to comment. First, please don't take this the wrong way, but please know that there is no cabal against criticism of Islamic thought. Second, the people who comment on AfD typically have neutral points of view about the subjects being considered - no one is out to get a category of articles; we're only interested in notability and appropriateness for the encyclopedia. We're mostly editor geeks - not politicos. Third, I care about spider, apple, and all other articles about notable things (and you will, in fact, see some strange revert wars going on in articles like that sometimes. Like I said, editor geeks.) However, wikipedia does have good policies for dealing with editors with different points of view - I'd point you to WP:NPOV. When there's a question of which point of view to include, the answer is simple: neither. If there are disputes, there's a procedure for requesting comment. When there's a question of whether an article should be deleted, the article comes here for outside comment. To my mind, no new policies are needed to address that. And, finally, if there are non-notable articles on wikipedia, it's our goal here to smoke them out regardless of subject - you can help by finding articles about non-notable people and sending them to AfD. With that said, I have no idea whether this particular article is notable, so this is just a comment. --TheOtherBob 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, like I said: there are 100's of articles right now lacking RS. Why was Ali Sina singled out? Because all the Muslims in Wikipedia want him out. You say there's no cabal - do you know of the Muslim guild? It existed until recently. What do you think its purpose was? These people are here to kill Criticism of Islam. Sadly, they wont succeed. The only sad thing is like I said: Ali Sina was singled out for deletion when there are 100's of other articles lacking RS, only because Muslims dont want to see Islam being criticized. Thats common sense. As for RFC, here's the thing: there's a dispute on every edit of the Criticms of Islam section (and its related articles as well). Therefore, filing disputes like this is not efficient. What I'm thinking is, some sort of policing should be done to make sure stuff is not reverted without discussion on the Talk page and anyone who does revert like that, should be suspended for some time. This hsould apply for any highly controversial articles. Do you still think RFC can deal with the edit warring that goes on constantly on an hourly basis on Islam-critical sections? --Matt57 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone wiser than me once said that there is only ever a cabal if you want there to be one. But even if you want to think that some particular group of editors have "formed a cabal," the fact remains that Wikipedia contains checks against that type of POV-pushing - such as AfD.
In any event, I'd ask you to consider the possibility that this article was "singled out" only on the good-faith belief that its subject may be non-notable. In that regard, you may want to review the requirement that we assume good faith - I wouldn't assume that any marking of an article for deletion is based on bad-faith religious bias of some sort.
If you think there are 100's of other articles without reliable sources that should also be deleted - bring them here for deletion. It's good for the encyclopedia. That we haven't gotten around to discussing other articles yet doesn't mean that we are "targeting" the article we are discussing.
Do I think that RfC and our other processes can deal with edit-warring when dealing with difficult and controversial subjects? Yes - because I assume good faith. Will it always work? Nope. Will it be easy or efficient? Not a chance. But the alternative - assuming bad faith and cutting off editing of the encyclopedia - is far more damaging to the project than any amount of editing warring can ever be. --TheOtherBob 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, none of us infidels care about an XYZ obscure Islamic leader having his page. But these people do care about Ali Sina and they'll try all they can to get him out of here. Can I remind you that attempts were made to delete Category:Former Muslims and List of people who left Islam? See whats going on there? Thats what they do. Islam won over Wikipedia in this case because Zakir Naik was allowed to stay and Ali Sina was deleted. Ali Sina cant come out in public and debate, or else he'll be killed. I dont have the time or desire to go and battle pages of obscure Islamic figures into deletion, none of us cares about that. But for muslims Ali Sina is prominent and must go. With 80,000 hits on Google, a high ranking website and debates with famous Islamic figures he's much more notable than so many other folks on Wikipedia i.e. he obviously passes the professer test because he's well more well known than the average college professor. These guys have the guts to say he's non-notable, when infact each one of them knows of his name since a long time. The basic problem is the selective application of the policies. We're getting some good third party sources now. The admin was unfair and did not allow us time to put these sources in. After a good number of sources are in, I will attempt a request for undeletion of this page. --Matt57 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matt is right. There is definitely a cabal to uproot any criticism of Islam. It is no secret that Muslims do not like their faith critiqued and they have killed those who dare to. So it is shortsighted to believe these very Muslims suddenly become disimpassioned about their religion when they become editors of wikipedia. Show me one Islamic country where the critics of Islam are not in jail. I also agree with Matt, this matter requires some serious consideration; otherwise what suffers is fairness in wikipedia. Furthermore the Ali Sina article was deleted illegally. ‘’’The votes were 18 to 17 in favor of Keep.’’’ As the result that article should be reinstalled. If the result of voting is not going to be respected, why vote at all? Faithfreedom.org has received over four million unique visitors in the last 15 months and it received one million page views per month. This movement of the ex-Muslims is entirely Internet based. It can’t have any other way to operate or its members would become target of assassination. Its popularity should only be measured based on how many visits it receives. Faith freedom International has over half a million entries in Google. [[58]] How do you measure notability? OceanSplash 03:30 6 Dec. (UTC)
While I do disagree with your views on that, I know full well that I have zero chance of convincing you that Wikipedia isn't being overwhelmed by a Muslim cabal, so I'll just leave it at that. One note, though - AfD is not a "vote," it's a discussion. If, for example, two people made persuasive delete comments ("This article fails WP:Band"), and 50 people "voted" keep based only on something entirely non-persuasive (e.g. "but we really like our friends' band!") - an article would be properly deleted. It's a discussion, not a vote. --TheOtherBob 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And who makes the decision on the persuasiveness of a discussion? OceanSplash 19:35 6 Dec. (UTC)
  • Keep this site has clearly been the subject of multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources, several of which are already linked. This article will forever be fraught with problems and prone to original research, soapboxing and vandalism, but if we stick to the sources and leave the editorialising to them I think we should be on solid ground for an article. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any reliable secondary source regarding faith freedom. If this would be the case, we would be able to save "Ali Sina" article for sure, as he is the main author on this website. TruthSpreaderTalk 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems that lots of wikipedia editor are having some "personal agenda and bias" towards criticism in any manner which is against the freedom of speech. I think these editor are trying to kill the best knowledge source on internet (wikipedia) by this kind of attitude. So as a normal web surfers, now we have to look on other sources for right information if this attitude continues for longer period here. Pas1975 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking for those RS that give it N, but have failed to do so. Could you, for my convineance give me a link to those multiple RS that give non-trivial covereage of this website? Thanks. --Striver 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I could find nothing substantial (i.e., no primary or secondary material not generated by the organization itself) on a cursory Google search, but am open to other evidence of notability. BYT 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a horribly terrible article, but the controversies it has created in the media make it notable. Xiner 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What media? Could you please show me those RS media it has created controversies in? --Striver 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examining the sources present in the article, FrontPageMagazine has no non-trivial mention of FFI, Asia Times mentions it as a throw-away example, Hugh Fitzgerald has no non-trivial mention, and The Post Chronicle not only has no mention of FFI, but the [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/commentary/ commentary] section it's taken from has such beauties as "Most illegal immigrants have no interest in learning our language, paying taxes or doing anything at all that benefits the nation." Provide multiple non-trivial mentions in third party secondary sources and this passes our foundational policies, but right now it does not. - 152.91.9.144 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please see the following article from WorldNetDaily, the world's largest independent, professional online news source, proving the noteworthiness of FaithFreedom.org: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 72.136.43.94 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is good coverage from a third party. Do you have multiple such coverage? I do not know if the site is RS, so i will not comment on that. --Striver 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WorldNetDaily is a right wing propaganda organ, about as much of a WP:RS as Moveon.org.
Thank you, Striver. WorldNetDaily only did one story on Ali Sina and FaithFreedom.org (so far). I know other online journals have done stories as well, and some of them, like the WND article, are pointed to as external links at the bottom of the Wikipedia article about FaithFreedom (as discussed at the top of the talk page). I expect more articles will be appearing in secondary sources when Dr. Sina's first book is released publicly this coming year, at which time there will be an even greater need for an article on FaithFreedom.org and/or Dr. Sina here at Wikipedia.org than there has been here already. I'm sorry, Striver, but I do not know the meaning of the abbreviation RS. What is RS? 72.136.43.94 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"RS" measn Reliable Source, it is a term used to describe ... reliable sources. Im bot sure if WorldNetDaily is RS, on the other hand, im not sure if WP:WEB demands that. --Striver 10:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, again, Striver. I consider WorldNetDaily a reliable source. I know they have a point of view, but they are careful about making sure the facts back up their point of view. The editor in chief, Joseph Farah, has over 30 years experience in the mainstream newspaper business, including work as the top editor at a major newspaper. WND sends out independent investigative journalists to places in the world and writes their own copy rather than simply relying on Reuters, etc. As for the previous unsigned commentator in this thread who called it a "right wing propaganda organ" that is true in the objective sense but false in the perjorative sense of the meaning of the word "propaganda" (i.e. "to propagate ideas" vs. "to propagate ideas through lies", respectively). It is thanks to the propagation of certain ideas promoted by the editor in chief at WND that my thinking moved away from knee-jerk liberal responsiveness to thoughtful consideration of all points of view, left, right, center and others. In short, WND is well written independent journalism and no amount of slagging off against it will change that fact. I only wish they would give Ali Sina and FaithFreedom more space on their site. One exclusive article back in September, 2004 is not enough. I'm sure, however, that when Ali Sina's book is published, WND will give it some more coverage, though. Oh, and one more thing. Would people please refrain from referring to WorldNetDaily as a "blog". I know what a "blog" is, and WorldNetDaily is much more than a mere blog. Would you call Al Jazeera or MSNBC blogs? C'mon!74.102.57.243 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The web site is quite notable and states that Faith Freedom International is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. Its goals are to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their "us" vs. "them" ethos and embrace the human race in amity. We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of Islam, the most insidious doctrine of hate. [59] --CltFn 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Str1977 (smile back) 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per WP:WEB. We need to prove that this site has been subject of discussion in multiple non-trivial publications. It simply fails in this respect. I hate to say that, but there is no other legitimate option to me. TruthSpreaderTalk 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Matt57 and Karl Meier --Sefringle 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Its should be deleted as with Ali sina I dont see why so much anti muslim bias in this wikipedia. there are most western people in wikipedia and some of them are anti muslim and thats why non notable and non existing entities like ali sina gets too much attention. matt57 why dont u care about the people who are critical of all religion as u r only interested in Anti ISlam. why are u bias mate. I am a muslim but I never wrote anti christian or athiesm or any other material. why is this bias only with muslims. plz matt explain me. all the reference comes from either FFI site or sister site why not provide NPOV sites which claim FFI or Ali Sina is notable. Even Ali sina Existence is Disputed how can we have his page and his website page if his existence. I think this site is run by anti muslim bias group. matt57 people like FFI web admins and u are trying to increase the hatred towards islam and muslims fall in this hatred and hate the western world even though there are lot of westerners who are neutral and not bias. Mak82hyd 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight. You want this page deleted because you find him offensive? That is not against the wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion --Sefringle 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it definitely is against WP:WEB as there is only one non-trivial coverage and still from a conservative news paper. The article is simply driving traffic to the website and getting a higher search engine ranking. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. the site is definently notable.--Sefringle 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Guys i think this article should be deleted. it just shows a website and its motto. I think its not needed in wikipedia. if it is needed only because it was on alexa rankings in top 30000 website once in last yr. then please tell me, can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com(top 10000),islamicity.com(top 10000) and many more. I will start building articles on these websites, organisations soon. Mak82hyd 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my paragraph again, I have marked in BOLD letters NON NOTABLE and NON EXISTED and I could not find any reliable sources. Prove Notablility they call themselves international so can u tell me there head office address. please I will love to know it. They dont have any registered office. I searched a lot to find it. --Mak82hyd 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused about which notability guidelines we are using here. Under WP:ORG, an organization must be verified to have a certain scope (such as "international"). However, we are using WP:WEB here, and there is no such requirement. It doesn't matter if they claim to be international and they aren't really (although obviously any Internet site is "international"). It doesn't matter if they have an office or a snailmail address that you can mail them at. Read WP:WEB very carefully and you will see that geographic scope and mailing address are not mentioned there. This particular concern is irrelevent. — coelacan talk — 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - if there's a Zakir Naik page there should be this page. Newton's third law.Bakaman 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Change my opinion as now have some evidence. Little bit clearer how this site matches notability though still say it's a bit premature to add the Faith Freedom International as an article as the site is undergoing some re-org. New opinion filled Ttiotsw 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (old opinion) Ttiotsw 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many underground organizations in the history some of them with huge impact. FFI is very much known even though most of its contributors do not use their real name. Only because an anonymous group of people have managed to create so much fear in Muslims it is worth mentioning it. As for Ali Sina’s anonymity, it is only a speculation. He has been silent on that question and maybe because he prefers his enemies think he is not using his real name so they don’t go after him. A man whose existence is disputed and has managed to stir this much emotions makes him notable. We can’t blame him for using a pseudonym when he is constantly under the threat of assassination. Did you see this [[60]] today? OceanSplash 19:40 6 Dec. (UTC)
This definitely shows their ability to use FF website for wikipedia and vice versa. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, whats the point of bring that link here? After all its "non-notable" to you right? What are you trying to prove? Ofcourse they'll talk about it. Its Ali Sina's website and forum. Like any other forum, there are 100's of threads at that forum. Bob, can you see the "Cabal" here? Its obvious, isnt it? --Matt57 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't change the subject. This site is being used to manipulate wikipedia and then wikipedia is being used to drive traffic to it. It is as simple as this. And this website simply fails WP:WEB as well. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TruthSpreader, WHERE is your proof that Wikipedia produces most of FFI's traffic or any significant part of it? The site has always been popular - look at its Alexa logs. Thats WHY its entry was created in Wikipedia - correct? Also, where is your proof that the site is used to "manipulate" Wikipedia? You're assuming BAD FAITH here, right TruthSpreader? --Matt57 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read about google's pigeon ranking system, besides other things, one of the most important criteria is links which are directed to the website and from which websites. Wikipedia is a high ranked website and hence, any link from wikipedia counts a lot on Google's ranking system. And secondly, the link of the forum shows clearly and you know what! TruthSpreaderTalk 04:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean that if any site links to Wikipedia and Wikipedia links to it as well, then that "site is being used to manipulate wikipedia and then wikipedia is being used to drive traffic to it."? I dont get it. What are you tryring to say? You've failed to explain how the site is being used to "manipulate" Wikipedia. Nothing can manipulate Wikipedia. If that was the case, then everyone would be 'manipulating' Wikipedia. --Matt57 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Where is your proof that the site is used to 'manipulate' Wikipedia?" Let's see...
"And this guy doesn't listen to facts, so we need a whole lot of people complaining and correcting him to "persuade" him to leave this article alone with his deliberate misinformation." [61]
"Maybe someone from here could take a look at that Wiki-article and offer a third opinion on these issues?" , "the wikipedia article on the quarans miracles needs editing. It would be much better if a member of ffi did this instead of a confused muslim." [62]
Ok, BhaiSaab, that quote is from some guy literally named "qwertyasdfgh". Who knows, it could be a muslim giving a bad name to the forum, or someone working along with you, right? Dont trust these kinds of quotes and form opinions based on some anon user called "qwertyasdfgh" with 17 posts in the forum. --Matt57 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I planted several hundred users in the FFI forums during October for the sole purpose of making the forums look bad in this AfD, because I knew that two months later a user named Karl Meier would create an article for FFI in Wikipedia and it would be put up for deletion. Great conspiracy theory. Come on now, FFI users are quite capable of embarrassing themselves on their own without my intervention. BhaiSaab talk 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Voting hardly takes a minute. Please encourage as many people to vote as you can. You can cast your vote by clicking here..."[63] which caused a massive amount of anons/sockpuppets on this AfD.
Just a few of the many threads I found. BhaiSaab talk 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously they dont know that new user accounts are not paid much importance to. Anyone can do this kind of voting. Your original link doesnt show any "please vote!" stuff. --Matt57 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that some opinions are being solicited in a forum with at least a couple hundred members and anons might come here and try to influence the decision thinking that this is a vote. BhaiSaab talk 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are wise enough to disregard anon votes and new user accounts. Usually you guys are good in watching out for that. On the other hand, your brother Herald below is a new user and no one complained. --Matt57 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's because I don't go around checking accounts that are not "red links" or perhaps because he just posted a few minutes ago? BhaiSaab talk 04:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Truthspreader and Itaqallah. Heraldreply 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I suspect that Heraldd might be an abusive sock puppet. He has only made three edits to Wikipedia outside his userspace, and two out of three of these edits has been votes at the vote for deletion regarding Ali Sina and now Faith Freedom International. -- Karl Meier 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anti Islam or anti anything is not ground for deletion. Wikipedia is not created to be the mouthpiece for Muslims. It must be impartial and that means those who have views against Islam must also be mentioned. Ali Sina’s article must also be restored because it received more votes for keep. OceanSplash 04:00, 6 Dec. (UAC)
  • Strong Keep The links alone prove that he is notable. Great job Karl Meier. Arrow740 04:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are great. I hope more are found and that should eventually help to undelete Ali Sina.--Matt57 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--D-Boy 07:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:WEB because it meets Criterion 1, as shown by the evidence provided above. GizzaChat © 07:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Changed to Weak Delete unless article is rewritten. GizzaChat © 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which evidence? There is only one website notable and even that is right winged conservative website. Others are all trivial coverages. TruthSpreaderTalk 07:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first, second and fourth sites of the second part of the external links list all mention FFI. Not of them are affiliated with Anti-Islam at first glance. Correct me if I'm wrong. GizzaChat © 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worldnetnews is notable for being conservative online news blog. Frontpagemag and jihadwatch are owned by Robert Spencer, these all websites are closely interlocked and you can see links as well. And lastly, the coverage in Asia times is a trivial coverage. Hence, we are only left with worldnetnews blog. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, i agree. The worldnetnews blog is indeed non-trivial third party coverage, but that is all we have, more non-trivial third party coverage than one is required by WP:WEB#1.--Striver 10:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gizza, What do you want rewritten? What's the problem? — coelacan talk — 08:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well no reply even though I left the same question on your talk page and you made other contributions after that. Let me discuss "rewriting." I'm going to assume that your issue is that the article should be rewritten to be more NPOV since that's what so many other "delete" votes have been, although my argument applies equally to all requests for rewrite-or-delete. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed explains that in NPOV cases, deletion is not the answer, but tagging is. The point is that an NPOV problem, unlike a notability problem, can always be solved by better editing and so there's no need to delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette says "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." And at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion it says "For problems that do not require deletion, including ... POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Over and over again we see that if a problem can be fixed by rewriting then there is no argument for deletion. "Rewrite-or-delete" is simply not a valid argument, because it sets up a false dichotomy. The reality is don't-delete-because-rewrite-is-possible. You've said that you want a rewrite, so you feel that rewrite is possible, therefore you don't have any grounds to call for deletion. — coelacan talk — 11:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Same reason for deleting Ali Sina article. Faith freedom International is as anonymous as Ali sina. An organization with title International, with no known office world wide ? Now that Ali Sina is redirected to this article, all the advertisement going on in Ali sina will just be moved to this article. There is no much difference that an article is about a fictional person or about a fictional organization. --Soft coderTalk 08:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but the issue is not wether the founder is anonymous or not, he could very be anonymous and notable per WP:WEP. Unfourtunaly, i see no evidence of this, except for non-trivial coverage from a semi-far right blog.--Striver 10:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your contorted last sentence is a metaphor for your arguments. Arrow740 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep though it starts with a lie. It says on top of the main page that This site is blocked in Islamic countries. I just have one concern. The article if kept should not be filled with the website agenda in order to promote it here. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but would change to Keep if Article had enough of a re-write to prevent it looking like propaganda for this site; it has already improved somewhat since it went up (at which point I had tagged as speedy delete, but very quickly changed my mind and reverted as it had already been tagged as such twice before and I didn't want to get into a fight about it). Davidprior 12:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - non-notable organisation. This was obviously created in response to removal of Ali Sina, and thus the same rational that led to the deletion of that particular article applies here. Wikipidian 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep- Website is notable enough. It is indeed blocked in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia [64]. That, coupled with their high gpr, is something interesting... Hkelkar 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why FFI people couldn't be specific stating explicitly that it is being blocked in KSA instead of all Muslim countries? It not a positive thing for a site claiming to present the "truth". -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are pornography and gambling websites, what's your point? Wikipidian 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Camel toe has a completely different meaning in Saudi Arabia but I wouldn't bet on it ? (sorry couldn't resist that one) Ttiotsw 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The external links in the article are admittedly a small claim to notability, but the sites in the links in my experience often quote Faithfreedom. Concerning the organization specifically, assuming their edit counter isn't messed with, they've had more than four million hits in like a year, that's pretty notable to me. Homestarmy 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a marketing technique. Link to Wikipedia and increase Search engine,emarketing rankings and a Spam.MerryJ-Ho 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to. Their GPR is already pretty high, and relevant google searches point to their site first, or second, or third... Hkelkar 11:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The freaky blog site, managed by characters we do not know things Ali sina. Otherwise create all blog site articles. They are not notable. --- ALM 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Szvest and WP:WEB criteria, TewfikTalk 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come it comforms to WP:WEB, when there is only one non-trivial coverage? TruthSpreaderTalk 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ali Sina and his organization, while holding extreme views, are notable. - Merzbow 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did the Ali Sina article ended up deleted after an afd, since notability could not be established? --Striver 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No you are mistaken - there was a consensus and the result should have been keep BUT the admin felt the page had too few cites (which I agree with him as a result). This was a technical reason regarding the mechanics of the actual article not actual notability reason. Ali Sina is still notable enough person to be quoted as they have contributed to a book by a notable person in this field of Islamic apologetics though as yet no article would stick (which has different criteria for inclusion). Ttiotsw 09:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ttiotsw pointing out that organizations and individuals have different notability requirements. FFI meets notability while Sina might not. I would also add to the other links that have been compiled here: Humanists.net (who are a pretty big site) republish FFI's material, see [65] and [66], Internet Infidels finds them notable enough [67], as does Positive Atheism [68]. — coelacan talk — 14:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage by Internet Infidels is trivial as per WP:WEB. I would doubt that if other websites are very notable themselves. TruthSpreaderTalk 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think Internet Infidels is trivial. It's pretty widely discussed. But anyway, Humanists.net is run by the Institute for Humanist Studies, which is notable enough. And they are republishing FFI's material, so this satisfies criteria 3 of WP:WEB. — coelacan talk — 16:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:WEB, trivial coverage is: newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. And Internet Infidels coverage comes under publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories and also brief summary of the nature of the content. TruthSpreaderTalk 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, i really enjoy this: They have "rational thinking" as their headline, and then quote qur'an 4:78 together with a pic of 911. Wow, i wish i had that kind rational powers! Anyway all thre links provided above are presumably writen by the author of the site, considering that they all are under a special "alisina" sub-directory. I still see only one right blog giving this site notable coverage per WP:WEB, so i am not convinced that this articles fullfills any inclusion criteria. Its also nice that he reiterates the old "Palestinians celebrate" lie. Go Sinai! --Striver 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm pretty sure that the FFI stuff on Humanists.net is written by Ali Sina. However, that is immaterial to the notability. What matters is that the Institute for Humanist Studies are republishing his FFI work, and that fulfills criterion 3, which says "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". It doesn't ask for the content to be rewritten in someone else's words. I am also disappointed with the "Palestinians celebrate" stuff, and I think that Sina is unfortunately repeating some nasty far-right talking points there. But whether or not I respect him has nothing to do with the organization's notability, which is clearly established by IHS's republishing, even without regard to others' arguments for notability above. — coelacan talk — 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per Institute for Humanist Studies, IHS offers free Web hosting to Humanist and related websites through Humanists.net. It is a hosting service and doesn't fulfil the third clause in WP:WEB. TruthSpreaderTalk 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. But they say "At Humanists.net we provide free Web hosting and e-mail to organizations and individuals whose Web presence has the potential to contribute to the health of the global secular or humanist movements. We offer this service because we are committed to the cooperative use of innovation and technology in promoting the humanist perspective."[69] So they approve of the FFI's work. The line is pretty fuzzy here between what would constitute republishing ("We will reprint anything you hand to us") and hosting ("Here, go ahead and use our tools to reprint your work"). In principle the two are no different if the organization providing the tools is in explicit approval of the subsite's contents. And even if it didn't count for criterion 3, then the IHS's inclusion of FFI on their site would reduce to an instance of criterion 1, and would be another cite in addition to the WorldNetDaily cite. — coelacan talk — 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read their FAQ section:[70], you'll come to know that they will give space to anyone who will conform to their agenda. Hence, even I and you can get space there if we show that our website's agenda is similar to theirs. It definitely deosn't fulfill anyone of the criteria in WP:WEB. TruthSpreaderTalk 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They say on the FAQ that "Additionally, you will be asked to agree to a list of terms and conditions provided to you before your account is created." So they exercise discretion. And regardless of how inclusionist they may be, the statement I quoted above, "...whose Web presence has the potential to contribute to the health of the global secular or humanist movements..." shows that they aren't just hosting, but they are explicitly approving of what they host. That's in principle the same as republishing, so it satisfies criterion 3. And I maintain that if it did not, it's still approval and citation thus criterion 1. — coelacan talk — 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the criteria is lenient. When they say you'll have to agree with terms and conditions, that means agreeing with terms and conditions just like when you agree with terms and conditions while installing Microsoft office or making an account on Gmail. I am pretty sure that I and you can also host our content if helping humanity is part of our website's agenda and this will not make our site notable. TruthSpreaderTalk 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But will GMail say that you "contribute to the health of the global XYZ movement?" There is the issue of explicit, stated approval of FFI's work here, and that distinguishes it from mere hosting with TOS. In any case, the requirements are not that lenient. One's organization would have to work to support humanism, and that means that neither you nor I could get on board. — coelacan talk — 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gmail asks you not to abuse their service and not to use for illegal purposes. Similar conditions are those. There is nothing in the statement that would stop me or you from hosting data on thier server if we have a website with the aim of helping humanity. This is not criteria of notability. Institute for Humanist Studies is notable, not their free webhosting service. It would be very much different if they would host that data on their regular website with their content. TruthSpreaderTalk 18:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm afraid you have misunderstood what humanism is. It is not simply a dedication to "helping humanity." Nearly everyone on earth believes in "helping humanity." A rather smaller fraction of people are "humanists." And a review of the other hosted sites there and IHS's own definition of humanism[71] suggests that they are in fact limiting the scope of "humanism" to "secular humanism" only. You could not host your site there without being dishonest about your core beliefs, and neither could I. — coelacan talk — 18:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will have to leave this to the closing admin to conclude. :) TruthSpreaderTalk 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, your user page says that you are a Wikipedia Inclusionist. Why are you working against that philosophy in the case of this particular article? — coelacan talk — 16:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, yeah, i forgot about that. I wrote that half a year ago, before i realized that i was in among an enormous minority of people having that view. They deleted prison planet. They deleted Terrorstorm. Man, i they can delete terrorstorm, then f it...--Striver 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that. Please, don't lash out in revenge against this article. — coelacan talk — 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if a two sentence summary in the "Off Site" section of a semi-obscure internet site constitutes "coverage". Ill let the closing admin decide that. --Striver 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has been argued that WorldnetDaily, FrontpageMag, and JihadWatch are all the same group. I haven't seen evidence that WorldnetDaily and FrontpageMag are the same. Someone said they are "linked" which I presume was meant to say that they sometimes publish work by the other, but that is no argument against counting them separately. After all, the Associated Press is "linked" but different newspapers still count separately. And even if they were all under the same company, that would be nothing unusual in these days of media conglomeration. The Washington Post Company owns both The Washington Post and Newsweek but these are still separate sources. — coelacan talk — 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WorldnetDaily is notable and is the only notable site for the website under discussion although it still belongs to right wing conversatives. If you go to frontpagemag, you'll find Jihadwatch link at the top of every page. Both of these are sister websites in this regard and also in their agenda and content. How much Jihadwatch+frontpagemag are connected with worldnetdail, I am not sure! TruthSpreaderTalk 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FrontPageMag.com is published by David Horowitz, who is known by almost everyone on the left and right in America who lived through the sixties. It's hard to see how this group could be any more notable. He and his magazine are huge. — coelacan talk — 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is renowned, but the coverage is trivial. TruthSpreaderTalk 17:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like news coverage of a symposium and there's nothing trivial about that. I assume you mean that FFI's connection to the symposium is trivial? Well, it's a symposium with a Muslim activist who is a board member of a mosque, and Ali Sina who is introduced solely in the context of being "the founder of Faith Freedom International". So FFI is the reason he's there, and that's hardly trivial. If John Gilmore were introduced at a symposium as being a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this would not be a trivial link to the EFF, if the EFF was the reason why Gilmore was invited. — coelacan talk — 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This event adds notability to Ali Sina, not FF. As per WP:WEB it is still trivial, as there is no non-trivial documentation or coverage or republication of FF even after this syposium by frontpagemag. TruthSpreaderTalk 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're backpedaling on your own words now. You already admitted above that the WorldNetDaily coverage was notable. So there is "non-trivial documentation or coverage or republication of FF even after this syposium by frontpagemag." Anyway, if Ali Sina is introduced at the beginning of the symposium as being the founder of FFI (and thus worth inviting) then it obviously does add notability to FFI, the same as Gilmore's invitation on the merit of being an EFF founder would be notable for EFF. It's special pleading to say otherwise. — coelacan talk — 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that after this event, frontpagemag didn't publish any of the content from FF or gave a non-trivial treatment to FF exclusively on their website. I am not denying to worldnetdaily coverage at all. And I think, we'll have to leave it to closing admin to decide. :) TruthSpreaderTalk 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:WEB says criterion 1 is: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This would apply to apologetics sites faith-freedom.org and faithfreedom.com, would it not? The sources (such as the Qur'an) that they use to argue against FFI are independent of FFI itself, and the sites themselves are far too extensive to be called trivial. That would make two more instances of criterion 1. And there's also this coverage by the Independent Centre for Strategic Studies and Analysis (the site is down at the moment so I grabbed the Web Archive). ICSSA is independent and their coverage is also non-trivial, and their site wasn't set up just to counter FFI (although neither was faith-freedom.org which is a redirect to part of a larger site). So these citations, especially ICSSA, seem to be solidly in the camp of WP:WEB criterion 1, making at least five separate non-trivial instances by my count (WorldNetDaily, FrontPageMag, ICSSA, f-f.org, ff.com); did I miss any others? And I'm still convinced that the IHS's hosting with explicit endorsement of content is in principle no different from republishing. — coelacan talk — 22:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fuzzy Sapiens! (by that I mean that you've shown this site to be notable, just as the fictional Holloway proved his Fuzzies to be sapient.) — Rickyrab | Talk 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the refered sites which are criticizing FF are not notable. The second link you gave, is about Ali Sina, and not about FF, as I stated in a previous comment! TruthSpreaderTalk 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the third link I gave? Obviously the first and second reference FF since they named themselves after it. So I will assume you meant the ICSSA link. First of all, let me discuss the two FF-named sites, faith-freedom.org and faithfreedom.com, as I think you misunderstand the WP:WEB requirements. Read criterion 1 again: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Nowhere does it say that the third-party sources have to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. It just says they have to be non-trivial. This, itself, is a non-trivial distinction. For example, in an article on a scientific phenomenon, we might use the existence of articles in certain published peer-reviewed journals to establish notability. There are literally thousands of such journals that would be acceptable for this purpose, and they are not all notable enough to bother having Wikipedia articles made for them, but they would still be non-trivial and acceptable to use to justify notability for a scientific phenomenon. This is the difference between notability and non-triviality. They are not the same and one bar is lower. I submit that the FF-named sites are extensive and referenced enough to be considered non-trivial here. — coelacan talk — 02:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you rewrote the first clause, you forgot to mention that what does it includes. And if you look at the examples given at WP:WEB, all the referred websites and organizations are notable in that case, while faithfreedom.com et. al. are not notable at all. TruthSpreaderTalk 02:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"When you rewrote the first clause, you forgot to mention that what does it includes." I'm sorry, I cannot make sense of that sentence. Can you rephrase it? Anyway, the set of examples at WP:WEB is obviously for the kiddies. It's a very simple "how to" but not at all binding; in the real world we have fuzzy situations and we have to argue the distinctions on their merits. Saying that my links are not like the examples given is not, alone, an argument. My point regarding use of non-notable yet non-trivial citations for other articles, like scientific phenomena, still stands. We can use them in such instances so I see no reason not to here, espcially when the guideline specifically says non-trivial, not non-notable. Faithfreedom.com, for instance, might not be notable enough for its own article, I'll grant you that. But that doesn't automatically mean that it's not a valid citation for something that is more notable, like FFI. — coelacan talk — 04:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, regarding the ICSSA link, you say it's all about Ali Sina and not about FF. The link I gave is an article on the ICSSA site that references a debate between Ali Sina and Yamin Zakaria. Perhaps you have forgotten what the early Faith Freedom site was primarily about. It was anti-Islam with an gimmick offer to remove the site (later with $50,000 tacked on to the offer) for anyone who could defeat Sina in a debate about Islam. The first two lines of the front page were: "The movement of ex-Muslim secularists and humanists to lead Muslims out of faith of hate and into the fold of humanity WE WILL REMOVE THIS SITE IF PROVEN WRONG."[72] Faith Freedom hinged its very existence on the debate offer, became synonymous with the debate offer. Zakaria took up the debate, hoping to take the money and use it for some Muslim charity and to shut down Faith Freedom's website, and then the debate was catalogued on both sites, Faith Freedom[73] and ICSSA[74]. The ICSSA copy of the debate even discusses and links to Faith Freedom.[75] So if the ICSSA site is discussing and linking to Faith Freedom in the context of the debate, and the debate took place with Zakaria's intent of shutting down Faith Freedom, then it's pretty hard to say that the ICSSA site is all about Sina but not about Faith Freedom. — coelacan talk — 02:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny that Ali Sina’s article was deleted under the pretext that he was not notable. Now we are told that he is notable, it is FFI that is not notable. :) OceanSplash 08:00 9 Dec. 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable site with active discussion group on religion in general, along with Islam in particular, although it was set up with the intent of an anti-Islamic bias. It is notable in the same way that Stormfront.org is notable, as a large Internet society of people focused on a general topic. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mate! Stormfront.org has many non-trivial coverages and hence is different from the site under discussion. TruthSpreaderTalk 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? Even plenty of trivial sources that add up to a nontrivial set of information can be useful. Moreover, the site itself is arguably a good provider of information about itself. Nonetheless, the motives of the person behind it are poorly understood - I take it for granted that he thinks Islam sucks, but don't know much other than what he says. This is where third-party sources might be useful, as well as in calculating its effect. And even numerous trivial sources exploring different facets of the site can add up to a nontrivial source. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The desire to get this article deleted is part of the wider effort to silence all critics of Islam on wikipedia. I call everyone's attention to the related discussions here and here. For example, there is a bizarre attempt to brand Robert Spencer as a partisan/extremist website, and to limit use of his books to the article about him. Arrow740 08:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey Guys i think this article should be deleted. it just shows a website and its motto. I think its not needed in wikipedia. if it is needed only because it was on alexa rankings in top 30000 website once in last yr. then please tell me, can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com (top 10000), islamicity.com (top 10000) and many more. I will start building articles on this websites, organisations soon. Mak82hyd 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion:Go right on ahead, make those articles. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait, you don't need to make ALL of them! At least one of them has an article already! — Rickyrab | Talk 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just created stubs on islam-qa.com and islamicity.com. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for making the stubs on that mate. I really appreciate it. it just shows there are people on wikipedia who have neutral point of view and non bias. Mak82hyd 20:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Mak82hyd, another editor already addressed your concern at Talk:Faith Freedom International#This article should be deleted(See this discussion please and give ur reponse). The article was only linking to the old archive entry page. The article has now been updated, and as you can see the FFI site is much more than a motto. So now that your concern has been addressed and the articles you wanted to balance POV have been made, are you ready to change your vote to "keep" on this article? — coelacan talk — 20:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ur comments. I dont think the article has been made NPOV. I still suggest the article should be deleted as the site just shows HATE towards a faith and suggest killing of all muslims. I can never support a site like this and any site which is full of hatred towards innocents. even if a muslim site comes up and suggest all americans be killed wherever they are as they have invaded countries and killed innocent people, 'I will never support it'. killing anybody in the name of religion and in the name of terrorism cannot be justified, unless for self defense in combat situation like war in Iraq and Afghanistan(when Some country just come and attack your country for OIL or Personal agenda, claiming excuses like terrorism, WMD etc. Mak82hyd 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point here. It is about verifying sources. Please provide the link to where the site under discussion advocates, "suggest killing of all muslims" Ttiotsw 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.iiop.org/Debate.php check the website as reference for my statement
No - where on the FFI web site. Please provide the original statement from FFI (i.e. the site under discussion). We are not discussing the http://www.iiop.org/ site but the FFI site. How can I trust what some other web site says when you are saying that FFI is making this statement. Ttiotsw 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak82hyd, if you are admitting that your concerns about notability and sourcing have been resolved, and the only reason you have left for voting "Delete" is because you don't like the content of the site, then your vote won't actually be counted. We have plenty of hate sites already, like Stormfront.org. I don't believe that FFI is a "hate site", but in any case it doesn't matter, if it were that still wouldn't count against the FFI article one bit. You don't get to simply have a "vote up or down" here; you have to actually give reasons why the site is or is not notable. If you can't give such a reason (that hasn't already been addressed above) then your vote won't mean anything, sorry. — coelacan talk — 23:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said my concerns have been resolved. I dont think they are resolved. I have just added some more concerns. The question is still notability and sources. the sources provided are still from the same site and not third party sources. please provide some notable sources like newspapers or telivision or any other sources. I know u guys dont have any except one which is a American conservative site. This article has no basis to be in wikipedia. Mak82hyd 23:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you overlooked the ICSSA source. ICSSA is a Canadian Muslim think tank, and they also covered Faith Freedom. I won't repeat everything, just look at the earlier discussion of it. So that's another third party source (very third party indeed) and with that alone we now have multiple third party sources (I gave others you overlooked too, but you really only need to acknowledge this one). Multiple third party sources satistfies WP:WEB, to put it simply. — coelacan talk — 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
U have talk about one concern which is FFI insistence of killing muslims but what about notability and reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak82hyd (talk • contribs) 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't distort the issue. It is you who are quoting http://www.iiop.org/ and yet haven't shown where on FFI they say this. Is IIOP now a reliable source ? Ttiotsw 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just showed you the ICSSA source. Read what I just said. — coelacan talk — 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look Guys we are deviating from the discussion I said something and i gave reference and i dont want to go in deeper regarding my concern of ffi authors wants all muslims to be killed. u can check that in the reference. The discussion here is NON NOTABILITY and Reliable sources. I have not created any article with non notable sources and i will not agree this article stay there without third party sources and notability concerns addressed. Mak82hyd 01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied and replied concerning notability. For the third (fourth?) time, read this: I guess you overlooked the ICSSA source. ICSSA is a Canadian Muslim think tank, and they also covered Faith Freedom. I won't repeat everything, just look at the earlier discussion of it. So that's another third party source (very third party indeed) and with that alone we now have multiple third party sources (I gave others you overlooked too, but you really only need to acknowledge this one). Multiple third party sources satistfies WP:WEB, to put it simply. There, notability per WP:WEB established. Unless you can expain to me how a Muslim thnk tank discussing Faith Freedom International is somehow not sufficient for WP:WEB, then your objection is resolved. — coelacan talk — 01:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mak82hyd: FFI is not advocating violence. It is a site made by ex-Muslims created to oppose the ideology of Islam. I am afraid you are not being truthful when you say “The author wants all Muslims to be killed”. Plese provide a link. It is clear that you do not like anyone criticizing Islam. What you are doing is character assassination with libel. Assuming what you say is true, which is not, still FFI remains notable and has to have an article in Wikipedia. What we are witnessing here is censorship. Muslims do not tolerate criticism of their religion. They will try to silence anyone who dares to speak against their faith. Why all the Muslims, including their top politicians, were outraged over Pope’s statement on Islam? Some of them even called for his death. Muslims should learn to tolerate criticism. This long discussion jsut shows how intolerant they are of those criticizing their faith. OceanSplash 3:34 10 Dec. 2006 (UTC)
islamonline.net, islamicity.com, islam-qa.com has been speedily deleted even without discussion by bias admins so why should this article is getting debate and AFD. its hould be deleted as well. I have given 15 references from american television channels and newspapers still my article islam-qa has been deleted. what can i expect with these bias and islam haters of wikipedia. Mak82hyd 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website Answering-Christianity.com is another third party site with extensive coverage of FaithFreedom.org Google has this cached page for Wikipedians to examine and consider: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:HgC1mhQaGyoJ:www.answering-christianity.com/faithfreedom_rebuttals.htm+icssa+faithfreedom&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=6 74.102.58.135 04:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong KeepThe arguemnts for deletion abot this group do not sound NPOV to me, though they all claim to be. DGG 08:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHere are a few notable sites that either talk about FFI and Ali Sina or have published Mr. Sina’s articles.

http://jimball.com.au/Postmodernism.htm http://sydneykendall.thinkertothinker.com/?page_id=16 http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2006/July/Fallaci/index.html Here is a radio interview with Ali Sina http://www.wideawakesradio.com/category/wideawakesradio/kit-and-heidi/ Jim Ball, Sydney's number one radio broadcaster says, "Ali Sina is the Iranian ex-Muslim behind the website faithfreedom.org . Along with other former Muslims such as Ibn Warraq, Sina is spearheading what may be the first organized movement of ex-Muslims in Islamic history, ….It is no exaggeration to say that if the likes of Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan prevail in the face of the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam, then Islam will never again be the same." Obviously both Ali Sina and FFI are notable enough. We might actually be wittnessing the start of a real revolution in Islamic world. This is worth reporting. Obviously Muslims are not very pleased with this situation and will do anything to censor it. OceanSplash 9:58 11 Dec. 2006 (UTC)

The internet makes it possible. Arrow740 10:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, some good stuff here. Jim Ball is a talk show host on Sydney's 2GB radio station which has been in business for 80 years. His coverage (and he explicitely mentions Faith Freedom) is very notable. Iranian.com is also pretty heavy, and they are publishing Sina on there representing Faith Freedom at the link you gave. With these two, plus ICSSA's apologetics, IHS's endorsment, WorldNetDaily's article, and FrontPageMag's symposium, we're safely into notability. I'm still going to be picky and ask you to keep in mind, OceanSplash, that anti-Scientologist and anti-Creationist articles get the same AfD maneuvers pulled on them, so don't overlook the wider scope of the problem. But you were dead on earlier when you said "It is funny that Ali Sina’s article was deleted under the pretext that he was not notable. Now we are told that he is notable, it is FFI that is not notable." — coelacan talk — 10:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • no vote It is strange that there is a lesser notability threshold for websites than for people. Those sources that are provided do not even begin to meet WP:BIO. Not even close... but they are multiple. I have not seen conclusive evidence for more than one of them being non-trivial... so i advice closing admin to take a really close look at the evidence provided and ask himself: "Do we want to include all the websites that can bring fourth an equal un-impresive and borderline list of third party coverage"? "Ali Sinai is the owner/host/random of FFI" is hardly non-trivial. Or is it? Does mutliple occurences of that equal it to one non-trivial coverage? Should a traffic rating of 24,746 considered a merit? i don't know. In any case, i don't feel comfortable voting delete to this. But i would like to point out that PrisonPlanet, a site that is infinetly more refered to by third party source and has a rating of 5,972 was deleted as nn. To the closing admin: I will take the result of this afd as setting a precedence. Do we want a bunch of sites with this merit? Remeber that notability is a key issue of WP. --Striver 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You think even the ICSSA thing is trivial? When the very purpose of the debate was to shut down Faith Freedom? Is the FrontPageMag symposium trivial if Sina was invited solely because of his FFI work? Several of the other Sina/FFI pieces are also of the Sina-is-here-because-of-FFI sort. Two Muslim websites, faith-freedom.org and faithfreedom.com, have been registered just to fight against FFI; is that trivial? I keep seeing people say "trivial, trivial" but there's no explanation of why or how. Nobody's explained to me how ICSSA's coverage is trivial, for instance, and that's been sitting here for a couple of days during which anyone could have responded point by point. And by the way, I just checked WP:BIO and the first criterion is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Which is plainly what we have here, though I've argued that since all the Sina coverage has been because of FFI then it should count as such, yet it was argued elsewhere that such coverage was not notable for Sina and now here somehow it's not notable for FFI either? It's starting to feel like we're just getting the run-around. — coelacan talk — 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just as with many other websites--it's going to be hard to find 'neutral'/reliable outside commentary about this site. In a sense it's notable... but in a sense it will always create problems like FFIIslamonline and other such sites have. that's my comment from Islamonline vfdgren グレン 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayisheh Sultan Begum and Gulnar Agacheh[edit]

Ayisheh Sultan Begum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Second proposed deletion Dec 5, 2006: "article does not establish notability, non-notable (plural) spouse of someone notable". Supported by prod2 template. Deprodded Nov 11, 2006: "removed prod. - notability is established, in serious need of expansion". See also AfD discussion[76] on Bibi Mubarika Yusufzay. Procedural listing by me - Neutral Mereda 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulnar Agacheh similarly nominated because of second prod "article does not establish notability, non-notable (plural) spouse of someone notable" after previous deprod (no comment given). Procedural listing by me - Neutral Mereda 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Babur. utcursch | talk 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mention in Babur if verified. Redirect unnecessary. - crz crztalk 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, until more notability can be determined. JRP 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Gulnar Agacheh is completely useless - it merely reproduces material already found on Babur. Bibi Mubarika Yusufzay and Ayisheh Sultan Begum only contain genealogical information, and wikipedia is not a repository for family trees. Ordinarily, I agree that empresses are notable, but in this case there appears (on the basis of the articles) to be nothing notable about them other than they married Babur. DrKiernan 08:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Devendorf[edit]

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

This page was initially tagged with the regular AFD template, however, this page has been previously discussed. This is a procedural entry to correct the nomination. I abstain for now.

The previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Devendorf. It was closed in Sep 2005 as "delete" for non-notability. The new version of the page is sufficiently different that the speedy-deletion criterion for reposts does not apply though some of the deletion arguments may still apply. Rossami (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Big East all-rookie team confers enough notability in this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Big East all-rookie team does not confer enough notability in this case. Xiner 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IF the big east rookie team isn't notable enough, which i will not debate... btw if it ISN'T notable enough.... delete Jeff Adrien also? MrMacMan 09:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just one of a few thousand college basketball players. He's not setting any records, he's not leading his team to #1, he may or may not go pro ... this really seems like a fan's entry, or an Orange booster's. I think this would set a bad prededent for adding so many ordinary, everyday college basketball players (and ordinary, everyday college baseball, fencing, and swim-team members) that we'd be turning Wikipedia into MySpace. --Tenebrae 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this point in his career. I have to agree with Tenebrae. Frankly, I think this article is simply premature. There are many thousands of minor college athletes, present and past, who have a similar level of notability. I think we need to wait and see if Devendorf does anything else of note. -Kubigula (ave) 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NeoJustin 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate Recruitment Bureau[edit]

Graduate Recruitment Bureau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article has been here since May and really isn't much more than spam. If there is something particularly notable about this organization (say, along the lines of Monster Jobs) then by all means expand it. But after 7 months I'm not sure that's going to happen. Speedy contested. ... discospinster talk 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: looks like spam. certainly no more notable than any other of the hundreds of graduate recruitment organisations. Frexes 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM. Hello32020 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads like promo. company is not notable.Glendoremus 04:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM -- Steve Hart 07:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Layer Outlook[edit]

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

Non-notable or original research. An earlier prod was removed without comment, and subsequent edits have done nothing to show notability. It looks as if someone is just writing about their personal philosophy. Frexes 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Folantin 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless essay. Moreschi 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - apparant original research, no citation, and per nom. --Jeff 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. NeoJustin 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - see discussion page: author basically admits it is original research.Glendoremus 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but please add some references to article. W.marsh 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirus (gang)[edit]

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

Sufficiently notable? The article doesn't really show it. As it stands, delete. (Note that it has been tagged for cleanup for three months and no one has added any real content.) --Nlu (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable...gang. That's the first time I've used that term. Just because a famous rappers in your gang doesn't make you a famous one. And with that, the street joins the 21st century. DoomsDay349 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge), this was a founding faction of the notorious Bloods gang. Florida corrections identifies them as the original Bloods faction [77]. They are notorious enough to allow many other Blood gangs to incorporate "Piru" into their names.[78]. More info here: [79][80]. hateless 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If what hateless says is true and not WP:OR this is worth expanding upon... but I don't really know much about the subject... MrMacMan 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please notable as a precurser to the notorious bloods gang Yuckfoo 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hateless.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably the most well known gang after Bloods and Crips. -Lapinmies 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiziani whitmyre[edit]

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

Rises many red flags, no notoriety, small company (two dozens employees), just an advert for me. maybe this is even candidate for Speedy deletion--Khalid hassani 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, reads like an ad to me. There are no claims for notability in the article. SnurksTC 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wrong case! Is it so difficult to write consistently the names with the correct case? - Cate | Talk 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and it looks like an ad. NeoJustin 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very few quality google hits, not notable WP:CORP at all. -- Steve Hart 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Imaginary Theatre Association[edit]

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

Roleplaying group. No apparent notability. --InShaneee 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deleted what amounted to a copy of Talk:The Imaginary Theatre Association. I believe the intent was to highlight several other people's defense of the notability of the ITA, but I don't think that's the correct way to go about it. Those interested are encouraged to check out that Talk page. Alan De Smet | Talk 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7, club that fails to assert any notability or encyclopedic value. Agent 86 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete RPG group, 26 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is eligable for speedy deletion, per the non-criteria, "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted." While the article doesn't say "The ITA is notable because..." in as many words, it does call out the number of distinct groups and links to the media coverage. Alan De Smet | Talk 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The group has notability through size (100+ members? Would be nice if someone with knowledge could provide an exact number) and scale (10+ cities across Ontario). While relatively young, it has existed for three years, long enough to survive the high failure rate of many groups. The Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation apparently considered one of the ITA's member groups noteworthy enough to cover: [81]. The ITA appears to be a significant group in Canadian LARPing, similar to NASCRAG, albet smaller and younger. The article should certainly be improved to emphasize why it's notable, but that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems like a good case of "might be notable someday."--Dmz5 06:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, the article does assert notability: it's encompasses 13 other organizations across Ontario, making it region-wide group. I've added a line to the article in question trying to call this out more clearly. The ITA has also been subject to independant media coverage (the CBC video). Alan De Smet | Talk 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Need For Deletion - Honestly, I don't think this should be deleted because it IS out there, it has many members and it is getting larger and larger each year. I was first introduced to this a couple years ago when I was living in Oakville, ON and I don't think at the time I was ready for it. Although my buddy was all about it and he loved doing it I never got the hang of the real life stuff. Although I did enjoy the table top it made me think outside of the box I guess you could say. I have saw this grow from a couple friends to many people in real life and in the online world. I have met many people through this and I think it will get bigger and bigger as the years go on. From it being on tv and now online I think it has the potential to get the exposure and reach its targeted audience plus make many people happy as it has been doing to its members for the years it has been alive. I have heard of many groups failing and I think thats right that it has survived all the trials and tribulations of a group such as this. I have no reason to think that this should be deleted. People will continue enjoying the experience that the ITA brings no matter what. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maclawa (talk • contribs) 12:49, December 7, 2006 (UTC) — Maclawa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The ITA information is valuble to Wikipedia - Hello, Everybody, I am new to Wikipedia. I am also a member of the Imaginary Theatre Association. After reading the ITA article, i found this to be noteworthy in the spirit of Wikipedia. Throughout the article, it is still new, and given more time, i feel that this article will eventually meet the standards of Wikipedia. This srticle should not be up for deletion. If anyone wishes to discuss this article at length, I will be here. (Ironangel77 06:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)) — User:Ironangel77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, non-notable gaming club. Weregerbil 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Weregerbil; wecome to our dscussion. Please expand on why you think that the ITA is non-notable gaming club not to be 'difficult' on this issue, but however please list examples of notable "PR gaming clubs" on Wikipedia, and as well sents we are in a discussion about notable Articles... What would you like to see to make the The Imaginary Theatre Association section more notable ? thank you for your time in this matter . Rcehoppe 09:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To make the club more notable the club should be somehow notable. The article shows no evidence of notability. Weregerbil 14:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, notable gaming club,- to all; Please keep in mind that we are just starting out on Wikipedia, we would like to given time to work with others and have there input. I might have jumped the gun and just started posted, and if that was wrong i really do apologize - however I really like Wikipedia and just would really like this to work, please keep this Article and help us to make this better for everyone, and please give us a chance at the very leas. Thank you for your time and understanding Rcehoppe 09:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Page's creator, few edits outside of that page. --InShaneee 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepWheteher or not Ihave heard of them is not relevant, and the exqamples given above are sufficient to show that others do know it.DGG 08:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What guideline for notability does it meet? Vegaswikian 09:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would not consider the CBC video to be a good start to meeting notability. Firstly, the video is not really about ITA. It's about LARP. Second, I didn't hear the ITA mentioned in the video. There were some larpers in the video. They might have belonged to the ITA. -- Ben (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all - Hello, this is RECHOPPE again :) First I would like thank everyone for there insight. Thank you in the last little bit there has been a bit of an update to the The Imaginary Theatre Association Article - (1.1 Player/ Campaign Involvement ) i hope that this helps :] and i would thank for everyone for time in this matter, again thank you all Rcehoppe 06:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Not talked about, google gives 50 hits for "The Imaginary Theatre Association", msotly spam -- Steve Hart 07:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi Steve - to note: Andrew Lenahan posted that threw was only 26 unique hits on Google " and if you say that is now at 50 hits? That is cool to know - I guess with that in mind, i think that at less someone is talk about The Imaginary Theatre Association, So i think that is Good/Right/Notable? Thank you for your time Rcehoppe 07:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No need to be mean about the whole thing. I don't see the reason to get nasty -- its a AfD, some people are biased. Obviously you contain no bias yourself but i don't see the reason to turn it ugly. MrMacMan 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to MrMacMan : i am not getting nasty, i am just posting a point to Steve's Delete Comment the in the hopes to contue the discussion of the point that he posted,if thst came a cross as nasty, i do apologize for that, in the mean time to do thank-you for your post Rcehoppe 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence from reliable sources indicating notability based on the criteria at WP:ORG. --Kinu t/c 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To Kinu it is said that "The following cannot be used to assert notability: Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article. wich i think that is posted Internal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the organization itself. and Student-run newspapers. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations%29" again the use of "Internal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the organization itself". and i think that that links add to the ITA criteria has been met. Rcehoppe 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please reread my statement. No one said the information can't be used as source material... the point is that it can't be used as a claim of notability though, which is the issue here. --Kinu t/c 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pascual Martinez Forteza[edit]

Pascual Martinez Forteza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

As I understand it the applicable notability guidelines are here; this individual does not meet them. (He is of course a member of a notable orchestra. I do not know whether past practice has been to regard such members as notable. Given that there are hundreds of major orchestras with tens of thousands of members, I would expect not, but I am open to being educated.) Rsholmes 17:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- Article just has website and a couple of words. If keep, please expand. Bearly541 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD A7. Prod was appropriate, why was it changed to AfD? -- Chondrite 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. —ShadowHalo 23:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All members of orchestras of this quality are notable musicians, and there are many fewer of them than notable musicians in other genres. However, someone has to write the article.DGG 08:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree the article does not merit deletion due to its lack of content; it just needs improvement. I nominated solely on notability grounds. Does your assertion that "All members of orchestras of this quality are notable musicians" reflect previous Wikipedia consensus, or is it simply your opinion? I would suggest that Wikipedia:Notability (music) either contradicts it, or fails to address the situation, depending on interpretation. Perhaps the guidelines need revision. -- Rsholmes 14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"However, someone has to write the article." Writing the article is going to be the difficult part, because there are no (or very few) reliable sources upon which to base the artcle. This is what "non-notability" means for Wikipedia. -- Chondrite 18:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Tomasin[edit]

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

The article is a biographical stub about a living, apparently non-notable person: he appears to be one of the many people teaching and researching in an Italian university. Moreover, the first author appears to be the subject himself, suggesting original research and lack of verifiability. Goochelaar 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non notable professor. it.wikipedia doesn't cite him, and it seems that there is nothing online that prove notability. - Cate | Talk 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not assert notability. --Chondrite 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable -- Steve Hart 07:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant ball[edit]

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

Neologism used to describe when the X-Men characters play sports together. The Teen Titans have been shown eating breakfast together a number of times, but we do not have "Titans Breakfast". Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All the examples look valid. However, it appears to me that the entire premise of the article is originial research. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what comic book mutant superheroes do on their free time is not notable. -- Steve Hart 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wack Wall Street[edit]

Wack Wall Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism or protologism. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as protologism, and makes no assertion as to its notability or importance. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it fails to assert its notability. ShadowHalo 08:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viridian Doom[edit]

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

We are not a how-to guide, not assertion of notability of the drink is provided. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC) HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Hello32020 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this article any diffrent to other cocktail articles? It is not a "how too" it is a discritption of a drink.--Prophesy 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, other than telling me how to make it, there is no other content other than it is a highly alcaholic cocktail drink. So it looks like a how-to guide and nothing else to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So where is the diffrence between this and the entry for B52 other than a dubious clame based on roumer as to the origon of the name? If i put that this drinks name comes from? If this dose not fit the regulations of an article (insidently on the list of what wikipeida is not it dose not mention that it is not a how too guide and i do not see how this article fits any of the other items on that list) If you are to delete this one then you may as well delete every cocktail entry. --Prophesy 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference would be notability in society. Can you show any publication that refer to this drink? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOT#IINFO#4 "Instruction manuals". See also: WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability -- Chondrite 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Quale 06:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. utcursch | talk 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balsindesh[edit]

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

No such republic exists in the world, the article shows places from current exsiting countries as a part of the said republic, no verifiability, no fact. Article is purely spam and political propaganda voldemortuet 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per [82] in which the creator appears to admit that this article is aspirational, expressing a hope that the country described might exist in the future, rather than descriptive of a current country or even an organized group seeking the creation of such a country. The creator might be counseled to describe the hopes of a portion of the population to reorganize politically along the lines described, if that is indeed a desire of a notable political opinion, but that's different from writing an entire "as if" article. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as either a hoax, an advocacy piece, or a speculation about future events. Although these may not fall within the ordinary speedy deletion criteria, keeping an article like this around for the full five day AfD period would tend to damage Wikipedia's reputation as a reference source. --Metropolitan90 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, speedy Delete As a complete hoax. Take it from me, as a grad student in international studies with a focus on this region of the world; this is not a real country and the area discussed remains very much a part of Pakistan. Get this trash off of the Wikipedia. --The Way 07:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per WP:SNOW, fails, well, about every policy, probably even policies on road names and Pokemon characters. Articles about notable proposed countries or secession movements are OK, but this is just made up, only 1 ghit: WP. BTW, nuke any redirects, too, like BALSINDESH - Republic of Balochistan & Sindh Tubezone 11:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to keep. Feel free to merge as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek pedigree of Empress Sisi[edit]

Greek pedigree of Empress Sisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia does contain some genealogy, but it is not a database for obscure/especially particular descents. The problem with an article such as this is that it opens up opportunities for nearly infinite other similar articles. Articles of this nature have always been deleted before, for instance, Finnish ancestry of various royals, etc. While the information may be accurate, it is not encyclopedic. It is best deleted or userified. Charles 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following two articles: Vlach ancestry of royals of Romania and Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka. The reasoning and situation is the same and the precedent is to delete these articles. Charles 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is encyclopedic, It need to be cleaned up and made more useful. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, except in name, anyway. Its a reference work that contains elements of an almanac, gazetteer, and other reference works. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. None given in article, and I can't find any. WP may or may not be an encyclopedia, depending on your understanding of that term, but it does have content policies, and this article doesn't meet them. Sam Clark 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sissi's only connection to Greece was that it was one of her get-away hang-outs far from her dull husband and his stiff court. She spent most of her life fleeing her husband's empire, and her destinations number in the dozens. What next -- articles showing her Hungarian/French/Italian/Spanish etc "pedigree"? This descent could be mentioned in her main article. Lethiere 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote to Delete also applies to Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka and to Vlach ancestry of royals of Romania. Their smidgeon of national "blood" had zero influence on their ancestors' selection for these thrones. Certainly these descents merit brief mention in their articles, perhaps along with what genealogists call the "gateway" ancestors who, once identified, make it easy to trace back -- and to find all over the Internet. But they don't need or constitute independent articles. Lethiere 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The connection these articles are giving in each case is not random, but a clearly encyclopedic issue. The genealogical connection a monarch or royal family has with earlier rulers of their lands is a noteworthily encyclopedic point. They, their supporters and opposers use such things as arguments. (Vlach) ancestry, it is ancestry in Romanian lands, of Romanian royal family presents their attested genealogical connections (and on the other hand, some lacks thereof) to earlier rulers of Romania, such as princes of Valachia, Moldavia in Romania and the Asen Empire of Bulgarians and Vlachs in Lower Danubian lands. (There are encyclopedic knowledge here for example about Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom's descent from early Anglo-Saxon chieftains and Welsh princes and Alban rulers.) Genealogical connections of a royal family with hallowed predecessors in same country are also often made legends (such as king Zog I allegedly descending from Skanderbeg) or even fabricated genealogies (Charles VIII of Sweden allegedly through lords of Tofta from dynasty of St.Eric) whereby our encyclopedic task is justifiably to discriminate truths, attested descents, from mythical or fabricated ones. The genealogical connection of the claimed Leka I of Albania, an active pretender, attestedly to earlier rulers in Albania, if those connections are attested (as is this tree through his mother Geraldina) or not attested (such as the alleged descent through his father from Skanderbeg of Albania) are topics that pop up in political discussions, similarly with other analogous cases of royal inheritance/ legacy. We should provide information to readers who desire or need to check which of such claims are attestedly true and which must be or presumably are not true. Maed 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of current articles is as itself no grounds for deletion (although there exists reliable, mentioned (in articles) genealogical trees, for example in geneaogics.org but also elsewhere, to back up these pages as they are now), if the topic itself is encyclopedic, and I have above given some grounds why the topics are not random and are justifiably encyclopedic. There is no precedent to delete these, contrary to what is claimed above (if an Ahnentafel has been possibly deleted, it is a different thing than deleting an article giving genealogical lineage of a pretennder/ claimant/ ruler from his/her early predecessors. Besides, even several Ahnentafels have not been deleted here, for example those of Charles XIV Gustav of Sweden, Harald V of Norway, Nicholas II of Russia, Elizabeth II), although someone could think they are "random information" and not serving the useful purpose of differencing lies and truths in claims of royal legacy from and within a country. Maed 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, I want this huge work I made from genealogical sources, to be preserved in my user pages, to be my memoranda for future checking when I need to edit royalist articles, to assess their claims of descents. Maed 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between these articles and ahnentafels is that these articles only show select ancestry that can be multiplied many times over. Why not an Armenian ancestry of Diana, Princess of Wales? Or a Canadian ancestry of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall? It can go on and on and on... The ahnentafels, on the other hand, equally represent ancestry back to a certain point without singling out a line that can later be multiplied into various other articles. Charles 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a genealogical lineage (in your words, select ancestry) is relevant to the subject's life, position, or other issue, that actually is encyclopedic knowledge, as positively argued by several editors in this page (even Lethiere who votes against here). Wikipedia can very well include such information. (For example, I cannot find much justification for Diana's descent from Americans, but much justification for presenting her descent from, say, earlier princesses of Wales, if such happens to exist in reliable sources. Same probable no with Canadian ancestry of Camilla, if exists, whereas for example her possible descent from earlier duchesses and countesses of Cornwall would be justified if exists.) And, by the way, can you provide any clear evidence that articles about people's genealogical lineages back to their some relevant ancestry have actually been deleted through a proper AfD procedure here; you claimed such with your allegation of "precedent". I got information that such is not the case and that the nomination here misrepresents. Assuming good faith, I give you opportunity to prove your allegation. Maed 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article on either the Finnish ancestry of the king-elect of Finland or the Emperors of Russia as Grand Dukes of Finland come to mind. In particular, there was a series of articles by ObRoy. Mad King Ludwig idolized a French king, could we not make an article about his French ancestry? Charles 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please show proper links, to the names of the allegedly deleted articles, and their AfD pages. As far as a search of WP pages (keywords 'finnish ancestry king finland', search for both namespace and WP project space) shows, there has never been an article of Finnish ancestry of elected king of Finland (can you tell us what is the said person's actual Finnish ancestry?). It seems there exists an Ahnentafel of his son (and it literaly exists, an AfD did not result in deletion) where subject is a son (a prince), not the elected king himself. Thus, prove your allegation - vague allegations of some deletion whose very name even remains unclear are not evidence of precedent. And, there clearly still exists at least one article about Russian tsars as Grand Dukes of Finland, see List of Finnish monarchs#Grand Duchy of Finland in Russian Empire 1809-1917, where they are listed; are you suggesting it should be deleted. And, what come to Louis II of Bavaria, if that really is an attested fact (who French king?), there might very well emerge such an article, if there exists an attested genealogical descent. Note that it is often undesirable to put lengthy genealogical lineages to biography articles, but another article of that specific subject serves well as a linked material of a biography here. Maed 05:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article as it stands is a dreadful mess, but the topic itself is perfectly encyclopaedic. Adam 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three articles why do these need separate articles? Isn't there a page about these people already? There seems to be lots of OR in here. --SandyDancer 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge with Sisi and Leka - neither article is so long that a merge is inappropriate. I'm not sure what to do about the more generic article - I must admit, the topic is encyclopaedic, and the information is verifiable, though I'm not thrilled it all comes from the same source. WilyD 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge and cleanup all three articles, perhaps it will be more encyclopedic Kmorozov 07:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tidy up. For instance, the heading Leka, would need to be more clear as to which Leka it refers.--Couter-revolutionary 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These articles don't cut it as stand-alone articles. As I said earlier, it opens up the possibilities for countless contrived articles. If anything, send to the user space or merge in the main sCharles 17:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That being said, it's a disgrace that this article is four years old without attracting actual references beyond the biblical. Folks arguing keep: the burden is on you to make this article worth keeping, or I suspect we'll be back here again soon. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views on witchcraft[edit]

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

Delete - No sources but Bible verses, original research, unverifiable Frater Xyzzy 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — A page on Christian historical beliefs on witchcraft, along with the treatment of said accused witches, would be most interesting and encyclopedic. But I'm not clear that this is the right form. — RJH (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. It needs to be sourced from secondary sources. Interpretation of Bible verses is quite the sticky wicket when it comes to factuality. Frater Xyzzy 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written and an interesting read, keep and fix. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Those standards do not constitute a good Wikipedia article if it's not verified and blatant OR. DoomsDay349 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Though you can interpret the Bible willy-nilly for all I care, if it's not been published by a notable source, then it's OR. DoomsDay349 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup and references, but this is a decent start to an interesting topic. The multiple Bible verse translations should go, but it's hard to see how the stuff about the Catholic Church's historic skepticism about witchcraft and the Santería hybrid is not encyclopedic. —Chowbok ☠ 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs substantial work, but it provides a place for this important topic, which I wouldn't want to see lumped into the Witchcraft article. A lengthy (and likely quite negative) interpretation of Witchcraft from Christian perspectives would detract from the neutrality of that article. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is, without doubt, scope for an encyclopaedic article on Christianity and witchcraft, but this is not it. We'd be better off forking from the Inquisition articles, and bringing that up to date, using the numerous published sources which do exist, rather than using this original research. Alternatively we could userfy it to let people have time to fix the souring and verifiability issues. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. Sharkface217 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since when has being interesting become a reason for keeping an article? There's a way to make article substantial. Xiner 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not only is it "interesting," it is historically verifiable, and significant--with contemporary impacts/consequences (seen in a number of court cases regarding witchcraft and the right to Freedom of Religion in the US Bill of Rights). There are literally hundreds of scholarly works on this topic published through university presses around the world... Not THAT is notability. This article is rough, and in need of some TLC, but the topic is most definitely worth an article.--MonkeyTimeBoy 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Very interesting article - I do agree the citation needs to be cleaned up but it is well written.
  • Delete Horribly POV, borderline attack page --RoninBKETC 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This article lacks references, yes, but I'm sure on a topic like this sources can be found and added. That does not make it original research. Its just in serious need of cleanup. We are better off adding a cleanup tag to it asking contributors to add references and make it more balanced/NPOV. Nimrand 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is in definite need of additional sourcing and additional NPOV information from other perspectives but it is of itself encyclopedic.
  • Keep Definitely needs proper sourcing, but that is VERY EASY to fix. Using webpages alone, there are literally thousands of Christian websites alone out there where "Christian views on Witchcraft" can be found and used as source material for this page. But I am suspicious that this whole argument is motivated by a desire to suppress, not by a desire for NPOV and proper sourcing.207.34.120.71 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Needs POV check and editing of some of the more sensationalist elements, but this is history. there are dozens of sources out there other than the KJV Bible. - WeniWidiWiki 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not an encyclopaedic topic. Canderra 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Badly done, but a valid topic. It just needs a rewrite. Totnesmartin
10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and improve. The deletion of articles of this sort, and the continual proposals for their deletion, are to me a suggestion of possible pervasive NPOV. The only possible response to that is to keep them.DGG 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 04:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demons and witchcraft[edit]

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

Delete - reads like personal essay, appears to be original research Frater Xyzzy 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Hold "Em[edit]

Minnesota Hold "Em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I can find no confirmation that this game exists. Google turn up a few hits, but that's because the Minnesota lottery has a scratch off called "Minnesota Hold'em" (not the topic of this article). Also, there is a casino table game at a Minnesota casino by this name, but it is not the same as the game described in this article. Of the remaining links "Minnesota Hold'em" is referring to Texas hold'em in Minnesota. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Likely it's a game that only a select group of people play. I wouldn't be too surprised if this was spun off of the recent Fox Trot comic with Massachusetts Hold 'Em. DoomsDay349 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Garrison Keillor in this sketch, Minnesota Hold 'Em isn't played that way. His version of Minnesota Hold 'Em is a catch and release game where no money actually changes hands. But seeing as the Guy Noir sketch is fiction and the Wikipedia article is original research, I'd say fold, er, delete this article. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fold. Let's give this article a hand- it's a complete flop. We should send it up the river- it definitely isn't a stud. The claims of notability in the article don't mean jack. Jeez, this !vote has taken a turn for the worse. -- Kicking222 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete Update! There is a Minnesota Hold'em, but it's not played like this! --Factorylad 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like it fails WP:NFT. --Sable232 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and this is Wikipedia not The Pokerpedia. Give this the royal flush. Tubezone 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article not properly named, for starters. Lack of sourcing makes one wonder if it's the real thing. The Foxtrot strip is more convincing, and it was a joke. Delete. B.Wind 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every homegame isn't necessarily notable. Yoak 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Wilhoit[edit]

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

non notable collegiate athlete. fails WP:BIO ccwaters 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hasn't done anything great, doesn't seem to have been too major to the team. If he gets to the NFL, then yeah, sure, but not now. DoomsDay349 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject of the article fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of the Wikipedia College football project, as you will soon see. CJC47 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, he is an all conference, 4 year starter for a major college team. He's going to the NFL... not just some random special teams player at Directional Michigan. This is the wrong battle to fight CJC47 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability reqs as he does not play professionally and is not notable for another reason. I love college football, but if Wiki had an article for every college football starter.... Yikes. --Jeff 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 150 first team all conference players each year from BCS conferences. 234 players will be drafted by the NFL. By contrast, there are over 2000 anime stubs, 1000 Pokemon articles, and 4000 articles about music singles released in the 2000s. There are 3200 album covers that start with the letter A. Somehow, I don't think the onslaught of the few CFB player articles will cause us big problems. BigDT 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep if he wins a major national award for this year (they'll almost all be announced before the end of next week) or the article can be fleshed out with a lot more detail quickly. Otherwise, I don't think the player is notable and the article should be deleted. z4ns4tsu\talk 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most awards were announced earlier tonight; Wilhoit was a semifinalist, but not a finalist, for the Lou Groza Award. Art Carmody of Louisville won. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meet criteria set forth by policy WP:BIO: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Where one of the criteria is: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played...at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." As such, he meets the criteria for notability which was established in the article. --MECU≈talk 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - All-everything kicker for a 1A college football program. In addition to meeting the criterion cited by MECU, he also meets the featured in multiple non-trivial works criterion. [83] [84] [85] If you search on Wilhoit's name in Google News, you get those three articles that are just about Wilhoit in the first two pages of results. It's a foregone conclusion that he's going to be in the NFL. He's won multiple awards and is one of the top 5 or 6 kickers in the country. He's obviously notable. BigDT 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If he hadn't received freshmen All-American honors though, I would say delete. We can't go having articles about every college football player, 4 year starter or not. My personal minimum requirements for notability of college athletes is if they had All-American honors, less than that opens the door for hundreds of thousands of articles being made. VegaDark 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal Keep - he had an above-average (although not stellar) collegiate career and it appears he's probably going to be an NFL player. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets all notability requirements for athletes which have been previously stated.--NMajdan•talk 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm intrigued by this edit to WP:BIO that I just noticed. Prior to that edit I always interpreted WP:BIO as: professional competition is the preferred cut off, unless the sport is a mostly non-pro activity (track, bobsledding, etc). That would weed out most college football players, unless they are notable in their own right (expected high draft, national level awards, record holding, maybe a blue chip draft prospect that had an unexpected career altering incident). I'm not sure what the intent of that edit is or if its widely endorsed. ccwaters 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take that edit to mean things like chess. In other words, the standard applied whether the activity is considered a sport or not. Bobby Fischer, for example, is obviously notable, even though there is no professional league of chessplayers. BigDT 16:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nripen S Sharma[edit]

Nripen S Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Assisting in AfD for User:Rapt123 who left AfD process incomplete. He/she put the following text on the article's talk page: "Seems like a resume of a graduate student to me." Ekjon Lok 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems self-advertising, and conflict of interest. -- Ekjon Lok 18:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought I already voted...weird. But yeah, delete, he's non-notable, hasn't done much, if he makes it to NFL then go ahead. DoomsDay349 19:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable cv; better off on an academic homepage than an encyclopedia; WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. DrKiernan 09:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 02:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Net[edit]

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

Essentially advertising for a future company RHB 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. --Jeff 20:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam for a company that isn't even up and running yet. -- Whpq 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - spam for nonexistent company. I'd even suggest putting the padlock on this one as I suspect the author will recreate it at first opportunity. B.Wind 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam. Remove padlock, as it is not needed anymore! 213.240.234.212 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Standard Procedure. --Zegoma beach 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox FirefoxMan 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, didn't the author just ask for it to be deleted? (See above) FirefoxMan 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the shaded rose[edit]

Order of the shaded rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Pure original research on a secret society, makes many bold claims without any citation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Violates WP:OR, likely hoax.
  • Delete: I originally speedy tagged it under the assumption that the claims were some sort of hyperbole/hoax/vanity nonsense. You would think that any group that claims 40K members and has been around since the 17th century would have at least some presence in Google, secret or not. [86]. ccwaters 19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the speedy as hoaxes do not qualify for speedy deletion, but it does need to be deleted, so I did this AfD. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either WP:OR, or WP:HOAX. Hello32020 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't foget WP:BAI. BCoates 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DrKiernan 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by P879205 (talk • contribs) 08:27, December 6, 2006 (UTC) — P879205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Any particular reason you don't want it deleted? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proxy reply The unsigned comment comes from the creator of the page. Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. DrKiernan 12:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:BAI. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth Letter[edit]

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

Non-notable, conflict of interest (all edits by user who started page relate to Ninth Letter), advertising Subwayguy 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sharkface217 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The article definitely has an advertising vibe to it, and needs a good clean-up, however it appears to be somewhat notable as they've won several literary awards. Jayden54 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the edits have been done by me because I created it. Most of my edits are to avoid deletion. This is the only wiki page I've ever made, and so I'm doing my best. Please help with the clean up. NINTH LETTER is a reputable, award winning journal and deserving of an entry in Wkipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. If someone could help with the clean up, my only editoral entires will be to add the cover and artists in each issue. The page is fairly new, as is the journal, and so traffic and links to the page will take time to grow. Please don't delete it. — Adamdeutsch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep and cleanup. Article asserts notability that should be easy to verify. The article definitely needs cleanup though. Wikpedia does not need to discuss every issue of this periodical, an external link to the publication site should suffice. Editors should see WP:STYLE, and seek examples of good or featured articles in category:American Magazines. Chondrite 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I think the awards make it notable and I verified one award. -Kubigula (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mătăcina[edit]

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

Neither of the places have articles, thus there's no need for the disambig page. DoomsDay349 19:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Petition rejected. no reason to delete. Create the articles! - Francis Tyers · 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That's not a reason to delete it. bogdan 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If the places themselves don't have articles, why do we need a disambig page for it? The point of a disambig page is to allow navigation between articles with the same or similar titles; what reason is there to navigate through red links? DoomsDay349 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the target articles get created, then there might be a need for a dismabig page. Note that for only two items, the usual disambig action is to provide disambig text in the article itself referencing the other article, and not to create a separate page. so until three of these town need to be distinguished, I fail too see a need for this page. -- Whpq 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's only if one search term is substantially more likely than the other. When the search terms are equally likely, there is no reason to favor one of them. Which one would be named Mătăcina? Punkmorten 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an interesting case. Pages like these are extremely useful, because they help channel incoming links to their appropriate target: Imagine if someone wikilinks the term Mătăcina in an article, intending to point to Mătăcina in Alba County. Without this disambiguation page there would be no way to tell how to redlink the place appropriatly. Punkmorten 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page can be useful. TSO1D 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it's an interesting case, but since all cities, towns and villages are (currently) considered implicitly notable, I think think this is an instance where a pre-emptive disambiguation is acceptable, albeit a bit excessive. Xtifr tälk 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep pending stub. no need for disambig page of 2 terms, this shld be stubbed as one of them, with similar importance its just the one that gets the title first, the other gets some dishniguishing thingy. even as is, it helps avoid links being created to alternative/wrong transliterations (this is probably the reason for it, please put more thought into you afd noms, for instance cld have proded it or just asked it's creator 1st if you didn't understand why it was there).  ⇒ bsnowball  11:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no. There is no first-come-first-serve principle, the name Mătăcina (without disambiguation) doesn't belong to one village more than to the other. Punkmorten 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under what criteria/policy/guideline are we supposed to delete this disambiguation page? I don't see one. This is a good example of anticipating the eventual need of one. Keep. B.Wind 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hahnchen 22:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakpoint (demo party)[edit]

Breakpoint (demo party) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic. Seems no different from any annual convention or club meeting. If it's particularly significant in this subculture, then it should just be covered in a paragraph in Demoscene. Chowbok ☠ 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect. Merge to demoscene, with a redirect. DoomsDay349 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's too much here to merge into Demoscene, and it will continue to grow with each passing year. This event has attracted 500-1000 people across Europe for four years. It was featured, at the very least, in German print media and TV (refer to www.digitalekultur.org). Out of all the parties under Category:Demo parties, this one is among the most notable, so I'm surprised this article was nominated for deletion as opposed to some others. --Vossanova o< 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My last job's staff Christmas party attracted over 500 people every year, but we don't have an article for that. —Chowbok ☠ 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're talking about a gathering (lasting multiple days, mind you) of ~1000 creative individuals involved in a subculture already covered in _several_ other articles, not a commercial company providing entertainment for their co-workers. Please judge the event from a cultural standpoint, not merely as a set of attendance figures - Breakpoint is currently sponsored _actively_ by ATI and Intel, and is reported often in e.g. ARTE. // Gargaj 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep One of the biggest demo parties in Europe, definitely notable. Lots of press coverage in local newspapers and (computer) magazines like c't, for example here: [87] and here. Michael Drüing 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's another news article mentioning the event: [88]. Also in German, but I guess you find similar articles in most European news magazines. --Michael Drüing 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Failure to establish verifiability through multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. - crz crztalk 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is another source Spiegel Online. Extensive article on germanys biggest news portal.--Qdr 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Currently stands as a flagship convention for the demoscene hardcore. // Gargaj 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per that Crzrussian. Edison 00:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Extremely relevant computer arts festival, well established for several years. --Qdr 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large computer art festival, has had much coverage worldwide.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it will only continue growing in significance; certainly it could use some clean-up but deleting it now just to start over from scratch in two years seems like too much energy misspent. Pseudo Intellectual 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep there are hundreds even thousands of demo parties. One that makes the top 10-20 in popularity for every single year for years past did prove it's WP:NV IMO --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. This is a highly notable demoparty, and even if it weren't, the standard is verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep The single most important annual event for the demoscene. Also, as mentioned by several others, this event has been noticed by many outside of the demoscene and as such, easily obtainable information on Breakpoint is of general interest. If this entry cannot be kept, it MUST be merged into another article. /DevL 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it is notable beyond the niche and verifiable in major german news sources too Yuckfoo 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This event is highly, highly notable in Germany and as such, most coverage of it is by German media. It is funded by major American technology companies such as Intel, ATI. If that's not enough then Hasbro's sponsorship of Botcon is pointless and you should vote to delete that as well. --Sodium N4 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - per alkivar. popular, well known demoscene party --61.114.193.19 14:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mindmatrix 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Egg[edit]

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

This was the subject of an earlier AfD, and the conclusion was that it should be transwikied to Wiktionary. At the time, I supported the transwiki, saying that I believed the phrase dated back to at least the twenties. However, a little study of my sources (mostly P. G. Wodehouse) has shown that I probably overestimated the notability of this particular phrase. In fact, the term "egg", as British slang for "person" (similar to "fellow" or "bloke"), does indeed date back to at least the twenties, but was commonly used without any adjectives at all! When adjectives do appear, "bad" and "old" are quite as common as "good", and a wide variety of others may appear as well. So I now think the transwiki was a mistake, and I certainly think this particular combination of two words falls far short of the level of notability required for a Wikipedia article. (I also suspect the Wiktionary version should be removed, possibly to be replaced with a definition of the slang meaning for "egg", but that's a separate issue.) Xtifr tälk 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment while I was creating this AfD, someone else nominated the article for speedy deletion, and I didn't notice the edit conflict at first, so this may be moot, but what the heck. :) Xtifr tälk 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but feel free to merge as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment[edit]

Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable, just because it is sueing youtube doesnt make it popular

KEEP' Passes WP:CORP via pending lawsuit and the press its recieving as a result. ccwaters
  • Redirect or just delete. They may meet WP:CORP, but the only reason they are getting coverage is the domain name problem. It's mentioned at YouTube, which is where it belongs. The company isn't notable apart from the lawsuit.--Kchase T 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, it'll be OK to merge into a section of YouTube and place a certain redirect link. The article will be recorded in the page history and it will always be an option to recreate the page. Still, have a look at a category Companies established in 1965 and tell what can you say about National Plastic and other companies. "Just delete" is not a good idea... --Yuriy Lapitskiy 13:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, merging would accomplish what I want as well. My argument isn't that it's not notable, but that it's not notable outside of YouTube and the lawsuit. As to that category, take a look at WP:INN.--Kchase T 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is the subject of serverl published stories. Here are just a few.[89][90][91]. Passes WP:CORP easily. The lawsuit has made them very notable. --Oakshade 00:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant date into the Youtube article. If that is not done, then keep. Twipie 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It now is passing WP:CORP because of increasing press about its lawsuit; plus, we can't have one without the other. TTV|talk|contribs|email 16:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swizzle Tree[edit]

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

Was tagged with {{db-band}}. I deleted, and I recieved a message to my talk page saying that the person who proposed tagged with an intent of saying it failed notability requirements (not a speedy reason). I double checked by looking at the edit summary of the tagger (19:28, December 4, 2006 Walter Görlitz (Talk | contribs | block) (Appears to meet the requirement of non-notable. No national tours. No releases on major lables. Also removed gratuitous band names). For this reason I am going to seek second opinions on whether we should keep this or not. No Stance (Talk —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. CSD A7. It would be impossible to assert a subject's importance if it's not notable. This is a speedy reason. --Walter Görlitz 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC (no awards, only one album, no reviews) so delete. Jayden54 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the {{db-band}} template states "it is an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." Thus, by linking to Wikipedia:Notability (music), it is automatically calling into question the notability of the subject and whether or not the article asserts it. The edit summary is immaterial to whether or not the article meets criteria for speedy deletion. The template indicates that the article failed to assert notability. Because the article did indeed fail to assert notability, it meets the criteria for speedy deletion CSD A7. The initial speedy delete was proper. SWAdair 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - it was the proper call then, and it's the proper call now. This should have been handled at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead. The worst that could have happened is for them to bounce it here. B.Wind 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Click[edit]

Does not contain references to support claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:WEB. Andre (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:WEB as I can't find any reliable sources that write or even mention this website, and it doesn't have any awards or anything else unique either. Jayden54 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I don't see how it is notable as per WP:WEB. --Jeff 05:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --61.114.193.19 14:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Skrewler 06:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BVE Trainsim[edit]

Does not contain references to support claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Much of the content violates WP:V and/or WP:NOR. Andre (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. I will admit I'm finding it hard to find any "notable" references to BVE, mainly because first of all, it's freeware and not a commercial project, and second because it's aimed at a rather niche market. However, BVE Trainsim is the most popular freeware Train simulator in the world. It's perhaps a bit unfair to ask to link to notability-proving websites since I'd suppose most of the railfan magazines this game has appeared in do not have websites. I'll agree the article needs be cleaned up, it's starting to read like an FAQ. --PkerUNO 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you cite some railfan magazines? That would help. Andre (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really an expert on the matter - I certainly am a railfan, but I don't buy any magazines. I've asked a few friends if they can find any articles on BVE in their magazines, but I doubt they'll reply in time for the VfD deadline. In any case, I'll comb over the List of railroad-related periodicals and see if I can find anything. --PkerUNO 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, it's over...Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article definitely needs work, but this is one of the most popular trainsim packages in existence, and it is unquestionably the most popular freeware one. AdorableRuffian 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. If it really is that popular, it should be a simple matter to establish notability with references. Chondrite 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should, but the current guidelines favour big, commercial releases. Most game magazines don't cover freeware software, and even commercial train simulator software such as Microsoft Train Simulator never got much mention in gaming magazines. There are many railfan-run websites devoted to BVE and most search engines have a separate category for BVE. Unfortunately, most railfan magazines, where this game would most certainly appear, don't have websites, thereby making this job even harder. --PkerUNO 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct. This is a definite case where the guidelines promote systemic bias. Trouble is, BVE is a pretty big fish in a small pond, and I don't think the present guidelines take account of that. Google hits are arguably very crude determinants of notability, but in this case they should at least be enough to elevate BVE above the masses of non-notable freeware games which are played by a few dozen people if any. "BVE" "train" gets 240,000 ghits; even "Boso View Express" (the rarely used full name) gets over 20,000. AdorableRuffian 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias does not suggest that notability guidelines should be relaxed for subjects that are perceived as underrepresented. Computer games are, if anything, a major example of systemic bias; including articles about non-notable subjects in that category only exacerbates the problem. See also:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#Merging overrepresented content. Google hits do not establish notability. If any of those Google hits lead to non-trivial, independent reviews in reliable sources, then they should be included in the article to help establish notability consistent with the guidelines. Short of that, arguments to keep seem to be special pleading that the subject does not need to be notable. --Chondrite 06:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as per AdorableRuffian's comments. The criteria seems to exclude software that doesn't make it into printed publications yet have a high usage in a niche. Alex Sims 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per PkerUNO and AdorableRuffian. Dionyseus 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup, and, if you like, have fun. The BVE is notable because it is a relatively popular game among a notable niche group (railfans). It is not just the game of a couple of dozen people. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources that can be cited to support the claim that BVE Trainsim is popular? The problem is that BVE Trainsim does not seem to be covered in any reliable sources, and it is therefore impossible to write a proper encyclopedia article on the subject. -- Chondrite 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 patent nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future music[edit]

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

A "particularly narrow genre of music", according to the article. But:

  • "Laser gun and phaser effects"?
  • "Post-post-post-modernism"?
  • Not a "line" but a "figure eight" of reason?
  • "Inexplicably clad in assorted tin foil outfits"?
  • "Robo-Nerds"? (no Google hits in conjunction with this term)

I suspect that this is a self-conscious prank being played upon us, trying to test how closely we'll actually read the thing. Notice that there are no examples of musicians within this genre, nor any concrete social references made.

In addition, sifting through page history turns up 144.42.9.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.174.94.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with very similar edit patterns to the creator of this article (this article itself, and Vietnam-related articles). One of them added the "Robo-Nerds" reference, while the other added Sokal Affair to the "See also" section. Read that; draw your conclusions. Unint 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^Delete: I highly doubt that this is an actual "genre" of music. The fact that it links to Sokal Affair seems to be a dead give away that someone is trying to play a trick on us. Also virtually nothing links to the article. Deathawk 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a WP:HOAX. No soruces cited, nor was I able to find anything remotely applicablein googling. -- Whpq 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 00:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common smash[edit]

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

The concept clearly exists, but the name, as far as I can tell, doesn't: a simple Google search for "common smash" turns up no results used in this context, or indeed many results that use "common smash" as a phrase at all. Unint 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blatant original research. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources at all, and it's probably fake, so delete. Jayden54 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but how do we know the difference between a common smash and an uncommon smash? Oh, wait, both are original research. Delete. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hulk Smash (Delete) per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any verification that this term is used by music fans or critics. --Metropolitan90 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googling Common Smash in quotes turns up the wikipedia page, and a bunch of pages using the term in a completely different way. It's not "original research," though, it's just making a term up and hoping it catches on. At least research has sources. 71.197.131.165 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move Neologism. Possibly move and source if we can find a mainstream term for it. If kept, add YMCA to the list.--158.130.13.4 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 speedily deleted by Eagle 101. Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fernsten (basketball)[edit]

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

Page consists ENTIRELY of a link to an external website. Speedy tag was removed by author, so I'm bringing it here. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet Security[edit]

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

This is an article which has just been rescued from certain death as a copyright violation from Memory Alpha, but cites as it sole source a novel written from the perspective of a security officer (and I don't think it's canon either) and the MA article from which it was originally copied and now rewritten, albeit still primarily from an in-universe perspective. Seems to me this isa subject best left in Memory Alpha. Give it a red shirt and put it in the landing party, I say. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of verifiability. Cowman109Talk 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST KEEP EVER: Good Lord, this is getting silly. The copyright issue was investigated by at least three admins and cleared. The article is also full of in-line references to information put forth on Star Trek shows, movies, info from novels, etc. The reference provided at the bottom of the page is the only one I could remember and is actually a pretty intersting book, but there are *hundreds* of other. Starfleet Security is VERY CLEARLY a part of the Star Trek universe established as canon and this article should in no way ever be deleted. -Husnock 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been a lot of talk about why these articles are getting AfDed this often and this quickly. I can't help the way I feel, and I feel there is more going on here than concern for Wiki policy. This edit sums up my concerns. -Husnock 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should all of those be deleted as well? (Actually a serious question as some of them probably should at least be merged) -Husnock 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite likely, if they are sourced in the same way. Synthesis from primary sources = original research. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but all of these are far more well-established in the show than Starfleet Security (apart from Starfleet Tactical). Nobody is disputing there are security guards in Star Trek: the dispute is whether they constitute a department at headquarters and suchforth, as the other branches do indeed appear to : (our article notes the distinction between random engineers on starships, and the Starfleet Engineering Corps, for example). I have checked the dialogue from "The Drumhead" as you suggested, and it seems inconclusive (why is a judge being sent from Starfleet Security?) Morwen - Talk 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Starfleet Security is pretty well established, but thats been beat to death. I dont have access to the Drumhead, but its always been one of my favorite episodes. I believe the line is something like "We will be joined by Admiral Heneley (spelling?) from Starfleet Security." And he's not a judge in the episode, hes a security specialist. That should be pretty definite if thats what was said. -Husnock 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realise it must be a bit difficult to try to deal with this type of thing without access to any sources, but we can't use your recollections as a substitute. I don't have access to the episode, either (just blown my budget buying books and dvds to flesh out TOS episode articles), but the Encyclopedia says Thomas Henry was "admiral in charge of security" (lowercase). Do you agree there is, or at least could be, a distinction between "Starfleet security" (the redshirts, who are under line command) and "Starfleet Security" (some group back home that does high-level stuff), just as with the Engineering departments? Morwen - Talk 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This really is a constructive discussion, but should be carried out at articles talk page. Can we please speedy close this and work on actual article? :) --Cat out 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nom. Same people are afding star trek articles and making an overall mess. The previous nomination was just closed and not son after people pushed for deletion at deletion review. Now they are trying to get canon stuff deleted. Even the novice star trek fan knows that there is a starfleet security... --Cat out 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Coolcat is speaking the truth, sad but true. There appears to be a collection of folks who do not like these articles and are getting progressivly bolder as the AfDs keep ending with keeps and no concensus. I am beginning to wonder if this falls under the "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" rule. -Husnock 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it your usual habit to go around accusing everyone who disagrees with you of ulterior motives? Or do you restrict this to admins? Perhaps you and Cool Cat could cite some evidence to back your assertion that this is bad faith? Guy (Help!) 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't accused a single person of anything. I simply said that I agree with Coolcat and this appears to be happening. I haven't named anyone or made any formal charges or anything like that, however, nor do I plan to do so. As far as evidence of bad faith, Coolcat has stated that above, I will allow him to defend or expand upon it. -Husnock 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, the "distress the opposition till he disapears" strategy doesn't work on me. Stay on topic. This is an AFD discussion, not a random discussion about me or Husnock... --Cat out 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then stop making remarks that disparage the motives of anyone who votes against you. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same people are mass afding many star trek articles. Thats a verifiable fact. I am merely stating that... --Cat out 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a random note, I was slightly surprised to see there is no "Starfleet Security" entry listed in the official Star Trek Encyclopedia. Morwen - Talk 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is strange. In "The Drumhead", however, an Admiral arrives from Starfleet Security and is actually cited as being from that branch of Starfleet. -Husnock 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Trek Encyclopedia is a nice but incomplete source. Really a shame. But section 31 is established in canon to exist prior to the federation itself as far back as the first four years of the NX program. DS9 Section 31 arcs also established the organization pretty well. I do not see a problem with verifiability. As always a better citation would be better but we have article talk pages for such discussions. AFD is way out of line. --Cat out 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Section 31 has been established. But this isn't the AFD for Section 31, which I would strongly vote keep on. Morwen - Talk 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not certain what the actual issue is. It may be a naming discontinuity though it doesn't appear that way. It seems to be a 'legal' Section 31. There had been numerous references to a "starfleet security" in the show but not much of an exploration of it. IIRC they just are a conviniant way to fork the plot with some random last minute report. I do not recall correctly but I believe Miles O'brien underwent a covert operation for starfleet security in a ds9 episode against the notorious Orion Syndicate... --Cat out 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SF Security and Intelligence seemed to get bandied about interchangeably over the series' runs. Hard to keep 'em straight. --EEMeltonIV 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a Starfleet Intelligence article, as well. This is reasonably well established. If we accept User:Cool Cat's contention they represent the same organisation, then they should be merged. I don't accept that, and in any case Military Police style organisation is being envisaged here. Morwen - Talk 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain. I simply have no knowledge wethaer or not STarfleet security and intelligence are the same thing. I am merely suggesting a possibility that needs to be further investigated.
Starfleet Security is more like FBI and Starfleet intelligence more like CIA (what their name implies). Does the star trek encyclopedia have anyhing over this?
--Cat out 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Jesus, even I've seen episodes where Starfleet Security have played a role. What's with all the crap nominations today? Sharkface217 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Strong Rewrite: A lot of the material, even in the recently revised version, is still extrapolation and OR, but there's an underlying kernel of notability and verifiability. Hell, if HusnoCkat and I agree, we must be right. (kidding) --EEMeltonIV 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This belongs at a fansite. Jkelly 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of work went into this and it's not a bad article by any stretch of the imagination, but watching the shows and then drawing conclusions based on what you see there is synthesis. It's not that this is bad per se, just that it's unencyclopedic and against policy. I hope the authors will find a better outlet for writing this kind of material. JChap2007 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Watching the shows and drawing conclusions" is not how this article was written. The material is directly from information which was stated in a live action production or that which was specifically mentioned in a novel/tech manual published by the producers of the show. Very clearly indicated with in-line references to programs and movies with one reference added and others soon to come. -Husnock 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, a synthesis from primary sources. That is pretty much the canonical definition of original research. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No...its a direct account of material put forth by the producers in the show. Starfleet Security is established in nearly every live action prodcution and half of the novels by Pocket Books. Word twisting will not change that. -Husnock 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love this logic, I really do. So Star Trek Encyclopedia is original research, the show itself is original research... I do not understand you JzG, how the heck are we supposed to write any kind of article if we are not going to be using the sources? I am in fact recommended to use primary sources... --Cat out 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No those are fine, it's the drawing of conclusions from those that are problematic. I'll give you an example: In the 23rd century, Starfleet Security had become an established corps of the Starfleet, apparetly an entirely separate career path from regular (or "Line") personnel of the Starfleet. This is the whole premise on which the article is based, yet there is no source for this. In addition (and I almost forgot), an article on fiction should focus on the real life implications of the subject of the article, rather than merely outlining the plot: what do we have in this article that shouldn't be a minor mention in the Redshirt article? JChap2007 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Starfleet Security exists and is referred to in several of the series. Regan123 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps it's original research, perhaps it's not. However, the bar is high for fancruft - it needs to be better researched, more well-sourced, and of a higher quality to merit inclusion. This doesn't even come close enough to clip the bar from below. Also, censure the users who keep jumping the bandwagon and accusing everyone of bad faith. If there is an organised campaign to remove this drivel, then I would certainly think its effect would be the improvement of the encyclopaedia. Less is more. Chris cheese whine 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy.Edison 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep por EEMeltonIV. VegaDark 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think my problem with this page and the others listed by Husnock is that their existence appears to represent a misnomer as far as WP:FICTION is concerned. The question is not whether if Starfleet were real these bodies would be sufficiently notable for inclusion. They clearly would be. The question is whether they have played a sufficient part in Star Trek to deserve separate articles. These have at time been mentioned and various characters fall within their ambit. But the organisations themselves play only a fringe role. I would suggest coverage of them be limited to a subheading of Departments of Starfleet on the Starfleet page. WJBscribe 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fundamentally re-orient or merge into the appropriate separate articles. The problem with having separate articles about fictional things is that it presents them as existing independently of the shows, in some "fictional universe". This is a problem for a few reasons on Wikipedia, but a major one is: when the show's writers change, the properties of the thing changes; the "history" of Starfleet Security might be changed by a 1990's show when there was some contradictory statement about it in a 1960's show. In comparison, the properties of chemical elements, for example, do not change and they are in themselves self-consistent. Our knowledge of them or theories about them might change, but when they do that is included as a historical element, with reference to the surrounding framework of people and places. Similarly, articles on fictional things must be made with reference to the surrounding framework of the books, television shows, etc. from which they come, which do exist in the real world. Articles ridden with statements like "The predecessor to the current branch of Starfleet Security were the weapons and security personnel of the Earth Starfleet" are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, while "They are frequently depicted in episodes as laying suppressing fire while one of the main characters, for example Captain Archer, runs for a certain objective." and "In the first episode of Season 3, "The Xindi", the MACOs participated in a mission on a mining planet to rescue Captain Archer and Commander Tucker." (MACO) are properly connected with the real world. This is to some extent separate from the sourcing issue. On that matter, if the several descriptions in books, official guides, and plot summaries are not acceptable then the featured article on Bulbasaur is not (all its sources are like this), nor are the many thousands of other articles on fictional characters and television episodes (24, Friends, CSI, That 70's Show) it goes on and on). These are vast categories of articles with no reliable sources (and invariably no sources cited whatsoever). This issue needs to be resolved, but these thousands upon thousands of articles are not going to be fixed piece-meal an AfD here and there. Whether reliable sources on a subject exist cannot be evaluated by a mass AfD, and some of these topics do have reliable sources and warrant independent articles. Also, these articles do have work and information put into them and should be transferred to other wikis; that is not going to happen en masse. Perhaps we need a template with a longer term deleting system; these thousands of articles should not be deleted in successions of sudden 5-day AfDs, but there does need to be some enforcement of Wikipedia content policies. (Separate note, if this is to be morphed in a mass nomination: based on a search of academic journals, newspapers, and magazines, "Starfleet Academy" is far more noteworthy, with many more mentions (though I did not look very hard for reliable sources). I did find, however, happen to find an article in the Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology which has an apparently thorough review of Star Trek medicine by episodes. These sorts of things exist in abundance for the famous Star Trek, and for other famous fictions. While we should not allow these articles to continue unaltered (or even unmolested), or permit new badly sourced ones to be created, a 5-day AfD is not going to suss out all the books (and Star Trek is the subject of third-party academic, analytical books) or all the magazine articles and this remains a wiki with some articles that are works in progress; these are not living persons.) —Centrx→talk • 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's the thing. I agree with you, fundamentally, that if you can put together enough third-party sources that either discuss a fictional work's impact on the real world, or critically analyze the technical merits of the fiction (writing, cinematography, etc.). The problem here is that none of those things exist for Starfleet Security. No one has written a book about how the use of non-lethal methods by Starfleet Security altered popular opinion on alternative methods of law enforcement. And, even if they did, that article would probably be about Star Trek, not Starfleet Security. There is a profound difference between the two, and attempting to extrapolate the importance of Starfleet Security from our hypothetical article is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You're inventing new facts based around your interpretation of the article. Consequentially 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancrufty from a non-tv source. There's a lot of good mateial here that maybe could supplement the memory alpha page? Or might be added to another Star Trek article. Makgraf 03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to back up the misguided aegis of the keep voters...but crufty is hardly worthy basis without backing it up. It can't be transwikied (incompatible license) and IF it's really OR it can't be moved anywhere else. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — Article needs a little cannonising (is that a word.. :o) - however we should never censor material like this, it is of historic interest, and of course interests a large portion of Wikipedians. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, JChap2007, Chriscf. And is SHOUTING VERY LOUD really necessary ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very important part of the Star Trek world. --Oakshade 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, it's not a very important part of the real world.' Consequentially 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Emperor Palpatine isn't real, either, but nobody would try and delete his article. star Wars fans would probably come and find your house if you did that. -Husnock 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because, unlike Starfleet Security, the Emperor has achieved iconic status in popular culture. The character is referenced continuously in other fiction media, and has been the subject of several critically analytical pieces from outside Star Wars fandom. The article reflects that -- consider the fact that 90% of the article isn't about his fictional life, but the real-world process that led to the creation of the character, and its impact on media. Your inability to distinguish between in-universe importance and real-world importance is a continuing theme in these debates, and a somewhat disturbing one. The important part isn't whether or not a person or thing is "real" or "fiction," but the kind of impact it has on culture and media. Consequentially 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to at least lighten the mood by knocking Star Wars a bit, sorry you didn't see that (or didn't want to). Sorry also that I "disturb you". Starfleet Security has been around for 30 years with the "redshirt sent to the planet and killed by the alien" appearing in multiple other medai sources. I am kind of ending my defense of thsi article. I have said all that can be said and the article has pictures, good info, and sources, and room to expand. I am confident we will get at least a "No concensus" if not a firm "Keep". I still feel this article should never have been AfD, much less 5 minutes after I attempted to expand and rewrite. But, that too has been beat to death. -Husnock 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the grand scheme of things, this is probably a minor point -- but please ditch the hyperbole. The AfD did not come "5 minutes" after your revising -- it came 100 minutes after your last edits to the article (restoring content after Morwen's unrelated-to-this-AfD-copyvio-thing and adding an MA link). Indeed, it came over 13 hours after the end of your long revision process. --EEMeltonIV 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, a five-minute difference could be explained away as an error, i.e. AfD of pre-revision. Recognizing the 13-hour difference might even lend credence to your theory that it's something personal. (Although I still think that's a crap nonsense hogwash bogus! theory.) --EEMeltonIV 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been around for 30 years because the series has been around for 30 years, and that is by no means an indication of Security's notability. Beyond that, the "expendable redshirt" is not synonymous with Starfleet Security. The phenomenon is already covered within Wikipedia, invalidating the need for an article specifically dealing with this plot device. There is a profound difference between exploring the dramatic significance of Crewman #40129 and what you're trying to do here. Consequentially 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable enough in the Star Trek universe, and mentioned enough, to be included here (though it could use some fleshing out, to make it clear to casual readers how it has a different mandate to Starfleet). The redshirt phenomenon is a bonus, and gives Starfleet Security a notability not far from Imperial Stormtroopers. (Both notable as cannon-fodder, unfortunately, but still... ) Quack 688 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in the series isn't notability. Being mentioned in third-party critical analysis by reliable sources is notability. Consequentially 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should look at the examples in WP:FICTION, and see if the actual guideline agrees with you. Quack 688 07:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "third-party critical analysis by reliable source"? Cite an example so I have an idea. --Cat out 07:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This for one. Or this. Maybe here. Even this. And this too. Consequentially 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:OR and all keep arguments fail to meet any semblance of policy otherwise. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't every star trek article fail OR in your mind? --Cat out 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Please see Star Trek, or United Federation of Planets for properly sourced articles with no OR. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rewrite. Notable, mentioned often in the series. Verified, just watch the series. Being mentioned in the series is notability. Being mentioned in third party sources is verifiability. It does exist, but needs some editing to get rid of the conjecture based on facts, and rewriting to clarify that it's about a fictional group in a fictional universe. Proto::► 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - illuminating, even though only virtually (after all, it is fictional).  The Transhumanist   13:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but obviously not speedy keep. It's pretty darned crufty, but it's notable anyway (the subject in fairly notable in the Star Trek universe); besides, I might like to point out that I got drawn into WP through fancruft. And lastly, I'm not very impressed with the delete arguments (e.g., OR, or "it doesn't exist in the real world - as if nothing fictional can exist on WP). Patstuarttalk|edits 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't find an article that fails WP:OR to be a good deletion argument? Good luck with that. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that I find the OR argument to be an obfuscation in this case; really, I think your reasoning is you don't think it's notable, or it's fancruft. But the OR argument being used here seems to be saying, no one with expertise in a field can add anything to an article on it, even if their arguments are sourced. Strictly speaking, anybody who adds anything to Wikipedia, if it's not copied word for word from a source, is using some "OR". The OR requirement is meant to say, "don't quote your own research" - not "don't write an article which you know something about". Patstuarttalk|edits 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find two things wrong with your statement. One, I admonish people above that cruft is not and never will be a deletion criteria, for if it was, Pokemon would be my very FIRST target. But more importantly, can you explain how this unsourced section here is anything but OR, by which I mean "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;":

Starfleet Security has also been influenced by Section 31 over its years of existence. At least one member of the former Earth Starfleet was a member of Section 31 and Section 31 has been suspected of being involved with the Khitomer conspiracy as well as the illegal cloaking device development onboard the USS Pegasus.

--ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a very good article, but it's a start. If you don't like that it lacks sources, source it, or leave people who are working on it the time to do it. Zocky | picture popups 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is more that no sources appear to exist, other than watching the original media. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Non-notable fictional organisation from a (notable) series. No valid references whatsoever. No evidence that it appears anywhere in any of the TV series. Written entirely in in-universe style. No evidence that this has any importance whatsoever outside of Star Trek universe. I do not wish to call it cruft because I am too polite, but some many will argue that that is what it is. -- Ekjon Lok 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "No evidence that it appears in any of the TV Series"? Starfleet Security guards are seen throughout the Original Series, Next Generation, all of the movies, and a Starfleet Security Admiral is seen at least twice and, in those cases, directly referred as being an admiral of Starfleet Security. Its present enough in the series. -Husnock 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's rght. The same thing can be said about shoes in Star Trek. Shoes appear in every single episode, and are worn by the main characters. I suggest we get on with it and create Star Trek Shoes while we're at it. Consequentially 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your position so weak that you have to make sarcastic remarks of other people's comments? There actually is an artile about Starfleet uniforms, of which shoes would be included. I've redirected it for you since you want the article created. -Husnock 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just ridiculous, and please avoid making a point. And anyway my position is the following: in order to justify the inclusion of a Star Trek topic in Wikipedia, the topic must have importance or notability in the wider world, i.e. outside the Star Trek universe. There are many Star Trek topics, people, objects etc. that are indeed notable outside Star Trek. Worf and Picard are well-known and notable; Klingons or warp drives are also notable; but there are thousands of objects, people, organisations etc. that only have in-universe importance. These should not be included in Wikipedia. The Memory Alpha is exactly the place to put all these things. And anyway see my comment on Memory Alpha below. -- Ekjon Lok 12:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An important and pertinent comment. After clicking the Memory Alpha link from the "External Links" section, I see that the article on "Starfleet Security" there is extremely small, a barest stub, much smaller than the Wikipedia article that is under discussion now. Why is it that people insist on spamming Wikipedia filling Wikipedia with questionable information when there are more appropriate, dedicated projects, that would welcome these contributions with open arms? -- Ekjon Lok 12:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EEMeltonIV. --Fang Aili talk 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. Punkmorten 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Ward[edit]

Nonsense Jvhertum 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - and tagged as such. Jayden54 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle in Cube Sector[edit]

Does not contain references to support claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Much of the content violates WP:V and/or WP:NOR. Andre (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not really particurally happy with my own article anymore anyway. --GUTTERTAHAH 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed you wanted the edit history. If you wish, provided that the article fails the AFD, we can move the article into your userspace and delete the redirect. I'm pretty sure that's not against policy. Andre (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be nice. Thank you. --GUTTERTAHAH 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion -- Personally, I like this page (as it's informative about the game, which I've played) but these mystical notability guidelines can murder anything regardless of how well-written and informative an article is. --72.193.66.186 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aren't mystical -- they're spelled out quite clearly throughout Wikipedia. Andre (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that WP:SOFTWARE isn't policy. I'm neither for or against deletion. 65.118.187.102 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You really have it in for independent games, don't you? First Blue Twilight, now Cube Sector... H Hog 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has nothing to do with being independent. Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. As it happens, very few games created by amateurs using game creation software can make that claim. Andre (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what you're saying is that a game's notability is directly equivalent to its media coverage rather then its popularity among players? H Hog 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not establish notability of the subject. Daily Click is not a reliable source. It has been mentioned here that WP:SOFTWARE is not a policy, and this is true: it is at the moment a proposed guideline. However, all of the established and proposed notability guidelines are in agreement that the primary criterion for notability is that a subject has been discussed in multiple, independent, non-trivial published works. One justification for this standard is that it is impossible to write a good article that complies with Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY) unless there are multiple, independent sources on which to base the article. Chondrite 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a repost of rubbish material. (aeropagitica) 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmasism[edit]

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

This appears to either be a hoax or WP:OR, as there are no ghits for it, and nothing comes up on the web about this supposed parody religion. There appear to be no reliable sources given either, and I suspect this may well be a hoax article, given the lack of sources. SunStar Nettalk 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as orginal research or hoax. Hello32020 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm from the North-East and I've never heard of it. Complete WP:BOLLOCKS. StoptheDatabaseState 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Repost. —The Great Llamamoo? 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, hoax. It's almost as if there are too many reasons to delete it. Recury 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Christmasism, Briefsism, The Cult of Briefsism are all REAL parody religions, and just because you haven't heard of them, doesn't make them not notable. StopTheDatabaseState, may be you should have a day with a member of Briefsism just to see what its like. Believe me, this is not a joke, or a hoax. And I'm from Newcastle University, so there! Up yours!!

Oh, and Llama man, it's not a reposting of anything: this hasn't been here before, and Recury, you need to find out more about Briefsism before I get the ArbCom on everyone who doesn't believe these exist. KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP! --Sandykniggs 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Feist[edit]

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

Morsch's article was deleted, so should this one. Contents should be moved into Fritz (chess), if at all. Xiner 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A quick Google search found several press mentions ([92], [93], [94]) so he seems somewhat notable as the Deep Fritz programmer. The article needs some serious expansion though. Jayden54 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Sharkface217 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page created by a single page contributor from an anonymous IP address. Highly dubious. DrKiernan 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the single line of his activities into ChessBase & Fritz (chess). It is the programs that are notable and unless separate notability can be established for the programmer (i.e. series of notable programs, public commentary of his role and development of the field), then not warrenting own article). David Ruben Talk 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Davidruben makes a good argument. However, aside from the mentions cited above, he appears to be the subject of several articles written in German.[95] [96] I know this is the English Wikipedia, but I don't believe foreign language sources are excluded. Seems to me that he meets the guidelines for inclusion. -Kubigula (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he meets notability guidelines per Kubigula and Jayden54. Also, at the time this article was written IP users could start articles [97].--Dakota 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (based upon consensus of established editors) Yanksox 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Schreiber[edit]

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

Clearing CAT:CSD, found this page tagged as a {{db-bio}}. I don't see this being a clear speedy delete. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article is well-referenced and from what I gather he seems notable enough to be included. Jayden54 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above point by Jayden. Sharkface217 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - both Harry Rosenberg (CEO of Landmark Education) and Steve Zaffron (CEO of Landmark Educaction Business Development) were deleted speedily. All three profiles were added by user Smeelgova. Harry Rosenberg was deleted for lack of notability and Steve Zaffron was deleted for a personal attack. Please note that most of my contributions are on Landmark Education, and Smeelgova has successfully marked my AFD recommendations as such (a single user account). This is, in my opinion, a means of evading policy regarding notability. Sm1969 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)— Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - I must agree- how many other lawyers of a corporation have an encyclopedia entry? Ridiculous!Alex Jackl 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC) — AJackl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , see [98]
  • Delete as NN --RaiderAspect 09:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep highly sourced. Smeelgova 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC). (DISCLOSURE: Smeelgova is the creator and primary author of this article with over 80% of the edits done by Smeelgova in addition to creation of the article.)[reply]
  • Delete The people who seem to want it kept haven't appeared to have made any other argument apart from how well sourced it is. Come on do we really care about this guys bar memberships? Debaser23 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See notability of similar article, Moxon & Kobrin. Smeelgova 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete -I don't see what is so important about a corporate lawyer either.Spruceforest 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing notable about the general counsel of a company (with a few exceptions), nor is every partner or former partner of every law firm notable. So this article fails WP:Bio. On top of that, the second half seems to be about some legal dispute - I don't know the story on that, but it doesn't seem to have anything to establish notability or have much to do with, well, anything. Maybe it was put there for WP:V? In any event - delete. --TheOtherBob 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing Oakshade's comment, I realize I missed the fact that he was also Chairman of the Board of Landmark. That makes it a closer case, but I still think that it is a delete. --TheOtherBob 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well sourced and referenced. Chairman of Landmark Education in itself makes him notable. --Oakshade 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So he writes letters. So do I. He's a lawyer - he's doing his job. What separates him from the others? References or not, I don't see the notability. Delete. B.Wind 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note that five of the delete comments left so far are from Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts that only are registered on Wikipedia in order to edit out all negative POV with relation to this topic. Smeelgova 22:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - Please note that the author of the above comment is himself a single purpose account and innaccurately labeled mine as such. Alex Jackl 17:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC) — AJackl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , see [99]
  • Comment - Please note that the user Smeelgova has over 2000 edits on Landmark Education and related topics, including Art Schreiber. As mentioned above, both the CEO of Landmark Education and Landmark Education Business Development were speedy delete candidates for lack of notability and an attack page. The 2000 edits of user Smeelgova have made very non-notable articles and events into this encyclopedia, and Art Schreiber (this AFD) is no exception. Sm1969 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)— Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Virtually a repetition of what he said above, and still doesn't get around all the single purpose accounts that come to these AFD's en masse, but okay. Smeelgova 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Additional comment (edit conflicts): a perusal of the contribution list of Sm1969 reveals a very similar pattern. It appears that the two editors have been involved in edit wars on at least two different fronts. The above comment about any potential conflict of interest is disingenuous in light of SM1969's own conflict of interest regarding Smeelgova. Now that each has had his say, let's move on. B.Wind 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional Response I've had about 1,000 edits in 1.5 years, versus 2,000 edits for Smeelgova on this topic in six months (0.5 years). Most of my edits, I would classify as defenses to Smeelgova's 2,000 edits which are pervasively anti-LE. For about six months, for example, the article would have been better entitled "criticisms of Landmark Education." I hope the Admin who clears this out simply takes note of the notability of Art Schreiber as A) a coporate attorney and B) that both the CEO of LE and CEO of Landmark Education business development were true speedy delete candidates. In short, the AFD debate should depend on 1) content and 2) Wikipedia policy, not the number of people voting one way or another. Sm1969 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Please note how this editor continues to comment in the face of a request to move on by a neutral editor. Suffice it to say that both of us have edit warred in the past. Perhaps comments from single purpose accounts should be taken with that consideration. Smeelgova 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete , Non-notable. Not all corporate lawyers need a bio on Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Clearly not notable. Dionyseus 01:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October man sequence[edit]

October man sequence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not referenced or notable. A google search turns up only 72 hits, most of which are forums where people ask what it is or mention it in passing. Nonpareility 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems to be something in the pickup scene, but I can't find anything reliable about it, so non-notable and fails WP:V. Jayden54 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it is a verifiable part of the pickup scene. Sharkface217 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any of these references and add them to the article? Jayden54 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Create intrigue for the desperate, and they'll come begging you to take their money. Xiner 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not for things made up in the lockerroom one day. WP:V and "pickup scene" are like fish and bicycle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article would like to speak with you. -- Ben 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has ample sources from outwith said community. I don't see any similarity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry. You are right. I misunderstood your comment. And I do remember a joke about a fish needing a bicycle. -- Ben 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This subject would be interesting to have an article on eventually, but right now it is just not notable for a stand-alone article on wikipedia (even though many people in the community know about it, and although there is verifiable info on the seduction community in general). Also, no verifiable sources are available so far. Worse, the article isn't written from a neutral point of view. For people interested in creating seduction community-related articles on wikipedia, see my user page for suggestions on how to do so without getting your articles deleted. --SecondSight 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Sharkface217 mentioned, however at worst perhaps moving this article into another more general article would be a better idea. Mathmo Talk 09:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Seduction community(which itself has borderline verifiability issues); — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 December 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sundown town[edit]

This is an extremely inflammatory, badly sourced article. It has one key source, a book by a sociology at Vermont, but that source isn't nearly credible enough--heck, it says that all of Idaho qualifies as a whites-only area. This article either needs to be gutted of virtually all the "information" it contains and completely rewritten... or more simply, just to be deleted. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Could you elaborate on exactly how the article is 'inflammatory'? Can something be completely factual and still be inflammatory? If so, should all inflammatory content be removed from Wikipedia? — goethean ॐ 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Glad to. dIt's inflammatory, but more to the point, the source isn't reliable. When one professor, working alone, "discovers" that all of Idaho is a sundown state, and publishes a book on the findings... that's not reliable, that's ridiculous. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a true designation. And it's not a new one. If you feel like it's not sourced properly, then make it a stub. But it's an important sociological concept. What I'm hearing in your post here is that you don't think it's true. That's fine but it's not a reason to delete the article. As for inflammatory, look at McMansion.

"Negative" articles do exist here. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but completely rewrite as per the concerns raised here. Of particular concern is that this article, no matter how carefully written it may be, will run the risk of portraying American racism as exclusively a small-town and rural phenomenon, alien to big cities. Whoever winds up writing this article had better be very, very careful. Bigturtle 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did a little bit of fleshing out of the subject matter. One problem we run into is that as Loewen's book states, not alot of research has been done on this subject, hence the heavy reliance on his book. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve. The article as it stands has issues, but so does at least a quarter of Wikipedia. The topic is perfectly valid. - Jmabel | Talk 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield United F.C. squad[edit]

Sheffield United F.C. squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sheffield Wednesday F.C. squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Conversation copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Individual squad articles:


So let's get this deleted. Punkmorten 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but remove the duplicated section from Sheffield United article and use the template instead - this is a big improvement on the list in Sheffield United and its author deserves praise. roundhouse 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a look at the SWFC list. I can't see what the objection to this is - OK, I can find all the info if I wade through 40 or so individual player articles (but who is going to do this?) but here we have a nice informative synthesis on one page (which I could print off in one go). Eg it gives an immediate overview of the (impressive) numbers coming through the academy. roundhouse 09:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, players' articles are the good place for deeper infos. We already have a squad section for each club article, and an apposite template. --Angelo 03:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckle Duster (Radio 1-A)[edit]

Knuckle Duster (Radio 1-A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Anon-removed Prod, arguing that the page is "useful to have available for those interested in where the audio samples within the song come from". I don't deny that, but usefulness isn't a viable reason to keep an article. Like its stylistic counterpart, which was AfDd some days ago, this is roughly 20sec of sound effects and therefore non-notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article does not assert notability of subject. -- Chondrite 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Hero[edit]

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

Problematic list. The question again: What constitutes a Sikh 'hero' as opposed to any other Sikh? Without sources, any answer is original research. Crystallina 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Completely agree with the nominator. This article absolutely needs sources to backup these claims of 'Sikh heroes' otherwise it's just WP:OR with a huge WP:NPOV problem. Jayden54 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a list with (1) an ill defined scope and (2) no added value.-- danntm T C 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- useless list. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 05:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason K. Nitsch[edit]

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

Although this page has been on Wikipedia a while, the subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. The film he wrote the soundtrack for was never released, his publishers are not notable, and he is, ultimately, just a music teacher MNewnham 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - non notable subject, fails WP:BIO, no citations, and it appears to be vanity. --Jeff 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is an orphaned dead-end article... and, as is often stated here, articles are orphaned for a reason. B.Wind 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global highway[edit]

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

A Global highway is not likely to be built in the near future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. On Article Discusion Page RaccoonFox Argues that some parts are being built like Strait of Messina Bridge. In reality, this is a proposed bridge between Italy and Sicily and would be a tiny fraction of this articles proposed Global Highway. Natl1 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a speculative essay, not an article. Author says highway is proposed, but does not say by whom. Not encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Even as a concept, it is a very real, studied and discussed one. [100]. Just because something won't be built in the near future (like the Bering Strait Bridge) is not a basis for deletion. This article is alot more encyclpedic than many of the others we choose to keep. --Oakshade 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation, OR. WP:NOT a crystal ball Dragomiloff 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this appears to be a dream project advanced on the net by a small group of people, but noone seems to be interested. Not notable. -- Steve Hart 07:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Holzmann[edit]

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

This article is about a German teacher of English and Social Studies. Even though the writer claims that the person is notable, I fail to see how he passes WP:NOTE and WP:BIO; I believe there is also a neutrality issue as well (per WP:NPOV). JRHorse 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable at all, and doesn't pass WP:BIO and WP:V. Even Google doesn't provide any good results. The article sounds like its been written by some of the students at the school, which might be the reason why there's a WP:NPOV problem (albeit in a "good" way, as the article is quite positive about him). Jayden54 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - problems with WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR... and the major contributors to the article have contributed only to this one (or its talk page). B.Wind 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Gibney[edit]

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

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{db-bio}}. Based on the {{hangon}} I am listing here. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete A single work only available as a digital download from amazon.com does not a 'prolific' author make MNewnham 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only keep possibility I could see was the section on awards or external reviews near the bottom of the criteria list for WP:BIO, but I don't think a single award quite does it.--Kchase T 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The bio needs some streamlining, but she's reasonably prolific in MN. Kvangtw92 07:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does assert but does not establish notability. Current version of article looks like a resume. Chondrite 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Survivor Series Tour[edit]

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

PROD removed without a reason by an anon IP. Non-notable wrestling tour (which WWE does all the time). No notability asserted TJ Spyke 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete House shows are not notable, especially pages that are nothing more than a result listing --RoninBKETC 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Random foreign house shows are unnotable. Mshake3 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - virtually no context. B.Wind 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no reason for this article. Random wrestling house shows, even ones that are for PPVs, are not important.JasonRandal 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agreed, this is not needed. Govvy 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Summer Olympics[edit]

2032 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It specificly says in WP:NOT#CBALL not to create 2032 Summer Olympics article now. Natl1 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a single source, but that's hardly enough for an article until there are more candidate cities.--Kchase T 23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it's just a bit too early to be looking ahead to the 2032 Summer Olympics already. Jayden54 23:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You have got to love the irony of the fact that this specific olympic games is given as an example at WP:NOT#CBALL as an example of an unacceptable article. --The Way 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Delete A fantastic inside joke by those who read the crystal ball page. I think the creator used the page in fantastic fashion even finding one source for the material! aha, great stuff. Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete. MrMacMan 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm never sure if sarcasm works over the internet... hmmm MrMacMan 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - check whether the event is being planned already or not. If it is not being planned, speedy delete. If it is being planned, speedy keep. --Ineffable3000 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete parody page that borders on WP:POINT. B.Wind 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom. Dionyseus 01:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this smells like a blogger-created page --61.114.193.19 12:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it's pretty funny that WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball disallows this article by name. And I don't know how reputable the external source is, and even if it's reliable, it's pretty trivial with respect to the 2032 Olympics as Ghana is only "considering" a bid, which it "might not [meaning 'probably will not'?] win" -- so, that external reference can't support a Wikipedia article, so the article should be deleted. But that external source does sort of undermine the assertion at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball that nothing can be said about [the 2032 summer Olympics] that is verifiable and not original research. I suggest replacing "2032" with "2036" over at WP:NOT, when this AFD is over. Pan Dan 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. It's done.--Kchase T 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article itself begins by saying "The 2032 Summer Olympics' location is still undecided." So no single fact about it exists in the present except the year it is scheduled to take place. The tenuousness of Ghana's bid is underscored by the linked article itself, in which a Ghana representative acknowledges “the idea might sound funny now." The only substantive action Ghana has taken is write the IOC and "receive information about the date for the submission of the bids." If the article were entitled Ghana's tentative consideration of bidding to be the venue for the 2032 Summer Olympics we would not accept it. But that's all there is to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The name of the article's creator, Futureboy21, raises at least a suspicion of WP:POINT in my mind. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Girls 2[edit]

Mean Girls 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Note that I speedily deleted this before when it was just nonsense. Now it would be a reasonable stub, if only there were any reasonably reliable references that said anything about there being such a movie. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of sources. Google produces...just more rumors.--Kchase T 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT... etc etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrMacMan (talk • contribs).
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Prolog 09:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This article contains no info that anyone who hasn't thought about thismovie wouldn't know. Cnriaczoy42 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of facts and sources. Adelaidely 10:10 December 07 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Hackerz Club[edit]

Pakistan Hackerz Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The notability tag has been placed on the article page for a month and a half now, with no progress[101]. The organization does not satisfy WP:Notability, having only two known members. As it stands, it is little more than Nationalist soapbox propaganda (ooo, look at us, we hacked some websites) concerning a couple of script kiddies with a political agenda to tout.Thus, WP:NOT comes into play here also. Hkelkar 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be self-glamourizing, propaganda type page. It satisfies notability, but only on ONE of the of the 6 sources, most of them are broken, could be faked, or deal with another incident. The whole page appears to be a plea for attention, and might be suited as something of a minor paragraph on a list of nationalistic hacking attacks... which I doubt exists on the Wiki right now. Logical2u 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-aggrandizing vanity --61.114.193.19 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AKASA[edit]

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

This entry makes claims that would support nobility if substanitated - the number one hit One Night In My Life, but google [102] did not find anything to substanitate the claim. Nothing else in the entry would meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. The entry has been around for 15 days without updating by the author. Author will be notified.

  • Delete - Not notable at the moment, but if we can get some reliable sources for the number one hit claim the article should be kept. Hopefully the author will respond soon. Jayden54 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless proper refs can be found for the #1 hit claim. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No sources. Dionyseus 01:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C-P-P[edit]

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

Non-noteable management technique, and possibly WP:SPAM. A Google search for "'Compete-Protect-Perform' -wikipedia" brings eleven results. They're commercial links, leading to a consulting company and a data-systems provider. They're run by friends, which you can see here. Consequentially 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and possibly WP:COI, as the creating user only has edits related to this article. Possibly a speedy under CSD G11. Green451 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up so it's not written in arcane businesspeak. Look at the history -- I considered an AfD nomination myself, but then thought someone might improve it. It doesn't seem likely, and thanks to Consequentially's research, it doesn't seem notable either. Grandmasterka 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Grandmasterka. Wickethewok 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam --61.114.193.19 12:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of reasons stated above. Lorenj 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Finance Group[edit]

London Finance Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article may just be a hoax. Nothing to say about its notability. Peter O. (Talk) 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

  • Delete - The current revision is definitely nonsense, but older revisions appear to be talking about a real organization, however it doesn't seem notable at all (Google provided nothing useful) and it fails WP:V so delete. Jayden54 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article and information is correct, the group is a joke form a student comedy play performed in gothenburg. Therefore the information seems like a joke, but it is really just a reference to what was said in the comedy play. There should be citation to www.londonfinancegroup.se —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.234.133 (talk • contribs).

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 13:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shot glass chess set[edit]

Shot glass chess set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Is this particular chess set notable, as opposed to others, perhaps? Peter O. (Talk) 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This has a not insignificant Google presence. The question is whether it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial written sources who are independent of the subject. I did not find any. Almost all the sites I look at are selling or promoting the set. The article's only source, Money Week’s interview with Michael Acton Smith, is only a peripheral mention and, as the creator of the set, he is not an independent third party. Thus, no apparent notability substantiated through reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge with Shot glass. The problem with drinking games is always sources... I wish there was 3rd parties that could back up the claim. I would post my own view saying this game is real and does exist and is played... but that is all WP:OR and wouldn't help with sources. How do marginally successful drinking games get cited anyway? MrMacMan 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not only is it not a noteworthy "gameset," the picture is most likely a copyvio as it has been circulating about the Internet as a joke picture for the past four years. B.Wind 02:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DVD+ R/W 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Anthony Holt II[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable and almost certainly autobiography but creator keeps removing the speedy tag. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Biography of NN person. He is a newby - I have sent him a friendly warning.--Anthony.bradbury 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Bearly541 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7; an obvious case. (Or just Delete, whatever.) Xtifr tälk 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Hello32020 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge. No consensus to delete, whether this should be merged is unclear from the AfD. W.marsh 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amdír[edit]

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

This stub about an obscure Tolkien character can never be expanded into an article (except by orignal research or speculation). ➥the Epopt 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I feel that this article is worthwhile, yes, edits need to be made 100%, but lets try to make it worthwhile first. Someone is going to need to do some necessary edits, probably myself, but if its me I need some help to get the format right because I haven't done such edits previously. So besides that this article needs to be grouped with articles with similar content -- the creator never tried to put it under the right categories or cite the sources. MrMacMan 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to whatever the source is or just Delete as non-notable fancruft. Xtifr tälk 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Tolkien characters or an article like it. Otherwise, delete. I don't see why minor characters should have articles... Major characters getting articles sometimes worries me. :) ---J.S (T/C) 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well there isn't a large article about minor Tolkien characters AFAIK and the link you used didn't point me there -- but maybe there is one. I still feel that the LOTR universe is covered fairly fully and I just want to make sure this info gets put somewhere useful. And as i said before in Talk:Amdir I need help with a possible rewrite and sourcing. MrMacMan 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be worth having one. The Tolken universe is very well known. ---J.S (T/C) 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can someone, as I don't know proper procedure, contact the WP:Me project? It is worth noting that there are so many catagories that this article falls under and the possibility to expand does exist. MrMacMan 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Middle-earth characters per WP:FICT -- Chondrite 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Have I improved it enough? I've added it to the list, anymore stuff? MrMacMan 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - uh, there is already a duplicate article named Amdír - note diacritic. I'd move the info here (more complete) there. List of Middle-earth characters does not contain info, only names. I say Merge with the non-existent article List of Grey Elves, a sublist of List of Middle-earth Elves, which a project member has proposed - [103] but we haven't gotten around to it yet. Please bear with us and wait. Uthanc 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Geez, how did i miss that... wow. Anyway why can't this be included in the categories i had listed until the proper ones are made. I thought I looked at WP:Me section and such. Thanks for the clear sameness I couldn't find. (er this comment is mine, sorry for late signing of name) MrMacMan 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The project category is for project subpages; Category:Characters in The Lord of the Rings is, well, wrong. He only appears in Unfinished Tales so perhaps we need a category there. I moved the updated content of Amdir to Amdír and made the former a redirect. Keep for now, but Merge, eventually... It's now out-of-universe. Started the general Elves list. Uthanc 08:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, merge later - There are thousands of characters in Tolkien's Middle-earth stories and articles in Wikipedia on hundreds of them. We are slowly cleaning up and consolidating this mess into sub-lists of reasonable size with just the major characters having separate articles (as opposed to something like 'Pokemon' or 'Harry Potter' where every character has an article). --CBD 22:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous alcoholics[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic and subjective. Also has a huge problem as to how 'alcoholic' is defined. Is it anyone who has drunk too much or a more serious problem? Must the person have admitted to being an alcoholic? At the very least the term must be defined and each entry very carefully referenced. This article poses a legal minefield given potential for defamation WJBscribe 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. WJBscribe 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment. I am especially concerned by the inclusion of people such as Ira Hayes, a war veteran whose suggested alcoholism is so tied up to likely post-traumatic stress disorder. It seems in poor taste and gives a good example of the sort of issues the presence of this list will lead to. WJBscribe 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I did add my "vote" to delete, I don't think that Ira Hayes should be somehow omitted from this list if it did stay. He was famous, and he was an alcoholic. The list isn't titled, "List of famous alcoholics, except the otherwise good people who had a rough go of it and wound up drinking for various reasons." --Onorem 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should have been clearer. I was pointing out that a wide range of people would end up lumped together by the criteria 'alcoholics' without room for discussion of wider pesonal problems that might have lead to this, not that he should be excluded should the list continue. The list is a very blunt instrument- it lacks the necessary sensitivity for dealing with such a topic. WJBscribe 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is potentially defamatory, is POV in terms both of the definition of "famous" and of "alcoholic", is largely unverifiable, and in reality must be so laughably incomplete as to be wholly unencyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, no objective definition of "famous", potential includees is vast. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I removed anyone who was living from the list about 3 weeks ago, but agree completely with the deletion. Agree with all above about definitions and references. --Onorem 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who's famous? who's alcoholic? Neither question can be answered satisfactorily. Moreover, very high potential for defamatory additions to the list. Pascal.Tesson 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - part of this could be salvaged by using "... who have been diagnosed as being an alcoholic" as an objective criterion. The real problem is the POV for "famous people"... and I don't see any getting around that obstacle, even if we have the sourcing to verify that the individual is/was indeed an alcoholic. B.Wind 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hmm. Would "famously alcoholic people" be an acceptable category, or of any use whatsoever? --Kizor 07:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilias Lazaridis[edit]

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

Article about some guy who apparently posts a lot in various Internet boards. The article is one of these "I want to attack the guy without crossing the Wikipedia blatant personnal attack line". The article was maintained almost solely by Gldnspud (talk · contribs) who, apparently had no other interests around here. In any case, no third-party reliable coverage seems to exist on the guy (despite high Ghits of course) so there's really nothing to build an article from. Pascal.Tesson 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think I might have {{speedy}} tagged this article, although whether I would have called it {{spam}}, {{WikiProject Biography}} or {{attack}} I am uncertain!--Anthony.bradbury 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a blog. Bearly541 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I added some info to this one a while back, then realized it's already been deleted once. Doesn't look like anything's changed since then, so delete it again. Ubernostrum 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ilias is a well know "personality". There are plenty newsgroup posts from which the information in this article can be verified. Many of the posts are from Ilias himself, so that seems pretty reliable. The article's tone isn’t vengeful or accusing either. If Paris Hilton has an article, then why not Ilias?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.28.232 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Comment from a random user: I found the wikipedia article after doing a Google search on Ilias Lazaridis after reading a long thread involving him in a Python mailing list. I was trying to evaluate the merits of his argument in that thread, and found the Wikipedia article to have some value in making my judgement. So I think this article is useful and should not be deleted (although it could be improved).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.153.225 (talk • contribs)
Comment the problem here is that while you might have found the article useful, we cannot guarantee its reliability and that's a big problem. What you are seeing is not an encyclopedic treatment of the subject but essentially one person's point of view. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Pascal.Tesson 18:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcompensating[edit]

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

Comic's notability is insufficient to warrant its own article per WP:WEB. I would suggest merging and redirecting to the author's page, but said page already contains more information on the comic than the comic's article does. I'm leaning towards deleting, as redirecting from a common word seems out of place. Brad Beattie (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per failure of WP:V. I see no reliable secondary sources cited in the article. (I'm willing to revisit my opinion here if WP:V is met) ---J.S (T/C) 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JS FirefoxMan 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet Judge Advocate General (since renamed Law in Star Trek)[edit]

Starfleet Judge Advocate General (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a synthesis from primary sources, i.e. original research. Does it have a place here if rewritten to fix that? Maybe, maybe not; I'd call it fancruft and leave this to Memory Alpha, but that's an aside. This article is OR and needs to be referenced from reliable secondary sources or deleted. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - all the assertions there are lifted straight from dialogue; there's no supposition, extrapolation or synthesis on this particular page. Primary sources (i.e. episodes) are listed rather than the Encyclopedia secondary source (which corroborates these statements in the various episode, character and JAG entries) to give readers a more useful link to related material. --EEMeltonIV 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually an unambiguous Delete argument, since you are effectively stating that it is original research. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There have been a lot of Star Trek nominations that have seemed unfair. This is not one. The coverage adds nothing beyond what would be contained in individual episodes. Wikipedia cannot have an article about every position ever suggested to exist in every fictional universe. What are we to have next- an article on those with responsibility for cleaning toilets in the Star Trek Universe? The subject is not notable even within its own fictional universe. WJBscribe 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An entier data episode (wether he is sentient or not) was based on this organizations existance. The entire TOS episode of Kirks's court martial involves this organization. One of the movies have the judge advocate demoting admiral kirk back to captain. You call that non-notable? --Cat out 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is in pathetic shape. AFD is not part of the Article improvement drive process. Judge Advocate General was one of the first branches of starfleet to be established far into 1960's TOS era. --Cat out 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Per WJBscribe--SUIT 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Very clearly established in the episode "Court Martial" and The Measure of a Man where a Starfleet Captain flat out is addressed as "The JAG Officer for this Sector". Nominator should not be so quick to nominate these articles for deletion as was the case on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security. nominated by the same person who is proposing this one be deleted. -Husnock 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not Guy should have nominated other pages is not relevant to this AfD. I don't think there is much doubt the topic exists. I think what I need to be convinced of is that it is notable? An article on Law in Star Trek might be very interesting. But why does this particular legal office need its own heading. WJBscribe 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is generally considered a negative sign if someone starts mass nominating related articles for deletion frequently yelling OR, Fancruft, <type reason here>...
    Well, star trek law is a very vast and smudgy area. This article is trying to focus on a branch of starfleet more than star trek law. Starfleet is obviously a notable fictional organization and this is its notable branch. The branch affected canon a great deal, lots of very notable events. We obviously have a stub that needs to be expanded. :)
    --Cat out 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed, "Law in Star Trek" would be fun to write. And I am still trying to have fun on this site...trying, anyway. -Husnock 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you want to have fun? You must be looking for Uncyclopedia. Chris cheese whine 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Nebor, I'm not looking for anything like that, so put the childish remarks back in the toy cheast. I've actually written some major articles for this site that this AfDers could never hope to touch. Have you read any of them? Check ouy my user page, most of them are listed there. -Husnock 00:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the Schutzstaffel isn't a non-notable plot-devices made up for dramatic effect. Just a thought. Consequentially 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Messrs. Husnock and Cool Cat should, I think, be a little more careful when making assertions of bad faith. They should, perhaps, start by looking up the person against whom they make these accusations. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you, nobility? --Cat out 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Screw WP:OR, tell me how this meets WP:FICTION or WP:WAF? Articles on fictional topics must be writtne in an out-of-universe perspective, with reference to the creators, real-world implications, and so on. This article gives a quick two-word reference to its fiction, and then charges head-first into all the plot summary. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what is suggested by the prose examples offered by Wikipedia policy. WP:FICTION also reminds you that minor characters, groups, and so on belong on a list of merged articles, not their own piece of wiki-realestate. Oh yeah. And using nothing but plot details from episodes you watched to establish what you believe are the norms for said organization is original research. Consequentially 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is proper citation. Judge Advocate General of starfleet is directly addressed as such. The only thing I interpreted from the show is the existance of "Starfleet Judge Advocate General" as per exact quote. Article is a freaking stub, don't you WP:FICTION me. --Cat out 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pft. A quick Google search for "'Starfleet Judge Advocate General' -wikipedia" gives 63 hits. The first page gives us non-canon fancruft, non-canon fancruft, non-canon role-playing rules, the Star Trek wiki, a (friggin hilarious) MySpace page, canon fancruft, non-canon fancruft, a Star Trek glossary listing, and more non-canon role-playing rules. How do you plan on un-stubbing it to WP:FICTION standards without using bad sources, or nothing but more episode listings? Furthermore, in an out-of-universe frame, how does the SJAG meet notability? Consequentially 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. WP:FICTION would recomend a merger not delete. My main objective here is to reach a non-delete. --Cat out 00:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to reach a non-delete is to make the article notable non-crap. As it stands, nothing justifies the existance of a seperate article, and even a merge would be dubious. I'd support stuffing it into Starfleet, maybe under the section, "completely non-notable plot devices that, if people would bother to stop thinking of the Starfleet bureaucracy as real, stand no chance of ever meriting inclusion into an encyclopedia." Consequentially 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ZOMG! JzG proposed another Star Trek article for deletion, how awfully evil and deletionist of him. I mean, who'd want to delete this? Apart perhaps from him. And everyone else that's commented "delete" above. Oh, and me. Beam it over to the bit bucket, per more than I'd care to mention. Chris cheese whine 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments merely speak to what you think of this article and of those who contributed to it. Bring on more comments about Coolcat and myself, we'd love to hear them. -Husnock 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this type of article seems very... how should I say it.. crufy. In my opinion, articles on star-fleet ranks fictional organisations should be on star-fleet wikis, except when there is a lot of real-world impact. ---J.S (T/C) 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing this isn't an article about Starfleet ranks, its an article about a major branch of Starfleet mentioned several episodes and numerous books. -Husnock 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm aside, my comment stands. Can you show any verifiable real-world impact as reported by a reliable secondary source? ---J.S (T/C) 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be a pain but I'm having trouble with your it is a major branch of Starfleet, therefore it is notable argument. Starfleet is notable. Coca cola is notable. The manufacturing department of Coca Cola is clearly an important branch of it but is not notable enough for its own article. The same logic seems to me to apply to sub-departments of Starfleet. WJBscribe 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict where I repeat WJBScribe's point)Well, it's not a "major branch of Starfleet," because Starfleet doesn't exist. It's a plot device in a work of fiction. What I'm trying to figure out is how important a plot device it is. Is it merely a designator for the characters who are introduced when the plot calls for a court-martial or is the organization itself involved in the plot? JChap2007 01:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The former usage. It does, unlike Starfleet Security, warrant an entry in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, mind. Morwen - Talk 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (and probably a stupid one) The plot of a Star Trek episode calls for a court martial. A JAG officer is sent in to conduct the court martial. Is there anything else to say about this subject (from reliable sources, that is)? JChap2007 00:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per adove--9ers 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I hate to invoke the word WP:CRUFT, Wikipedia does not need articles on Starfleet Warp-Manifold Pressure Washer Memory Alpha is thataway... --RoninBKETC 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Consequentially. What can you say other than "plot device used by Star Trek writers so they can can have courtroom drama scenes. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You could actually say an enourmous deal. I like the idea of RDing to Law in Star Trek and writing a great massive fascinating article. At least, until certian users try to AfD it! -Husnock 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty-seven hits. Good luck. I think the phrase your looking for is not a friggin chance. Consequentially 02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They seem pretty strong hits though given that most are from the legal and not Star Trek Community. References amongst them to a number of law journals. e.g. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, Volume 8, Number 1; The University of Toledo Law Review, Volume 24, Number 1. Also a chapter in the book: PRIME TIME LAW FICTIONAL TELEVISION AS LEGAL NARRATIVE by ROBERT M. JARVIS & PAUL R. JOSEPH, EDITORS. Looks like a much firmer basis for an article. They're very narrow search parameters. Surely Husnock should be encouraged in his wish to write a potentially encyclopedic piece, rather than merely shot down automatically? WJBscribe 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one of those articles, but I'm willing to accept the existance of others. I chose the search parameters because it happened to be the title of the redlink, so it was easy. Mr. Husnock is more that welcome to look for the right kinds of sources and what not, I'm just expressing my skepticism. Consequentially 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pagemove and expand at Law in Star Trek (leave redirect). There is very little verifiable content regarding the current article's topic, and less-to-none in independant secondary sources. There is no shortage of content available regarding the broader topic, including plenty in independant sources, including some from the real-world legal profession itself. Everyone wins. Serpent's Choice 06:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — A bad state is certainly no reason to delete; as it stands now it is sourced, of course we should have an article on everything.. but for this? Yes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and go ahead and start up a page at Deletion Review. I would be vastly interested in an explationation of why the sourcing and tone of good Star Trek articles such as the Federation and even somewhat obscure things like Starfleet ships are so properly documented and don't rely on OR and speculation, while there are articles such as warp drive and the laughably non-notable Trek MUSE that don't even bother to try to meet Wikipedia standards. The former are admirable articles. The latter are fanon speculation. No one has a vendetta against Star Trek. There is no Anti-Star Trek cabal. The articles do not meet the policy. The repeated, willful refusal of certain parties to admit this and instead insinuate bad faith in nominating, voting, and motive is only encouraging us to find MORE article that fail the policy. Either fix these articles with proper sourcing or justify how this article requires a seperate article from a "Starfleet" article. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is probably not an "anti-Star Trek cabal" of Wikipedia users who want these things gone, I will give you that. But, I feel strongly that there are personal feelings mixing in with some of the AfD nominators stretching back to initial edits on Fleet captain (Star Trek) where material was removed, over and over again as "unsourced" even after sources were provided. The same user who was doing this then nominated Warrant Officer (Star Trek) for deletion and did so in a quick and quiet fashion, not bothering to contact or talk page those who had worked on the article. When the deletion was overturned, its parent article, Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia was also nominated for deletion and the nominator openly stated that they were upset that Warrant Officer was still around and would therefore nominate its parent article for deletion [104]. When that deletion attempt failed, one of the users involved followed my edits to Starfleet Security and, after I made an honest and innocent attempt to imporve the article, I was slammed on the talk page [105] in a highly uncivil tone, my edits called "crap" and "hogwash", accused of making up sources, and of committing a copyright violation. When all this is overturned on the Admin Norticeboard, less than 5 minutes later Starfleet Security is up for deletion. Then, after User:Cool Cat makes the best case he can, the AfD nominator of that article in turn nominates this one for deletion, almost as an effort to get Coolcat stirred up even more. Three years ago when I joined this site, something like this would NEVER have happened. People would have talked it out on talk pages instead of trying to get things deleted to upset other users. I guess times change but I simply don't think this is right. See this edit for a summary of these concerns on another user's talk page. -Husnock 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this tendency toward not naming names - I axed a chunk of the fleet captain stuff (repeatedly) because it was uncited. You've since provided a plausible citation (Okuda's assertion, I think some other stuff from print sources) and, voila, no more removal by me. The warrant officer material continues to be speculative nonsense/crap/hogwash, the only "citation" being to a fanboy website -- it should still be deleted. (Heck, the phrase "warrant officer" is never mentioned in all of live action Trek -- yes, yes, I know, you have these myriad resources back home. But, as Morwen points out, "I don't have it with me" doesn't alleviate the burden of proof.) Starfleet Security I voted to *keep* even though the article itself is still laden with OR and generalizations -- but, as I said on that AfD page, there's an underlying degree of usefulness to it. As for SF JAG, another keep -- and how about you take a look at its edit history, remind me who's done a fair amount of sprucing up.
    I don't buy the "it's personal, not business" assertion, at least insofar as I'm a factor. Until this spate of AfDs, neither you nor Cool Cat nor anyone else on wikipedia has really even registered as a person to me -- it's not worthwhile to keep that stuff in my head -- and the only thing that's stuck in my head about you is the Navy thing. I don't check contributors' names; I check contributions. If I were to have a gripe against you (outside of mainspace contributions), it's your lumping me in with the folks endorsing the more recent deletions. I have no problem AfDing something as WP:OR; I probably would not, however, AfD something Trek-related for WP:N (as these latter ones appear to be) because I am, after all, a geek -- I keep it closeted in the real world, so that part of me really goes crazy on wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am simply getting frustrated with the whole pattern than has emerged, and we can see the pattern up above. Also, these are just my feelings and I am sharing them here for others to read since its mentioned in several places that Coolcat and I are overreacting thinking that these AfDs are perhaps personal. You can not buy it, but I have a right to share my feelings. The facts are above and they are undisputed. And all the magic in the world will not change the fact that that Willie Santiago is dead and Private Downing and Corporal Dawson killed him. -Husnock 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per answer to my question above. There is nothing to say about Starfleet JAG except that when the plot of an episode calls for there to be a court-martial, there is a character identified as a member who runs it. JChap2007 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the correct vote would be a merge not delete. --Cat out 20:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not a vote. If a merge were to be executed, the obvious targets would be the articles about the individual episodes. These already discuss the courts-marital in sufficient detail. You could add the designator "JAG" to the officer conducting the court-martial, but you would not need a merge to do this. The reason to merge would be if you are moving text (so as to comply with the GFDL. JChap2007 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How anout Starfleet. Material isnt moving outside of wikipedia so GFDL is not an issue. --Cat out 21:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Boldly going off-topic) The GFDL would require us to save the history of any text that was preserved. A merge would accomplish this by saving the history of the merged page at what would now be the redirect page, while a deletion would delete the history as well. JChap2007 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, JChap2007 and Elara. Has this made WP:AN yet ? When will it be at WP:DRV ? Three years ago there was VfD, not AfD, and references were unheard of. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on original research-based fancruft — forever. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, etc. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination.--RedMC 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Starfleet - hang on, someone's done that already. Awesome. Quack 688 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have merged the page to Starfleet. While JAG is a notable part of starfleet it sadly was never explored properly during the course of the series. I do not see a complete article spawning off of it any time soon. Anyone is welcome to revert me. But I feel this action satisfies all parties. --Cat out 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted for a page move to Law in Star Trek. I will make some major expansions to the page provided nobody deletes it. I actually now recommend a SPEEDY KEEP AND CLOSE of this AfD since the present article will seve as a template for a totally new article with merits in verified sources. -Husnock 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The merge was a solid idea, and something I could support. Now, you've just taken the same stuff we're deleting here and named it differently. There was consensus building for a merge, why would you change that? Consequentially 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am conducting a complete revamp and rewrite on the article to include aspects of the law from all different areas of Star Trek. No way should this be deleted now. The potential here is enourmous with both in-universe and real-world references. Already, I've begun to add items to the article and it will eventually turn into a very fine article. If only this had been discussed by the AfD nominator instead of just pushing to delete an article they didn't like. But, thats been beat to death. This AfD should be closed as the article has changed names and there is a huge rewrite and expansion in progress. -Husnock 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) Look, I'm happy to see well-sourced articles on fictional subjects here on Wikipedia, but the way you're acting unilaterally, you're really shooting yourself in the foot, and you're generating a lot of bad publicity for "the cause". Let's everyone take a deep breath and try this again...
  • Husnock: There are several Wikipedia pages on Klingon, Romulan, and Cardassian culture, to name a few. In fact, Klingon law has its own page, with good reason IMHO, since it's well-established, and of major importance in several episodes and movies (across all ST series, not just one). How about you work on improving those existing articles? If you find enough good information on Romulan or Cardassian law to warrant an independent article, we can consider it. But a "Law in Star Trek" article that just lists different legal codes would be duplication - and if it tried to compare them, that would be original research. It simply can't survive.
  • Please, please, please just give me some time. Don't declare yet that it "simple won't survive" before I've really done anything. I have excellent ideas and it will not be original research. I already have two real world connections which will be fascinating for the article: UCMJ affect on law in Star Trek and the "Samuel Cogley" defense strategy used by real world law firms (will research that one). This has enourmous potential. People just need to give it a chance and quit wanting to delete stuff so fast. -Husnock 05:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletionists: Husnock's convinced you're all out to get Star Trek pages. And the Klingon law page is in bad shape - I added a note that it needs references, and there are many more examples from the shows that could be added to flesh it out. I actually had second thoughts about posting it here, for fear that it'd get AfD'd immediately, but it's relevant to this discussion, so here it is. How about you show a sign of good faith, and not start AfDs on any of the articles I just mentioned? Quack 688 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some pithy soul merged Klingon law to Law in Star Trek without much of a discussion. Certainly bold, but now the Law in Star Trek page is up for deletion. At this point, I'm rinsing my hands of this mess, as I have no doubt I will lose any remaining civility I have if this turns into a trainwreck like some WoW deletions. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 05:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "pithy soul" and linked to my user page? I hope you are using the definition "brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression; full of vigor, substance, or meaning". Thats actually the first nice thing you've said about me. Yes, it was bold because I am certian now that no sound admin will delete this article. It is undergoing major reconstruction and will turn into a fine article when it is all done. -Husnock 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting CoolCat has decided that since the article is merged, this entire deletion discussion is null and void. I'm very sure that when an admin strolls along and looks at this they will be vastly interested in your creative interpretation of deletion process, specifically the part where it says to be bold but cautious in moving, renaming, and merging.. So far, two articles (the SF JAG and Klingon Law) have been merged into one (Law in Star Trek) and then the deletion notice removed since it's a "new article under expansion". Some may find this bold and acceptable. Others might find it disingenuous. You claim it will turn into a "fine article". That means it will fufill all the requirements : WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:FICT, etc? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on what Coolcat did, because I was in no way involved with it. I did merge the articles becuase I am full speed ahead with the rewrite and revamp. And the merge makes entirely good sense. A stub article on Klingon Law has been merged into a much article on Star Trek law. I see nothing wrong with that. So, as stated previously...give the article a chance. -Husnock 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can. The rewrrite is a worthy effort, but still sourced entirely from primary sources, so still exhoibits precisely the same failings. Find a canonical source which offers a critical review of this subject, or take it to Memory Alpha. Wikipedia does not do distillations from original media. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again...give the article a chance (even help with it, if you want). Just started the rewrite this morning. -Husnock 08:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, this is what WikiStress tastes like, huh? Fine, I'll have a go playing both sides here.
  • Guy: The primary sources are the canon sources. If it's shown in the original Star Wars movie that Luke blew up the Death Star, then that's it - it's part of canon. Done. You don't need a newspaper review saying "Luke blew up the Death Star" before you can accept it. OR would be "What was Luke thinking when he fired the torps?", "How fast was his X-Wing going?", or "How big is the Death Star, anyway?"
  • Husnock, CoolCat, Re: procedure - I'm with Elara on this one. It's not for you or me to unilaterally say "This AfD tag isn't necessary anymore, I think I'll delete it.". I've had a go reverting the Klingon Law article, and you've re-merged it - fine, I won't get into a revert war, we'll let this play out.
  • Husnock, CoolCat, Re: content - I haven't changed my thoughts on a "Law in Star Trek" article. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with - but if you find some sources regarding a race's legal system, you should put them in the article for that race. If you find so much information that a new article is justified by size, fine. And I do think Klingon Law has been the subject of so many episodes and movies that it could carry its own article. But you'd be hardpressed to find as much canon information about the other legal systems to justify their own individual articles. And any attempt to compare these legal systems in one article, no matter how well-sourced, would rapidly turn into OR. Quack 688 09:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the serries starfleet (entire frenchise), klingon (mostly on TNG and Ent), cardassian (ds9), ferengi (ds9) had been explored. Many minor races' legal systems were also explored such as the Edo. I however deiced not to ever contribute to articles related to fiction. Reason behind this is this very afd and similar others. --Cat out 09:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say that! I'm still looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with! My main concern is where it gets added, that's all. Look - the main Romulan article is safe, okay? No-one can say they're an insignifcant race, they've been in the thick of things since the 60s. That means people can say it needs reworking or referencing, but they can't just wipe it out. So, if you find a properly sourced fact on Romulan law, put it there. It will be safe. Find another fact - put it there. Same for the other major races. Eventually, you might find enough to make a new article. But until then, the material you contribute will be safe - it will not be deleted. Quack 688 10:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I really think this AfD needs to be brought to an end. The Starfleet Judge Advocate General page is no more and there is no point judging the Law in Star Trek page until it is substantially complete and we know what content it will have. How are Husnock and others to develop this potentially encyclopedic page if they have to spend all there time defending it here? -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. The current article includes, wholesale, the same content, plus some additional content which is either unsourced or sourced in the same way, from original media. That's still the same problem, I'm afraid. If we are to keep this, it has to be cited from canonical sources, not as a distillation of plot synopses but from editorial descriptions of the concepts involved. Ohterwise it is simply not permissible, per WP:NOR. My view is that this belongs on Memory Alpha, where being cited from original media will not be a problem at all. I'd not have a problem with a stub that said simply that the office of the JAG is the military discipline wing of Starfleet and then an external link to an article on MA, but this business of watchign the show and then writing about it directly is simply not on. This is nothing to do with how accurate a summary it is, from my meory of these episodes it's pretty accurate, but we don't do that stuff here. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Star Trek Encyclopedia, or other episode guides, can be used as a reference for the appearance of JAG stuff in those episodes, so there's no strict need to cite the episodes. I agree citing episodes directly is problematic, but in this case, unlike Starfleet Security, the prose isn't written terribly in-universe, and it doesn't do any speculation or educated guesses about the JAG office, it just lists appearances of JAG officers. So I think what I'm trying to say is that I disagree that this particular case is a particularly novel synthesis, any more than say, listing all the episodes in which there are Klingons, or the Prime Directive, would be : it can easily be sourced. The part in the merged article about Klingon law, and assertions about the legal system are more problematic. I shall see what I can find in my collection of secondary sources about this. Morwen - Talk 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets just assume 50% of the article is OR, deleting it would remove 50% of non OR material. Feel free to comment out anything you feel is OR. Do not clutter AFD process with it. If your concern is OR, you can always comment it out, move it to talk page and etc. --Cat out 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with above, time to end this and let folks work on the Law in Star Trek article. People should be supportive of this instead of trying to find yet further ways to declare this article unsuitable. Citing direct references to the law and then providing real world legal material that has appeared in Star Trek should be acceptable, IMO. The article can also be expanded to how legal pratices have been affected by material from the show and vice versa. The door is open for more than myself to work on this, also. Other editors can surely join in and make this article into something better. -Husnock 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Law in Star Trek, with a rewrite, but gosh, we can't just claim speedy keep because the article name was changed. -Patstuarttalk|edits 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • so is this AFD active now? The article has been moved and expanded with different material but the AFD tag has been removed by a user, who has been involved in the heated debate above, twice, now. it was only nominated two days ago. there doesn't seem to be a consensus to speedy keep, so i'm unclear what rationale there would be for removing the afd tag. having the article content being moved/merged and then closing on that basis, would seem to me to be an loophole. so, either the AFD tag should be restored at Starfleet Judge Advocate General, or this AFD is no longer active and someone should close it. it should then proceed to WP:DRV. Morwen - Talk 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the notice; hopefully no one takes it down again. Patstuarttalk|edits 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Husnock (or whomever removed it) is confident that the article no longer is eligible for deletion, he might as well keep the notice up so that the AfD can close per SOP with an endorsement to keep or non consensus. Would perhaps keep someone from starting an entirely new AfD process any time soon. --EEMeltonIV 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never removed the notice, please do not state that I did so. It was removed twice by Coolcat, not me. -Husnock 03:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Law in Star Trek without prejudice as to an immediate relisting. It seems that enough of the complaints against the original article are met, so that it would be difficult for the closing administrator to decide whether the current article meets Wikipedia requirements. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — without sources outside the Star Trek universe this article is patent original research ➥the Epopt 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument of OR just got hit by a full spread of photon torpedos with a simultaneous phaser blast...a primary source has been added to the article. This can no longer be called Orginal Research by any definition. -Husnock 05:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm. I don't mean to, you know, burst your bubble or anything, but one out-of-universe source does not an impervious article make. It's still 21/22 on stuff you found while watching the show. Consequentially 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    However, no one can now say that the article has *no* sources, becuase now it does. -Husnock 05:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article can cite nothing but primary sources and still not be original research, it just has to stick to describing the contents of those sources without additional interpretation. IMO there have been enough episodes depicting trials and mentioning laws and such that a reasonable article can be written on this subject. Bryan 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Bryan. If articles on fictional subjects must have sources outside of their fictional universe then most Star Trek articles are going to need to go, along with most articles about the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dune, etc, and that's something I tacitly disagree with TerraFrost 13:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Law in Star Trek; has undergone major division. Concerns about OR are well-founded, but it looks like that's being fixed. --Fang Aili talk 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Teletubbies. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dipsy[edit]

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

Nothing could be written about this article besides the stub it already is. Possible redirect to Teletubbies. —The Great Llamamoo? 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Teletubby. ---J.S (T/C) 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect It's a completely plausible search term, but there's nothing to say. -- Kicking222 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - can't be expanded (in fact, the "Rastafarian" comment would have to be deleted as unsourced speculation). B.Wind 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal-Ottawa Corridor[edit]

Montreal-Ottawa Corridor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The corridor does not seem to exist as a geographical entity. Statscan does not refer to it at all, and a google search seems to only turn up pages that can be linked back to this page, or that are refering specifically to the geographical area, not an urban area, or a political bloc. Often these pages are referring to the Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa, or Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto. The original author has been given considerable opportunity to provide a source, and has neglected to from this point. Considering the fact that there seems to be absolutely no source that supports the concept or an urban corridor encompassing Montreal and Ottawa, and considering the fact that Statistics Canada excluded Ottawa from the Greater Montreal Area census region, it seems that the evidence would support deletion of this article. Jamincan 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Closest thing I can think of is the "Windsor-Quebec City corridor", and that's a phrase used in the context of transportation. -Joshuapaquin 01:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have never heard of this as an entity, and it seems to be pretty hypothetical. - SimonP 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live in it, and it's not a commonly used concept. There is certainly, at present, no contiguous corridor of urbanization connecting the two cities, as a drive along Highway 417 would make clear to anyone. - Eron Talk 13:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. DrKiernan 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article disavows itself with the Statistics Canada reference. Thirty years ago, it might have been discussed, but not now. B.Wind 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 00:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analyse-it[edit]

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

Delete non notable under WP:SOFTWARE. prodded as such. prod rmed by page's original author without comment and without addressing notability concerns. Karnesky 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Deprodding was not explained, so article still stands (in principle) as its PROD nomination...we're kinda only in AfD land for procedural reasons, so let's go through the motions :( DMacks 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable The Fox Man of Fire 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --61.114.193.19 12:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_5&oldid=1116878203"