Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 8

Guide to deletion

May 8

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Silent Hill (film) Soundtrack

Article about a soundtrack that doesn't exist (it simply attempts to run down the music played in the movie and when), and there is no sign that one ever will. Delete as original research on a non-notable topic. --InShaneee 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't? What is this then? Keep. Aplomado ^talk 00:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the soundtrack as in what music was in the movie, not a soundtrack as in a commercial cd with that music. --InShaneee 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think that it is at the moment valid, even if a soundtrack doesn't exist per se at the moment, one might exist in the future and the article makes it seem as if one may be in the works. Weak Keep --Lakhim 00:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A soundtrack "refers to the recorded sound accompanying a visual medium such as a motion picture, television show, or video game." It doesn't have to be released on CD in order to exist. Virtually all movies have soundtracks. Aplomado ^talk 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but does that make it notable? --InShaneee 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some work, but it's a sufficiently notable topic. --TorriTorri 01:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|

• Why? · rodii ·

• Even if it isn't a specific soundtrack, it is still useful to those who have watched the movie and want to find certain songs that have played in certain parts of the movie, since there are so many from different episodes of the Silent Hill series. It is more like a 'music of Silent Hill(film)' page, rather than a soundtrack page.
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is basically a POV endorsement of the film followed by the titles of the score. I don't think either are encyclopedic. --Hyperbole 04:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Silent Hill (film) after cleaning up, then delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the film. Frankly, this stuff shouldn't come here. Someone just needs to be bold. --- GWO
• Merge and see that no POV matter remains --Andy123(talk) 08:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. Apart from the fact that it's largely original research (where is the secondary source for the points at which each track is played?), the precise points at which individual tracks are played in the film is of almost no interest at all to anybody outside the most dedicated fans - who probably already know. IMDB has a track listing. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's factual and I'm sure will be of interest to a lot of people. Tyrenius 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Delete and merge to Silent Hill (film) useful content, more of a fancruft thing and original research. --Terence Ong 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Shorten, Rewrite and Merge adspeak! Unless the soundtrack is released (and sells) it's shouldn't have an own article. --eivind^t@c 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough. --Knucmo2 12:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Andy123 · rodii · 12:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question and comment-- If we delete it now, can someone recreate the article after the subject does become notable? For now, it would be best to try to work the information into Silent Hill (film). The article does sound like it’s pushing the film, so it needs some NPOV work. IF the soundtrack is as wonderful as the article says, the subject will be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That is a big “IF”. Thanks.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Silent Hill (film) based on content. If this were for the released soundtrack of the movie, I would say keep, but since this comprises unrealeased music that just appears in the film this seems to be an unnecessary fork from the film article. Article also appears to have content problems (no sourcing for the names of the songs).--Isotope23 15:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Silent Hill (film) because it's integral to that film and not a commercially available soundtrack in its own right. Useful information so definitely keep somwhere. Iancaddy 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Putting this up for deletion is inappropriate and out of order. Should be a proposed merge. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge No reason to completely get rid of the information, but there's no reason to keep it as it's own article. Just put it in the Silent Hill Article, I say. Jared W 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Silent Hill (film). Not an actual soundtrack. Optichan 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be original research. Such information as is not OR is already in the main article, so there's nothing to merge. — Haeleth Talk 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe merge some of it though it seems non-notable. Lundse 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Definately notable, and the soundtrack DOES Exist. Beno1000 12:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the film. No reason to delete all info, but doesn't need its own page either. Voice of Treason 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe merge some of the content with Silent Hill, but this is an article about an entity that has no existence. Vizjim 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge-I'm a non-member, and I don't know if my vote has any bearing, but I think it should be merged. I personally find it very useful, but then again I am one of those dedicated (but not obsessed) fans. -Jedah Kalm 11:50 AM (EST), 11 May 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.6.120 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - Why does it even matter to you if it's around or not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.177.136 (talk • contribs)
• Keep or Merge then Delete - I must say this is very useful and Christophe Gans and Akira Yamaoka has not ruled out a official soundtrack for the Silent Hill movie, however there's no word from Konami about a possibe soundtrack. But this is very useful for me and apparently to other users to Wikipedia. This seems like this would fit under the "List of..." articles of Wikipedia as well. If this article is deemed inappropriate, I would want to go with merging this article in with the Silent Hill movie article and then I would support the deletion of this article. KSweeley 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't understand what the big deal is about? It's just a list of songs from the film that might be(or can be) on a soundtrack. I created this article because the creator of the film's article thought it would be more useful as a separate link, so i make a separate link. If you're complaining that this needs to be deleted then you obviously have nothing better to do other than complain. It's simply a list of the songs that are on the film's soundtrack. It's highly-doubtful that an actual soundtrack will be released and if one were to be released, it would be because of the fans speaking up. This article would probably help to get fans to create their own soundtracks with the albums they do have. I think this article is informative and serves as a guide to the music of the film. Please come up with a viable reason for deleting this, InShaneee. -Fever_Chill

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn; keep without prejudice to any further nomination by any party after one month from closure. Metamagician3000 11:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Structures of the GLA

Manual of little importance to either the wikipedia project or its parent page Lakhim 00:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah. I never knew I was going to create such a firestorm. My main point is that as it stands the article provides nothing to the wikipedia project that isn't present in a manual already and is far too focused and technical on this one topic. We're an encyclopedia here, not a guide for those who want to play C&C generals. It is a fine game, but as it stands the article is too far gone for saving. Perhaps a better idea would be to revise it to point how all of the GLA structures are different from the other sides, but as of now it's simply a laundry list of buildings with no attempt to point out how this is notable. To TomStar: Would it be an amicable solution to simply combine all of the structures lists into one page and simply point out the basic differences between the structures/how they affect strategy? I think this would solve most problems with a manual and better preserve the thrust of the "Structures of the *blank*" pages --Lakhim 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, we can merge the pages togather. I have no beef about rearranging the pages in that manner, so long as the important information is preserved. When we chose to design the pages in this manner it was with the intent that they be flexiable to adopt to wikipedia's standards and practices. This option would be vastly prefered over the mass deletion of relevant material. I would invite you to add comments and suggestions about the layout of the articles on my talk page or any of the other talk pages for users who, like me, have been involved in this overhaul from the start. Your input would be apreciated so that we can avoid these problems from the start, rather than raise a hornets nest of fury over them later. It saves everyone time and grief. TomStar81 01:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't support that, nor do I think the majority of this vote currently do. Again, this seems like more something for one of the gaming wikis. --InShaneee 04:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Note to administrators: Some delete votes prior to 9 may 2006 may not be reflective of a vote on the compromise reached between myself and Tomstar/the GLA editors. This is not to say that all delete votes are invalid before then, but rather that they were cast before an agreement to radically change the nature of the article was reached. Some users, however, are still requesting deletion despite this agreement. --Lakhim 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE NOTE: User:TomStar81 has posted notices to six users' talk pages (specifically those of gamers) alerting them to this page's deletion debate and urging them to save it. See: User_talk:Mrbowtie#Deletion_Emergancy.21. Aplomado ^talk 07:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to explain. This was part of a much broader overhaul that the six of us agreed to. I have been creating the new templates and associated pages, and they have been helping to clean up the spelling, fix the grammar, check the facts, and so forth. Given that the six of us have put so much work into the article(s) it seems only fair that they be alerted to this sudden development. If you wish to prove this you can check the talk pages and histories of the users I have contacted; all have had a big role in this new design. I am not out to inflate the vote in my favor, and I understand fully that in the end all articles are subject to community consensus. If I have gone against a policy or rule by alerting these six users than I sincerly apologise, and as per the law of equivilent exchange I will accept whatever punishment the community deems nessicary. TomStar81 08:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Aplomado ^talk 00:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Aplomado Bhoeble 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. RobLinwood 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Comment that this article seems to have about as much notability (or lack thereof) as almost all of the other articles linked to from its infobox (or is there another name for template boxes at the bottom of a page?). TheProject 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, much of them will need to be nominated as well. Aplomado ^talk 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is not a video game guide, this is a valid page listing units that appear in a video game, much the same as one would list characters from a TV show or list songs sung by an artist in a certain year. Furthermore, if this page is deleted then what will happen is that all of these units will end up with individual pages, creating a massive train wreck that no one wants to see. I will also point out that many of these articles are in the process of being polished up by the community at the moment, and that this design layout was felt to work best for the presentation of relevant information involving the Command & Conquer series of games. If you delete this page, what will happen to the rest of these articles and the articles linked by the template:C&C? It is a philosophy of mine that one is not entitled to strike down an idea unless he or she can propose a solution. If you have a better idea, I am all ears. TomStar81 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: TomStar81 is the creator and primary contributor of this article. Aplomado ^talk 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it would be more accurate to say that with one or two exceptions I created all of the articles appearing on the Template: Command & Conquer: Generals. TomStar81 08:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The article goes point by point describing each structure and its uses in the game. How is this not a video game guide or manual? I've played this game before and read the manual, and it's virtually the same material. Also, the fact that there are other (equally non-notable) pages similar to this one does not establish a precedent ipso facto. Aplomado ^talk 06:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fish (talk • contribs)

This user has been asked by the creator of this article to vote in favor of keeping the article. Aplomado ^talk 07:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per TomStar81 Mrbowtie 07:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has been asked by the creator of this article to vote in favor of keeping the article. Aplomado ^talk 07:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, if videogames are to be included in Wikipedia (and they are by precedent), they should at least be limited to a single article. I suggest moving the content to another site, if that is allowed by Wikipedia's license. -- Kjkolb 07:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We could merge some of the pages, I suppose, but the pictures are a problem. The Commons does not allow fair use images, and if the article(s) are deleted then there is a rather high possibility that the images will also have to go. User:Run! would be a good person to talk to regarding the merging of the material into a single article, but when he tried that with the C&C series several users (including me) gave him a very hard time over it. TomStar81 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • They're pictures from a videogame. I'm sure the commons can manage very well without them. -- GWO
• Delete nerdcruft. -- GWO
• Delete cruft. Appears to violate WP:NOT, plus anyone who cares already knows. Just zis Guy you know? 10:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question Could someone tell me how this article differs from the numerous ones concerning Pokémon and why they are kept if this one is not? NB This is not a comment: it is a question. Tyrenius 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment : I have no idea. The Pokemon articles are awful, and someone suitably bold should just merge them. But the answer to a plethora of godawful Pokemon articles is not more godawful articles about other topics... Kind of like how the fact Ross Youngs is somehow in the Hall of Fame doesn't mean they should induct Billy Southworth. If the best argument to keep something is that its better than the worst articles in wikipedia, it probably shouldn't be kept. It's hard to correct the Poke-screwup, but that doesn't mean we should keep screwing up similarly. -- GWO
• Strong Delete Gamecruft² --eivind^t@c 11:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Rewrite so its less of a guide and more a factual presentation of the structures. --Knucmo2 12:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Illogical, Captain! This is fiction to start with :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• To be fair, it's fact that the fiction exists. (Which is still a step up from, say, Uqbar.) --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete gamecruft, agree with GWO on the Pokemon argument. · rodii · 12:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Far, far more detail than we could possibly need on Command & Conquer: Generals. Or any other game, for that matter. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I will state now that I am one of the ones TomStar81 contacted. I don't have much of an issue either way with what happens, since if the spread of excessive-info pages are deleted I can just recreate them as sections in a few Goliath-sized ones. CABAL 14:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a game guide, it contains a tremendous amount of information about a tremendous number of video games (not just Pokemon). This article does a good job of describing elements of a game with which I have no familiarity. Having read the article, I understand the game better, but I would still need to read the guidebook before playing. Not that I would probably want to <grin>. It does not go on to provide gaming tips or instructions for play. While it is currently true that aficionados of the game probably already have this information, Wikipedia acts as a handy reference for people who might want information about a subject they are not familiar with. The article could conceivably survive the subject. Years from now, someone might need the article for information about real time strategy PC games and be thrilled to find this article.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 14:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete please. This level of detail about a game is not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Hirudo 15:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete , moved to the command and conquer wikia --Astrokey44 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.--Isotope23 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: sorry that you guys put so much work into these articles, but I do not believe that they belong on the Wikipedia. Where Astrokey alerted us that it is now is a good place, just needs the images up'd. Good luck. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Rewrite so it's less of a guide and more a factual presentation of the structures as per Knucmo2 above. I feel there is a lack of tolerance on Wiki for enthusiasts of this form of activity, although there is considerable interest in it, and demand for it in the wider world. These people should be accommodated, whether it is to our personal taste or not. These games are no different in intrinsic value from more established games such as Cluedo, which merit articles. We are documenting a sociological phenomenon for the future as well. Tyrenius 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't about an article for the game, but about specific details; more like a List of rooms in Cluedo or List of weapons in Cluedo page would be (imo of course). -- Hirudo 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The Cluedo article does indeed contain the lists you mentioned, so we've established the list in itself is acceptable—it's just a question of where it should be, maybe as part of a bigger article on the game then.Tyrenius 20:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Existence does not equal precedent. Aplomado ^talk 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Great collection of information, and there is plenty of precedent - see things like List of Mega Man weapons. Command and Conquer is hugely popular game franchise, and this work is valuable in that it will be here long after copies of the game and its manuals are history. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think what you're referring to as "precedent" is more accurately described as "gamers made a bunch of video game guides on Wikipedia that no one has nominated yet." I'll nominate one of the MegaMan articles to see what consensus is, but I'm worried that, as has happened with this one, the video game subculture here at Wikipedia will see the AfD and will pour into the debate in defense of the article. Aplomado ^talk 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So what? That is the very definition of consensus. If you nominate an article, and fail to build consensus, then the community has spoken for the article. Any time I see an article like this tagged for deletion, it never fails that I encounter this "I don't like the topic" or "I consider the topic sophomoric" and therefore it must be deleted attitude. Also, I will admit that "ownership" is a problem here, but I know from experience that any time someone writes or contributes to an article, they are going feel the urge to defend it, and I certainly don't begrudge them that. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't either, I'm referring more to "rallying the troops" in an effort to defeat consensus rather than build it. Aplomado ^talk 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The term "video game subculture" seems to be used in way to convey a pejorative association, but it just means there are a lot of people interested in this subject. I feel there is prejudice against these people, but from a NPOV it's just an observable phenomenon like any other. We have an article on an underarm deodorant on the basis that it is of significance to a lot of people that use it. This is the people's encyclopedia, not the intellectuals, nor the "cultured" person. Let's be generous and inclusive in what we accommodate. Otherwise it is a form of censorship on the basis of taste. I have minimal interest in these games myself, but I think in society now it is the people who appreciate the arts (of whom I am one) who are the subculture, while video gamers and suchlike are the mainstream. Tyrenius 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm a gamer myself, I have no prejudice against them.Aplomado ^talk 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Already transwiki'd to where it belongs. --InShaneee 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - So what if its a game? Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I don't start a crusade to wipe it off the website. I go through literally HUNDREDS of pages on here that other users might find useless. If this page gets the boot, it sets the stage for anything else related to gaming, because the same argument could be made that "this is not a gaming site". While I agree this is NOT a gaming site, this is legitimate information. It may require editing, but not full-blown deletion. Lemme list a few other game pages on here overflowing with info: Halo, Warcraft 1-3 + WOW (which has its own Wiki I hear), Diablo 2, the C&C Universe, Doom-series. I won't even START on how the entire genre of Japanimation should be removed. I believe the tag "Deletion" should be removed and have the "Cleanup" tag applied.... and Aplomado, stop crying to Admins that another user talked to other users about this. Go crusade against something more meaningful. Ghostalker 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, so what if it sets the stage? Maybe it should. Just because non-notable articles have been piling up doesn't mean they aren't in violation of policy. I am not on a "crusade," you would do well to read the notice on the AfD page which says "please don't take offense" just because it was nominated for deletion. Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or another whether this page is deleted. If the community decides that this is a legitimate article and doesn't violate policy, it doesn't bother me one bit. But you are judging the validity of this article based on the sheer quantity of articles similar to it rather then whether or not it is actually in violation of Wikipedia policy. If there are other articles that need be deleted, they will be dealt with in time. The "argument from quanity" doesn't fly, however. ... As for "crying to Admins", I think it is useful for them to know when someone is going around posting "deletion emergency" to the talk pages of people likely to be sympathetic to his cause, basically an effort to "stuff the ballot box" so to speak. Aplomado ^talk 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not that anyone here does't LIKE the article, just that we don't believe it is appropriate given our current guidelines. --InShaneee 21:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Aplomado, the deletion notice you posted clearly states, and I quote:"please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors". A consensus can not be reached unless people on both sides of the issue are informed of such actions. As for your accusation regarding the so called "stuffing of the ballot box", I never asked the six Users I posted my message to to vote "keep", that is a disicion they will make of thier own free accord. Furthermore, I find your failure to assume good faith in this matter very disturbing. A notable user such as your self should know that assuming good faith is a policy here, and it goes hand in hand with our policy of being bold in updating articles. Lastly, It specifically says on the AFD page not to nominate articles recently created. If you will allow us some time we can expand the articles to include artistic designers, real life inspirations and so on. Lastly, real-time strategy and turn-based strategy games are somewhat different from the game articles on here beacuse the units and structures of such games are an intimate part of the games. Stripping the structures and units of RTS and TBS games entirely from Wikipedia does not advance the ideals of an encyclopedia. TomStar81 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • You wrote on the user pages, and I quote, "Help save this page!" Let's not play word games here. In any event, I didn't nominate the article - your beef is with Lakhim in that regard. Aplomado ^talk 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • <sheepish grin>Oops, I forgot that I include that (it was not in my original draft)</sheepish grin>. I concede a point in your favor, sir. TomStar81 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about it, I'm not trying to be an asshole cuz lord knows I've made mistakes on Wikipedia before, and I know you've put in plenty of work into Wikipedia so kudos for that and keep up the good work. Aplomado ^talk 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - list of facts about a game, not interesting to the common observer. Only usable as a guide to the game or point of comparison. All the info does not have to go, WP could hold info on the basics of game units (eg. whether you build from a moving unit or a "town hall", is there a unit cap, one or five "factories", etc.) Lundse 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - as per TomStar81, Tyrenius, Aguerriero, and Ghostalker. Jareand 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete It's an indiscriminate collection of information. --Nick Y. 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think some very valid observations have been made about this article to improve it, and one of the main editors TomStar81 has asked for time to improve it with more encyclopedic content. These editors are acknowledged to be hard working and sincere. I propose we halt this AfD for now and give them a month to knock the article into acceptable form, then, if necessary, relist. I think discussion and debate at this stage is more appropriate than AfD. Let's work together, not apart. Tyrenius 01:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I second that motion. Jareand 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the problem here is more that the topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia, rather than the condition it is currently in. Aplomado ^talk 01:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I would agree, but I think that it can be solved with a gradual phasing out of these pages rather then an AfD at the moment. I support the motion to delay for the moment and see if anything can come out of the consensus. It is clear that a consensus exists against the page as is, but it is possible that a changed version focusing less on a rote list and more on how this affects game play is acceptable for wiki. --Lakhim 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Those arguing for deletion seem to have few guidelines to cite, and there does appear to be precdent for this sort of article. I'm still uncomfortable, though: see see "instruction manuals" at [Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this comes close to being an instruction manual. If it can be rewritten to describe the game in a way that explains it to a non-gamer like, and if it can assert notability, then it would have a place here. Maybe the editors should be given that chance? --BrownHairedGirl 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I propose the following solution: We allow one month for the C&C community to see if they can transform the pages listed on the template Command & Conquer: Generals into something more befitting an encyclopedia article. If after one month the articles show little or no improvement then a discussion should be opened as to whether the articles have reached a state where mass merging would be a vaible option. Alternatively, if the articles listed on the pages show little or no improvement from their current state then we can open a discussion focused either on transfereing them to a wiki better suited for the information presented or simply have them deleted. I would also note that this AFD has opened a serious discussion in to what exactly constitutes a "game manual" here on wikipedia. I think that some sort of consensus must be reached so that future AFDs that cite a game manual layout as the primary cause for deletion can reinforce this claim by having an accepted definition of the term as it applies here. Unless we have a game manual definition to look to other editers will argue the same points that I have raised here, and the cycle of what gets deleted and what stays will get ugly (or uglier). Part of the problem with this AFD is that we have no definition to cite, which leaves some ambiguity as to whether this page— or any of the other pages created in this manner— should be treated as lists or as game manuals. As they say: It sometimes take a solution to identify a problem. TomStar81 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "I would also note that this AFD has opened a serious discussion in to what exactly constitutes a "game manual" here on wikipedia." I concur, and was thinking the same thing myself. The "not an instruction manual" guideline is very vague and someone should start a discussion about it. Aplomado ^talk 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You beat me to it in an edit conflict. I think all of this indicates there needs to be community consensus over guidelines on games throughout Wiki and the discussion transferred to a suitable location to do this. One suggestion is a project on the matter, if one does not already exist.Tyrenius 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, lets start one up. We already have a good debate going, and we are the ones who opened pandora's box, so to speak ;) TomStar81 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I have to wonder how many times the exact debate has been had, every time someone tries to delete a Gundam article, a Pokemon article, a MegaMan article, etc ad nauseum. Not that it's not a useful debate; I just hate to re-invent the wheel. I tend to be of the opinion that people trying to delete articles should need to demonstrate that the material is either wrong or useless, and neither is the case here.Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question I would second the motion to give people time to develop the article and then see. But I would like to know what kind of new information, deletion of old and/or general editing will make this article relevant for wikipedia and not just a collection of knowledge about a game. Lundse 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A good way to format it would be to condense all those articles into concise sections like the Dune II structure and unit list is formatted. This provides the same information without all the unnecessary strategy information. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Dont be jerks, leave the page as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.97.17.43 (talk • contribs) .
• Realizing that I am quite new to this discussion, I find it pertinent to point out that this debate really isn't a debate at all, rather it more closely resembles an internet power struggle. I say this not because I support keeping the page around, but rather because in order for a debate to be successful in any way it must have some sort of framework, an issue that can actually be fought to a conclusion. What are we debating anyway? Whether or not the article should be deleted? If such were the case, then I would expect some sort of grounds to measure why it should be deleted. All of the nay-sayers to this page have offered comment after comment about why they think the page should be deleted, but most say that it is simply because the page is a kind of game manual or guide. If such were the case, I should assume that as in any matter of intellectual dissent there would be supporting evidence to back the claim that the article is deserving of deletion, but alas, none has been provided. In fact, I would assert that all actual evidence that can be presented in such a debate points in the opposite direction. A game manual, by definition, is a book that specifically gives instructions, and a guide is, by definition a tool used for direction or advisement. Seeing neither of these prerequisites present in the article in question, I have no choice but to find that the argument supporting deletion is fallacious and flawed, and must either be presented with actual evidence or considered subservient to those who have voted to keep the article alive.ChiRoGuardian06 05:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or merge it and the other two into one list. Same goes for every set listed in the {{C&CG}} template. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - big picture thinking says this simply isn't encyclopedic. Vizjim 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the proposer of this AfD seems to have effectively withdrawn the nom by coming to an agreement with one of the main editors to allow time to improve the article.Tyrenius 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe it is up to everyone else to decide if the agreement is acceptable, not myself. --Lakhim 22:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You can take that option or withdraw the nom, whichever you prefer. Tyrenius 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer to leave that option to the community as a whole, as there is apparantly some opposition to the compromise. Lakhim 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Most of the opinions were prior to the compromise being reached, and the ones made after don't seem to have taken it on board that this is an option, and, furthermore, the one agreed by you and TomStar81.Tyrenius 02:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Like he said, not everyone shares that particluar view. Saying the nominator may have changed their position doesn't mean the debate will automatically close. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually, my vote and I would guess the other votes here were made having read the discussion above, and in full knowledge of the option. And even knowing that, my vote remains "delete" in the strongest possible terms. The objection is to the article, not its content. Vizjim 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Seconded -- Hirudo 11:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete this piece of randomcrapcruft. Actually, it's not random or crap, but it is gamecruft and doesn't belong on wikipedia. A well-written article, it deserves to be transwikied to some sort of C&C wiki. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and/or Transwiki. Not encyclopedic enough. Garrett^Talk 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Per nom. WP is not a free webhost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .
• Strong delete per nom. I do not accede to the Lakhim/Tom compromise (even as I appreciate the spirit in which it was reached), and this delete should not be construed as merge, inasmuch as the subject of the article, irrespective of the formulation of the article, will always be insufficiently notable/instructional (and hence unencyclopedic). With respect to Aplomado's marking the "votes" of editors whom Tom solicited to participate, such tagging is perhaps useful since it helps one to identify underlying motives, but, as we assume good faith and as each contributor has offered a defensible reason for keep, the primary admonishment ought to go to Tom; talk page spamming is looked upon with disfavor, but spamming with the explicit purpose of soliciting a particular vote is remarkably egregious. Nevertheless, Tom has offered an apology and explained his ignorance of the process, and so, I think, we can all move on. Joe 04:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - if the nominator wishes to confirm withdrawal of the nomination (which currently appears ambiguous), I am prepared to close the page as "nomination withdrawn" on that basis, without prejudice to any future AfD initiated by the nominator or anyone else after a period of one month from the date of closure. It is entirely up to the nominator to make a clear decision, within a reasonable time (say, 48 hours), whether or not to withdraw the nomination. I respectfully suggest that any other admin who comes here before I'm next here follow this approach, though I can't bind other admins who may see it differently. Metamagician3000 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If that is the guidelines for this process, I would like to withdraw the nomination as I feel that a suitable compromise to change the article so that it may fit within the guidelines of what is wikipedia exists. --Lakhim 16:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

    Noted. I'll close in a minute. Metamagician3000 11:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Ezeu 09:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Curse of Superman

Documents as if true a very unknown and unreported, unverifiable "curse" on Superman actors; not only is this probably a joke, it is certainly not notable in an encyclopedia.  Alfakim --  talk  00:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Only two people are listed as suffering from this "curse" - one who died in the 50's from suicide, and the other who was paralyzed and then died of cardiac arrest. Aplomado ^talk 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above. BigDT 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. RobLinwood 02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Delete - I've heard of this supposed curse, but as it stands this article is original research. --Joelmills 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and tagged per G1 (though the definition of "patent nonsense" may be a little narrow by some, who may wish to remove the tag). TheProject 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe put it back when Dean Cain, Tom Welling and Brandon Routh all die in the same plane crash? :/ Danny Lilithborne 04:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have removed the speedy nomination as our criteria require the article to be unintelligible. This isn't incoherent but is original research. It would need third party sources referring to the curse of Superman in order to be retained. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are sources which discuss the possibility of a "curse of Superman", but there isn't enough substance to the "curse" to make it worth an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 06:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough incidents to lend proof to the curse. Not notable enough. --Bolasanibk 06:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't any of you people google? [1], [2]. Can we at least judge the full facts, rather than this dire article? Average Earthman 06:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, non-notable, even if existant (which I highly doubt)DannyM 07:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Andy123(talk) 08:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Recommend nominating the articles separately instead. Mailer Diablo 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonization of Mercury

This article is speculative, unsourced and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Mercury should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. I am also listing the related articles Colonization of Venus, Colonization of the Moon, Colonization of Mars, Colonization of the asteroids, Colonization of the outer solar system and Colonization of Titan - they all discuss future 'events' which probably will never happen. Worldtraveller 00:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all except Colonization of the Moon and Colonization of Mars, which are common sci-fi themes. TheProject 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP is NOT a crystal ball - any non-crystal-ball content can be merged with Mercury BigDT 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is sourced, and encyclopedic. siafu 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The second might be arguable, but the first is definitely not true - the only citations are for physical facts about Mercury, the rest is unsourced. Worldtraveller 01:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Apparently, this AfD is for five very different articles. Are you applying the same to all of them? siafu 03:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Some are completely unreferenced, others have references, like this one, that do not back up the substance of the article. I can't see any from peer-reviewed journals for example. All are highly speculative and unencyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for this one. The others should be debated separately with their own AfD's, but I foreshadow that I'd be saying strong keep for some of them. Of course there are no colonies on Mercury for us to write about, but the article makes no such claim. Colonisation of Mercury is a theme in science fiction and a topic for speculation among space enthusiasts, and that is what an article with this heading should be focused on. The article could easily discuss all that, and I'm reasonably confident that sources could be found. Admittedly, the current article suffers the problem that it is mainly original research about the practicalities, but that is a reason for bold editing or some other action, not for deletion of the article. Metamagician3000 01:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all except the Mars and Moon ones per TheProject. --TorriTorri 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Metamagician3000. Most of the content is facts with fairly minor OR, much of which could be sourced and kept. Needs some discussion and sources on NASA blue-sky projects, and some discussion and references on notable science fiction in this area. Barno 01:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - but someone clean it up please. - Richardcavell 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep and clean this up too please Yuckfoo 02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete speculation . doesn't meet standards. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Keep Moon and Mars, delete the others. There are presently scheduled trips to both these planets. Also, it's patently silly to start by saying, "We should not try to predict" and then saying, "the events predicted will probably not happen." Greyscale 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point! What I mean is that events that are very likely to happen, like an upcoming election or something like that, can sensibly have articles, but ones like this which may or may not happen should not. I was trying to emphasise that these are not events that are going to happen in the near future. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• We can keep speculation as long as it is clear that we are merely reporting the speculations. Michaelbusch 02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Where else but Wikipedia will I be able to find a concise summation of proposed ideas fo r the colonization of Venus? Believe it or not, I was looking for just such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.246.89 (talk • contribs)

• Keep but somebody should add sources to clarify who exactly is speculating about the colonization. -Sparklemotion 02:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. These articles were all created to reduce the burgeoning size of the parent article, space colonization. An extensive source list still exists on that article, and most of the sources that are listed for each apply to all. The fact that they are not all individually sourced is a matter to be corrected by a helpful editor, not criterion for deletion. siafu 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: completely speculative original research. Interestingstuffadder 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all of course; the colonization of space is a significant subject among scientists, sci fi, television documentaries, etc.; the moon and Mars especially, but I'll vote a blanket keep since they simply shouldn't have been lumped together like this. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all - These articles aren't crystal-ballish; they discuss objectively the challenges involved in colonization. Notable as a topic of science-fiction literature and as general goals for space expanion. --Hyperbole 04:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all because they (ideally) discuss objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. - Reaverdrop 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All per above. --TM 05:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per User:Reaverdrop. JIP | Talk 06:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment In order to keep down cries of original research and speculation, sources for claims need to be cited. Delete uncited, unreferenced assertions and reword to reduce/eliminate may be, could be, might be, etc.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not in the business of being a crystal ball, true. But we are not saying that XYZ will happen, we are allowing people to describe how it could happen, given the way that the New Space movement grows. Chadlupkes 07:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all per above. Though one has to be careful in writing on them, the many serious proposals for the colonization of the solar system are highly encyclopedic.--Pharos 07:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article is well-sourced. In case this is speculation and that can be derieved from the sources, I say that should also be mentioned on the page. --Andy123(talk) 08:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Follow-up Comment - We should veer toward adding cites and cited info rather than deleting content where possible. I added the new references to Colonization of Mercury to get the ball rolling, and to erode any remaining argument for deletion. - Reaverdrop 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the article is now well sourced. Many scientific theories are just that. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But this article's not about a theory - it's about an event that may or may not happen in the distant future. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now - this is a notable concept in science fiction and for speculation in "real" science. I suspect the titles need a tweak of some sort, and I'd like to see the notable fictional references such as from Asimov's Robots short stories, which demonstrate that the conccept has existed for some time. Also it would be good to see how the changing facew of what we know about the planets has informed the way the subject is treated in fiction and fact. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rather interesting. Tyrenius 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All - There are numerous articles on Wikipedia that discuss future possibilities: Peak oil, Hydrogen economy, Ultimate fate of the universe, Wind power, any number of proposed transportation projects that may never happen (e.g. Union County Light Rail). Check out the "see also" section in Futures studies. The editor proposing these deletions says "they all discuss future 'events' which probably will never happen." Here is what current NASA Administrator Mike Griffin says: "I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond." http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/. (This NASA site includes many references).--agr 11:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Peak oil will happen and may even have already happened, and the universe certainly will end, but our guidelines say that future events should only have an article if they are "almost certain to take place" - see WP:NOT. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Peak oil may have happened already or the Moon may be colonized first; there is a range of opinion on both subjects. And I think you are quoting the WP:NOT crystal ball section out of context. The types of events it is talking about are specific things like elections or sports matches. It goes on to say "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."--agr 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all The speculations are primarily external, and not by the wiki-editors. --eivind^t@c 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I listed all the articles together because to me it seems that if one is unencyclopaedic they all are, but as it seems a lot of people don't think so, I've separated the six articles' listings. They are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Venus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the Moon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the asteroids, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of the outer solar system and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Titan. Worldtraveller 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is fair. There was one proposal that seems to be largely opposed, so now we have to go back and add our comments to six different articles?--agr 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll second this. The core arguments being discussed on this page are not based on Mercury, but broadbased and could be applied to all. Why not delete Space Colonization entirely if we're going to follow the logic being applied by those who want to delete. After all, it's speculative and talking about possible future events. I think this discussion page should be used for all of these articles. We will spread our wings and fly. And we have to foster dreams to keep that a potential. The alternative is unthinkable. Chadlupkes 13:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. colonization of space is a valid, legitimate WP article and scientific concept and this is not at issue here. The issue is the clutter effect of creating a lot of tiny splinters. As I said in my note for Titan below, I think we should try to fit all ideas in either colonization of space or the outer solar system and only split off once they get too big. Crum375 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If the articles are already split off, and have a solid navigation system to enable people to move among them, why do the work to combine them now and then have to reverse that work when people start paying attention to them? With the navigation, I think they're fine broken apart like they are. Chadlupkes 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The article has sources that are published. This can't be said to be original research by the wiki-editors. --Knucmo2 12:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per CanadianCaesar, Reaverdrop and siafu User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 13:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per above. The articles were surprisingly good, and too long to merge with articles on the individual planets. Smerdis of Tlön 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all decent articles with references --Astrokey44 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, you could sum up this article to just read "Colonization of Mercury: Can't happen."--Isotope23 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. We could do it now if we wanted to spend exhorbitant amounts of money. You build in the shadowed polar craters, and cover with insulating material. RJH 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • And then you could build another colony on the sun for your friends so you could wave to them from Mercury!since sarcasm doesn't translate to the written word I tag is as such.--Isotope23 19:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Sarcasm noted. However it is not out of the question to build a heliostatic observation base using a solar sail. So your remark just demonstrates a certain lack of imagination. ;-) — RJH 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Article is not speculating about what might happen, but is instead studying how it might occur in a theoretical sense. Should we not have articles about the effects of an asteroid strike to our civilization just because it is speculative? :-) — RJH 16:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepLeoO3 16:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CdnCaesar, et al. Bucketsofg✐ 17:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BigDT Sumergocognito 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps consolidate to something like Theories of extraterrestrial colonization (or something like that)? Sumergocognito 17:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In particular, see the very first sentence: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Kafziel 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what's the timeline we will accept? We will eventually have people on the Moon and Mars. That's probably within the next 20-40 years. Maybe Mercury will have to wait a few hundred years, but I personally doubt it, at least not if we can actually get something moving. The future is a long time. Will we prevent discussion on extra-solar colonies using the same logic? What about permanent science stations on the floor of the Oceans? We can't limit ourselves to 5-10 years on Wikipedia, not if we want to give our readers & editors the idea that what they write and work on will be read by people beyond that timeframe. We will eventually reach Mercury. It's a matter of time and will. And we have plenty of both. Chadlupkes 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. If and when those things happen, and if Wikipedia still exists at that point (which is highly unlikely), then the articles can be created. We don't need to make articles for every possible future event just in case it eventually happens. An article takes two minutes to create; there's no need to get a jump on things decades or centuries in advance. And, yes, I would advocate deleting any of the other examples you've given. Man hasn't even set foot on the moon in three decades; there's no reason to think we're about to start growing alfalfa there or something. Kafziel 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The 25th International Space Development Conference was this last weekend. I think Wikipedia or some evolution of it will exist quite far in the future. At least I hope so. Chadlupkes 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. 25 conferences and how many planets/moons/asteroids have they colonized? Not a one. No reason to think anything will be different by conference #50 or 100. I'd like to think Wikipedia will be around in the future, but there's really no basis for that. There's no reason to even assume that the Internet itself will be around at that point. The colonization of the outer planets is at least a paradigm shift or two away. Kafziel 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

However, if you ask anyone in the NewSpace community, they will tell you that with sufficent capital investment they could do all of these things immediately. The Space Elevator being developed by Liftport has an estimated development cost of $10 Billion. That's accessible from any number of governments, corporations and even individuals or coalitions. How many conferences occured among ship captains in the 1300's talking about the potential for an ocean route to the West Indies? We'll never know. 33 years ago, we were on the moon. We will go back, unless naysayers continue to prevent it. Yes, we have a lot of work to do here, but the only thing preventing us from looking up is the people who keep saying "it won't happen". And this is quickly devolving into a debate on the subject, not these specific articles. It looks like there is more support for keeping than deleting. Can we resolve the vote and move forward? Chadlupkes 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Followup comment: These are not exclusively about speculative future events. They are about the strictly factual past and present of a wide body of research and commentary. The arguments for deletion keep repeating the idea that these are only about speculative future events needing entries to act as crystal balls, which simply isn't true. As I said above, we need to add new sources and new sourced information in the articles to contribute to their coverage of past and present research and commentary, which includes a lot of sophisticated and fascinating research by many of the best known and loved scientist of the past fifty years. I started that with the Colonization of Mercury yesterday with just sources I happened to have within arm's reach of my computer; there is a great deal of well-sourced existing research yet to be added, including many papers in the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals, which many of us will be adding in the future as time allows. And that includes far more material than needed to justify each of the individual entries listed. To get started on coordinating such activities, I've opened a Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization. Since the arguments for deletion have ignored the fundamental factual history these articles are intended to cover, those arguments can be dismissed as specious. - Reaverdrop 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So because I disagree with you, my argument is specious? Don't be ridiculous. I didn't ignore your arguments; I disagree with your entire premise that there is a "wide body" of work dealing with the colonization of Mercury. There's not even a wide body of work detailing plans to get there, much less to colonize it. A book and a couple of websites does not a viable theory make, and therefore I think it should be deleted. Personal attacks like that aren't going to make me change my mind and they aren't going to fool the bureaucrat who will make the final tally. Kafziel 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a wide body of research (serious, peer reviewed, engineering sand pace science) on how to get to the various planets, and why you would want (or not want) to go to specific ones. These articles don't generally go into huge depth in those sources, but they are definitely out there. The tradeoffs of trajectories, propulsion types and mission designs, landing site analysis, resource analysis, human factors of various missions, etc. The Moon and Mars are the best studied, followed by the Asteroid belt, but people have researched every possible place to go in the solar system (and outside it, for that matter) as an engineering problem for colonization.

You may not see that research if you don't hang out in those communities, but there are hundreds or low thousands of technical papers (peer reviewed, etc) published and probably ten conferences a year on the serious technical engineering and scientific issues associated with space development and colonization, looking across the world. It is a very serious deep technical field. Georgewilliamherbert 04:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attack, I made a frank and informed evaluation of the argument. As I said, the references I was able to put into the Colonization of Mercury entry last night, which draw from popular and peer-reviewed literature by expert scientists, was the result of ten minutes of pulling out books I could reach without getting up from my computer. It's the very beginning. You have also shifted your argument now from denying the existence of a factual subject to denying that enough sources exist to support the entries. A very large body of work on these subjects does exist; discoveries of the breadth of this literature have astonished me more than once. Your lack of knowledge of these references does not render them non-existent. - Reaverdrop 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't shifted my argument. At no point in my original statement did I say that random speculation on the subject does not exist. I know it does. I said that the topic fails to meet the crystal ball criterion that it should be a near certainty. I stand by that. If you want to discuss the speculations presented about the possibility of colonization, then this should be moved to "Theories of interplanetary colonization" or some such thing. It has nothing to do with the references; I don't care if you have 100 of them. The actual colonization of Mercury has not happened (and, I'd say, will never happen) and therefore this is in the wrong place. Don't worry about it - there are enough supporters here to keep the article from being deleted without you trying to have my opinion disregarded. Kafziel 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between mere random speculation, and decades worth of rigorous scientific and engineering studies on a speculative subject. - Reaverdrop 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And you call yourself a skeptic. Kafziel 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See Karl Popper and Carl Sagan. Science needs two engines, skepticism and wonder. Without the wonder to ask daring questions and investigate the least unlikely answers, one is reduced to a navel-gazing philosopher. - Reaverdrop 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So, we've got Sagan, a science fiction writer, and Popper, who basically said that everything is valid until you can prove otherwise. My vote remains "delete", and it won't mean much in the final tally anyway. Let's just leave it at that. Kafziel 19:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For your future reference, Sagan's single effort at science fiction weighed against his lengthy career as the chairman of the Cornell astronomy department and one of the most widely cited authorities in the scientific literature on planetary science hardly justifies labeling him a mere science fiction writer rather than a top scientist. - Reaverdrop 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My word choice was poor. My (rare) attempt at brevity won out over clarity. The mention of science fiction was only meant to illustrate the speculative nature of his overall philosophy. Two enemies (and victims) of skepticism are hardly the ones who should be allowed to redefine the term. Kafziel 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You've replaced one astounding characterization with another; most people would have named Sagan as a champion of skepticism. - Reaverdrop 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure, he could be skeptical when he wanted to be. Anyone can do that. People who believe in the Rapture can pull off that very same feat when it comes to evolution, but I don't think I would consider them champions of skepticism. ;) Kafziel 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rapture has not happened, and will likely never happen, and yet wikipedia justifiably has an article on the subject. These articles do not describe an event past, present, or future, but rather a possible program of action, and current programs of science and exploratory engineering. There exist hundreds of sources because these are ideas in serious consideration and investigation. siafu 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone wrote an article speculating about the time when the Rapture would occur, that would be a crystal ball and a good candidate for deletion. But that's not what this article is about - it is about a doctrine taught in mainline Christian churches and believed by most conservative Protestants. Any good content from this article should be merged into the Mercury article itself. BigDT 18:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any timelines in the article, just information about the potential advantages and disadvantages to the concept. Chadlupkes 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article, or in the others, is there a prediction speculating about when colonization might occur. But, you're also absolutely right that this is not the Rapture (as mentioned in your edit summary), as we actually have some reason to suggest that this (i.e., colonization) might actually happen someday. siafu 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not lower ourselves to make comparisons with religious articles. The rapture (which, as a matter of fact, some believe has already happened) is a notable topic inasmuch as the Easter Bunny is a notable topic, whereas the colonization of Mercury is not. The speculation about colonizing other planets is, and I did suggest moving this to some more appropriate title.

Religious theories never rise above speculation; that's what makes them religious theories. If they came true, they'd be science. On the other hand, "speculative science" is a nice way of saying "science fiction". We should be holding our science articles to a higher standard than that. Kafziel 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the fact that this has not happened, and may never happen is irrelevant; whether you consider a valid analogy to a religious topic "lowering ourselves" is up to you. The article is not about making predictions; it's more comparable, for example, to an article about a proposed bridge that was planned, engineered, discussed, and possibly even partially financed, but never built. Such would be an equally encyclopedic topic, and similarly not making crystal ball predictions. siafu 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a more appropriate analogy would be the idea for a bridge that was discussed among a few architects and filed away for being completely impractical, without ever having professional plans drawn up or receiving any significant financing. A real-world analogy might be the myriad plans for developing a memorial for the World Trade Center. The hundreds of absurd ideas that didn't get past the discussion phase do not have their own articles here. They were impractical, they were not acted upon, so they would only be notable as part of a larger subject, or with a qualified title. Kafziel 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Summaries of research on future technologies, and summaries of speculation about topics are encyclopedic and notable. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Followup - New evidence affecting debate: A few other people had already signed up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization within minutes of its creation, constituting evidence of commitment to strengthening these articles. - Reaverdrop 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Together with the other colonizations, this article is OK. In fact, they may eventually merit mention on Wiki's homepage. Ted 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Keep All - and improve according to Wikipedia standards I agree that there is a need for these articles. If they must be spun off from another article then that is not in itself an argument that they should not exist - that is just a question of organisation. Planets and the moon and Titan are factual matters. Space exploration is factual. Space exploration of the solar system inevitably raises issues of the habitability of the solar system. These issues exist as a function of the relationship of human biology and terrestial life, generally, to hostile but reachable environments. These issues are real, not fictional. If the subject is denied then it is censorship of information necessary to the ongoing human exploration and settlement of new environments that took us out of the Rift Valley of Africa many hundreds of thousands of years ago to the point where we are now on the verge of colonising neighbouring worlds. Anyone who suggests that this is "speculation about the future" should not bother to post on the internet, since they are speculating that someone will read what they have posted. Some assumptions about the future are well founded and reasonable while others are not. Science assumes that what holds true today will hold true tomorrow. It is speculation about the future, not scientifically verifiable, since we cannot time-travel into the future to verify our assumptions, but scientists do it all the time. In this case we are using facts about planetary objects, physics, biology etc., and the speculation is that human nature, curiosity and necessity will urge us as a species to do what we have done in the past, that is, to explore and colonise our environment. All life does it - why should it be unreasonable speculation about the future to suggest that humans will continue to do so? Rather, to suggest that we might not is highly speculative and unsupported by any evidence that I am aware of! - Elizabeth Jane (registered with Wikipedia) 6:04 AM 9/05/2006 Adelaide (C.S.T.)

• Hearts - "If the subject is denied then it is censorship of information necessary to the ongoing human exploration and settlement of new environments that took us out of the Rift Valley of Africa many hundreds of thousands of years ago to the point where we are now on the verge of colonising neighbouring worlds" - Awesomely put, Elizabeth Jane! - Reaverdrop 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. Because the scientists who design the spacecraft that will bring colonists to Titan are going to consult Wikipedia for the latest info on the subject, and reorganizing these Wikipedia articles would doom any hope of future space exploration. That's just melodrama for its own sake. Kafziel 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you're trashing Wikipedia? Wikipedia's the future, man. I think the Titan colonists will be referring to and continuing to update that very entry we are just starting. - Reaverdrop 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No-one's trashing Wikipedia - it's an encyclopaedia, not a space travel manual. Given that No solid plans or studies have been made regarding manned missions to Titan, I fail to see how we can have an article about it. Note that I didn't list Space Colonization for deletion, just the over-specific, necessarily speculative and unencyclopaedic planet articles. Worldtraveller 13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think Space Colonization is a candidate for deletion, then I think you may have misused the AfD process. It's not a mechanism for resolving disputes about whether articles should be split or merged. It's for removing content that has no place at all here. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. --agr 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. The information here could be merged if desired, but this page should still be deleted. There's no need to turn it into a redirect, because there's no such thing as the colonization of Mercury, so nobody is going to search for it. Reaverdrop has decided to turn this into a soapbox (and nearly dragged me in, which is why I struck my comments below), but Worldtraveller's use of AfD is entirely appropriate. Kafziel 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policy on deletion of redirects: Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F.--21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Give me a few Billion in capital, and I'll put one out. Give anyone the capital necessary, and they'll find a way. Lacking that capital, it's not being looked at seriously by the government. That doesn't mean it won't happen. To follow the logic put forward by this deletion recommendation, anything like this would have to find a new home on the Net, and only come to Wikipedia when it has happened. How many people working on Wikipedia right now would move away because of this change of policy? Do we want them to leave? I don't. Chadlupkes 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If I have to give you a rough estimate of how many would leave Wikipedia over this, I'd have to say... zero. But I could be a little off, so based on the comments here and the membership over at the Space Colonization project page, I'd be willing to go as high as two. Kafziel 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. I'm not "trashing" Wikipedia. I'm being realistic. Where was Wikipedia when Man circumnavigated the globe? Where was it when Man explored Antarctica? Where was it when Man went into space? Somehow, we still got the information we needed. Apollo 7 wasn't designed with Mozilla and CorelDraw. Before the world wide web, I'm sure lots of people thought their bulletin boards were the wave of the future. Back when modems screeched and every board was run out of some guy's basement. Where are they now? Don't kid yourself about the importance of our project, because that's when you start to find yourself defending absurd claims like the above.

Have you seen her statement that a ride at the fair is "probably symbolic of the hermetic teaching, found in the Major Arcana of the Tarot, and also in the meaning of the phoenix of Celtic mythology"?[3] If she can force herself to be that melodramatic about a carnival ride, I suppose it's no wonder she can vomit up such glowing support for this. Kafziel 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Never mind. Kafziel 13:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep until something more creative than deleting or keeping is decided. I might suggest a merge to Mercury (planet) or to colonozation of space or some such. This is useful information and not really original research since it is reporting other proposals and a general debate.--Nick Y. 21:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and as a deletionist I wasn't expecting to vote that way till I read the article in question. There is nothing wrong here. The Mercury article is verifiable, is not original research, has citations for many of its claims, and covers an interesting topic. I see no unwarranted speculation. If the other articles are not of a similar standard, then they should not be in a grouped AfD, so I will assume that they are all good enough to keep. — Haeleth Talk 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't assume that without reading them - they're no longer grouped, actually, because people complained when they were. The other six article now have their own AfD discussions going on. Worldtraveller 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The others will be getting the same treatment. The improvement in the quality of the Colonization of Mercury page has been going on since it was nominated for deletion, and has barely begun. - Reaverdrop 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Mars Raichu 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing you actually mean Mercury? siafu 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is (or could be) about research and sci-fi - not just about a possible future event. If nothing seems to be added or improved after some time, lets merge to one article and seperates for moon and mars. Lundse 00:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE all except moon+mars, because those are feasible and being considered by NASA. Rest is randomcrapcruft. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the lot. Reyk _YO! 08:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• These are horrifically bad articles, so much so that reading them changed my mind. They should all be deleted for crystalballism and opriginal research, and hopefully someone will then create articles that actually deal with the real projects and suggested methods of colonisation that have been put forward by or within notable (preferably governmental) organisations. Vizjim 15:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Motion to end debate - Not sure how this works, but I would like the vote to be tallied and a decision made. Let's move forward. Chadlupkes 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not how the process works. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep! Lankiveil 00:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on all, these are all serious, legitimate technical fields of study. Georgewilliamherbert 04:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep Dspserpico 04:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all except Colonization of the Moon and Colonization of Mars, given the ubiquity of their themes in science fiction AND their frequent mention as actual possibilities. I'm wobbling on Colonization of Venus, but only because older science fiction stories (here, I'm thinking up to golden-age Ray Bradbury and the like) assumed it was possible, and this article could be a corrective. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:Calton - There are several articles that have appeared in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society alone that have dealt exclusively with terraforming and colonizing Venus, and Venus was the subject of the first ever scientific paper on colonizing another world. - Reaverdrop 11:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion to passing admins There are now a number of votes stating "delete this but don't delete that". The group delete proposal is obviously null and void. As such, it shoudl surely be closed and the invididual articles nominated for deleteion? Vizjim 08:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The invididual articles already have been nominated for deletion, as of May 8. I think its fair to say that at this point there is strong support for keeping all the articles except Titan, which most comments suggest should be merged into Colonization of the Outer Solar System.--agr 11:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all as per above. wikipediatrix 11:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all there is mountains of literature on all of these. - FrancisTyers 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all There are very famous 20th century scientists who have produced many works of literature on this topic, and that is NOT original research. It continues to be thought through and attempted by many respected scientists and scholars, and that is what this page is about. I would like to add that the attempts to delete all of these pages is counter productive, and a waste of everyones time to have to defend a perfectly good subject. This is irresponsible, and makes one wonder if the people asking for this have any knowledge of the subject. Judgesurreal777 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Update - Normalization of Colonization of the outer solar system article begun by WP:SPACE. - Reaverdrop 02:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted. --InShaneee 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ganny

A joke. Still jokes are not CSD. feydey 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense BigDT 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Aplomado ^{talk|contribs} 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no need to wait 5 days - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Mary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mhairi

Delete. Article about a variant of the name Mary. Inappropriate topic for encyclopedia and only "over 1000" bearers. Deprodded by anon without explanation - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a significant name. Aplomado ^talk 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Mary which already lists some variants. ConDem^Talk 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - we have articles on all the other first names. Why not this one too? - Richardcavell 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We do, on notable first names. There is no article, for example, on Betsy. Aplomado ^talk 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. TheProject 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge w/ Mary. Alex (t) 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Mary. JIP | Talk 06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge --Andy123(talk) 08:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per the above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Mary and redirect. —Whouk (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge and keep as redirect.Tyrenius 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and keep as redirect. As per Tyrenius User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 14:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Mary. --Eivind^t@c 15:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect given sufficient citation.--Nick Y. 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• merge and redir per anyone else who wants to do the same M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

List of words for peace

I never thought I'd have to utter this variant of WP:WINAD, but here goes: Wikipedia is not a thesaurus. The only list of this type I could possibly imagine voting to keep would be a list of words for hello, which I can't find anywhere here. (Random WP observation: we might not have a list of words for hello, but we do have a List of hello world programs.) TheProject 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hello. Peace! Delete, WP is not a translating dictionary. Note that the list contains no more than one word in any language, so it doesn't quite hit on WINAThesaurus. I note that a transwiki has been proposed; I question whether this list is quite right for that project, but I'm not familiar enough with its policies, so I'll leave it for them to decide. Barno 01:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: oops, I obviously don't understand what a thesaurus is. :-) As for the transwiki part, there's not a single definition on that page that isn't already in wikt:peace#Translations, so I don't see the point of a transwiki. TheProject 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed; I was only noting the transwiki proposal, not advocating it. Barno 14:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - yeah, it's not for wikipedia. - Richardcavell 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Transwiki to Wictionary if possible; it seems like it belongs somewhere. Just not here. --Hyperbole 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per User:Hyperbole. JIP | Talk 06:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to those voting transwiki: there is nothing in the article that is not already on Wiktionary. TheProject 07:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --Andy123(talk) 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What people could do if they wanted to know different words for peace is go to Peace and click on the links in the 'in other languages' bar at the left. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:20 UTC
• I have added links to Shalom and Salaam, the only two with their own articles, to the Peace article. That's useful. The rest is dictionary entries. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cuiviénen . User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All the information, plus many more languages, is on Wiktionary. --^{speak to}gadren 22:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cuiviénen --Nick Y. 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft (and wrong in Czech version, btw). Pavel Vozenilek 20:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gil Gamesh 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wuice

Joke entry. No citations. Wüs is an apparent attempt at a redirect. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - unless someone can show it in common usage. - Richardcavell 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. If the word can be demonstrated as being in common usage then it might be a candidate for Wiktionary, but not WP.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, and a joke entry. Google doesnt turn up anything relevant to this article. --Andy123(talk) 09:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others. Joke/hoax, nonsense, etc. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Upon further review, likely not a hoax, but I still can't find any evidence that it's notable enough for an article. Perhaps if verifiable info can be found on it then it can be put into Wiktionary. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's very possible that this is just a regional drink. ^juppiter bon giorno
• Abstain If the cruel joke User:OrphanBot is not deleted, neither should this funny joke be. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Probably regional dialect. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Bao, you traitor! How could you give in? Weijola 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wuice is a real drink. - VenomSnake 12:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep My grandmother introduced me to Wuice when I was 5 - it most certainly is a real drink. - Dave P. 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard wuice used in everyday context - no reason to delete - Jeremiah. 3:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very nice, Juppiter. Yeah, sorry kids, as much as I love the article, it's no good simply because I've never heard it mentioned outside of Delmar, NY. And the sources are interesting, to say the least. Weijola 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: Please check the page history for this discussion. Some comments were placed by anonymous (IP address) accounts. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Sources" listed in the article don't corroborate the story, and the existence of this drink sounds even less likely than the Spanjo. --Elkman - ^(talk) 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, zero Google hits. Hoax. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although a little weak. I think it might be a regional thing, but I have heard it used. Kaleks 02:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wonderful! Then you'll be able to document its existence, I'm sure! User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - oh come on, it's an obvious joke article. Hoax. AnonEMouse 19:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Preston Ursini

Not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• "He works for the Geek Squad at Best Buy." What, this guy isn't deserving of his own encyclopedia article? Speedy delete as no notability asserted. Aplomado ^talk 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• No speedy, but delete and reconsider if "is currently developing" ever becomes "has developed a very influential piece of software". TheProject 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• No delete:' The software is out there, the page is just down due at the moment. The software is just in beta, so it's stated as "is currently developing". It's actually the nicest IRC gateway I've ever seen 11:13, 8 May 2006 (CDT)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.122.230 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Vanity article with slightly amusing undercurrent of megalomania. RobLinwood 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Keep I used to give this kid swirlies in highschool, he at least deserves something. Rekutyn 08:45, 8 May 2006 (PST)
• Delete. Not notable, as Jossi said. Eccomi 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 04:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Removed vandalism which turned it into an attack page. However, I don't think he meets WP:BIO so delete. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 08:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Andy123(talk) 09:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete--Nick Y. 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.--Jusjih 08:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical London travel guide

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Any encyclopedic material which is added to this article should be added to the articles on the relevant museums etc instead. Alternatively the writer may be interested in contributing to Wikitravel. Bhoeble 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Bhoeble 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Aplomado ^talk 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. RobLinwood 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 09:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--blue520 15:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikitravel. Ardric47 04:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project. If the writer wants to post there, let them do the work. Scranchuse 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it somehow incompatible with our license? Ardric47 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikitravel is a Wikimedia project, but it uses Creative Commons licensing rather than the GFDL, hence we can't transwiki there. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete. It is not indescriminate and does not duplicate anything. Bhoeble, if this info was added to individual museum articles, it wouldn't be findable by someone wanted to visit museums with content for a given era. And doesn't the whole notion that this info should be added to individual museum articles contradict the notion that this info is indescriminate? Greg 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That argument is a straw man, Greg. Stifle (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. Recommend the author check out Wikitravel. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Use Wikitravel instead.--Jusjih 08:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with strong recommendation to copy/paste to Wikitravel. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing

Essay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Is "really rather silly" a valid reason? Because it is. Carlo 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Keep - nothing is a valid concept, just like zero is a valid number. Could use a cleanup, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. - Richardcavell 04:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, valid concept (and there must be a reason it's existed since 2002 without an AfD). Anyway, I've seen essays (that were signed!) kept before; they just need cleaning up and wikification and they're not bad articles. --Rory096 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. --TM 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs cleanup but a valid topic for an article. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Rory. --Chaser 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Richardcavell and User:Rory096. And not having an article on nothing would look pretty silly. JIP | Talk 06:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep An article on the philosophical concept of nothing is valid. This needs a radical cleanup though, as it is a rather unencyclopædic mess at the moment.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We're more likely to get a good article if this roadblock to coherence is eliminated first. --- GWO
• Keep, rory just saved an article, though I agree with Gareth and aeropagitica, it definately needs some work. :) --Andy123(talk) 09:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stuff in it. Tyrenius 11:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs a rewrite with what some philosophers/thinkers have thought of nothing (with sources). A very important concept in philosophy too. --Knucmo2 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As per all above arguments. Nothing is a valid concept especially to modern and post-modern philosophers. As above, I agree that it needs a radical cleanup, and hopefully the attention it's getting with the AfD discussion here, it'll get some cleaning up. Psyphics 15:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep as per Psyphics Sparsefarce 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to Wikipedia (oh snap) -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GWO. Such an important subject obviously needs to have an article -- but that doesn't necessarily mean we want to keep this article. I see very little here that is not either nonsense or obvious; realistically, any cleanup would basically involve starting again from scratch. — Haeleth Talk 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing has gotta be worth something. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, math and philosophy term (maybe more, who knows). Could easily become a good article with valuable links to philoso-phers/phies and/or math theories on just what zero is. Lundse 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons listed above. DVD+ R/W 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep or Rewrite from scratch If it isn't improved by the second time around I would vote for delete just to get a better article.--Nick Y. 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. How does deleting everything we have now help make the article better? --Rory096 07:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - the answer is that if editors are faced with trying to clear up a monstrously bad article, they may well back away, whereas everyone enjoys the clean blank space of an article that doesn't exist yet.Vizjim 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox Effect

• Delete - speculative, vague, not backed up by any evidence. Have yet to see a precise and unambiguous test for detecting if a page is "in the sandbox" or not. How do you distinguish the "sandbox effect" from pages that are simply poorly optimised for search engines?. Without such tests, the debate will always tend to be highly speculative. Howard Wright 12 May 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.235.44 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 May 2006
  • Inserting your vote at the top of the page, and voting anonymously (i.e. without logging in) are both bad form --Beachy 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Article seems to be A) original research/pure speculation (depending on one's point of view) and b) questionably encyclopedic. RobLinwood 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, there is validly something known as the Google Sandbox Effect. Check the external links on the page. --Andy123(talk) 09:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if it is real, I am not convinced that it is notable. This is the current implementation of one web search engine's algorithms, after all. I would say that wikipedia is not a webmaster resource, is not an SEO resource, either. cheers, RobLinwood 01:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree -- The sandbox effect is very notable for webmasters everywhere. Being in the Google Sandbox cripples a site's performance, and the web is big business. Don't underestimate the importance of this effect --Beachy 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Check out the external links on the page. Is a notable web phenomenon. --Knucmo2 12:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I have personally seen the effects of this phenomenon and am keen to share knowledge about it. --Beachy 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Weak Keep. Those external links barely meet WP:V, however; if this is notable, someone should find a better source. -- FRCP11 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Should be tagged to cite sources, not for deletion. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - speculative, rewording of other's speculation, neologism of extremely limited acceptance. Real issue unnotable neologism.--Nick Y. 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as speculative unverifiable original research. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it and improve it or move it to another site (where?), but don't delete it please: it is extremely helpful. The sandbox effect is a reality, and yes we don't know everything about it (at least I don't). My website just got "out of the sandbox" today after nearly 6 months, (see that thread where I was trying to understand what was going on). --Martin 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

James Mason (son of Belinda Carlisle)

NN (not notable, vanity, see WP:BIO). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Man, you're fast. I had tagged it, and you had it on AfD before I had a chance. Anyway, children of celebs aren't special enough to get their own articles. --Bayyoc 02:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 02:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Delete Definetly not notable. Bill (who is cool!) 2:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Alex (t) 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being the son of someone famous and having "political ambitions" doesn't make someone notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Zaxem 04:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He doesn't meet WP:BIO as a 14 year old son of a famous pop singer who supposedly wants to be president. However, Jossi could you please expand your nominations. I know that nn means not-notable but not everyone else does. Capitalistroadster 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It also helps to know how you decided the topic was non-notable. In this case I would say that he is non-notable because the only thing he is known for is being the son of someone famous, with no accomplishments or fame of his own. -- Kjkolb 10:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable teenager. JIP | Talk 06:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. DarthVader 08:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Request could the nominator please give reasons for this nomination? Non-notable is a value judgement and not a core criterion for deletion. Vizjim 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• When did it become neccesary to expand on non-notable? There is no claim to notability, thus the article fails the WP:BIO standards. There are so many vanity pages to be deleted, is it practical to give a detailed reason for every AfD nomination? Besides, the precident is well established that nn is an acceptable abbreviation for "non notable". I would have speedied the article but for the fact that that it is a celebrity's son. Otherwise, it definitely meets the criteria for deletion.--Bayyoc 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You shouldn't say "non-notable" anyway. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete as failing WP:BIO M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominus Nihil

original research, non notable. Is it wiki to list every Player guild ever created? If so, then I will reverse my nomination. I don't think it's encyclopedic. Bayyoc 02:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Speedy delete per A7 and I see it has already been tagged. TheProject 02:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Alex (t) 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Zaxem 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete- per Brian G. Crawford, Starblind, the Project and Alex. DVD+ R/W 04:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Not transwikied as it is unverifiable. The three links I found on google are mirrors of wikipedia.--Ezeu 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dabal ka Mitha

Wikipedia is not a cookbook Bayyoc 02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and delete, and suggest to nom that all these recipe AfDs be included together. TheProject 03:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged the rest of the recipies as transwiki candidates. I MIGHT transwiki them in a couple days if the orig author doesn't do it. (That's a lot of work, though)--Bayyoc 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and delete Tyrenius 11:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and detete Ted 17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tranwiki it. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 05:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)|

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. George Tjionas

Delete, looks like a hoax, a google search on "George Tjionas" returns 8 non-related results Prodego ^talk 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - definite hoax. Already been speedy deleted today and recreated by user. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 02:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Joe Jklin 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect and tagged per A7 and G4. TheProject 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't fit G4, but now that the "Nobel Prize" part is gone, it should meet A7. Prodego ^talk 03:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Qabuli

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. NOTE: User:Salmaakbar has posted several recipie articles today. Bayyoc 02:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook and delete. TheProject 03:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• ditto Tyrenius 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, do not transwiki: while it looks like just a recipe, it is too unintelligible to follow, and reads like attempted machine translation. If this recipe has greater significance would cheerfully keep an encyclopedic version. Smerdis of Tlön 15:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the version I based this comment on was in fact unintelligible. The current version is a transwiki candidate, even if I have no way of knowing when I have a keg of rice. Smerdis of Tlön 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably a kg of rice? Hornplease

• Transwiki per TheProject. Although the recipe isn't written very well, it would be best to place it in the Cookbook (maybe under its more common name, kabuli), and then mark it for cleanup there. --^{speak to}gadren 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. Ardric47 04:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tranwiki it. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 05:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Transwiki per theProject. Hornplease 08:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per theProject. Equendil 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Great power. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Major power

This article is Original Research. The users writing the page have been deciding according to their own debates what countries are and are not "major powers". Since "major power" is not a properly defined political science term (it's really only used colloquially), it's impossible to establish a clear criterion for inclusion or exclusion from this article. There is no criterion for what qualities and in what quantity are necessary to deem a country a "major power". This article ought to be deleted and set as a redirect to Great power. —thames 02:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of things. Firstly, it was nice of you to give no warning or notice to the editors that have worked on this article before nominating it. Secondly, is Great power the only term that can be used for a power that is not a Superpower yet is stronger than a Middle power or Regional power. If there is any other term that defines such powers then a simple move will do I think. The majority of the content should stay, in one location or the other. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Great power, a much more specific and better-documented term, in agreement with Thames' comments. Barno 03:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Barno. TheProject 03:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per nom; OR with no definable criteria, content (such as it is) being largely redundant with Great Power. Once we've established that the relevant polisci concepts belong on other pages, all we're left with here is a bulleted list of questionable trivia. And all the list has ever produced is a flurry of counterproductive editing by people who really have no grip on the discipline, but who see dates and nations and automatically want more for their own countries and less for the other guys. (A "honeypot for national self-aggrandisement," it's been called, that attracts "more than [its] fair share of cranks.") A quick look at the talk page confirms this. Albrecht 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Or, to be really clever, rewrite to deal with the Europa Universalis concept ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and save anything worthwhile. - Richardcavell 04:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Great power, merging verified facts as required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect with large merging - the whole series on powers needs looking at though. --Robdurbar 06:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Change to weak keep, editors of page now realise, I hope, that this page (and the whole power series) need to be sourced. Perhaps at some point in the future it may be merged with great power, perhaps there will be scope for two articles. If the page is kept and doesnt change within a couple of months, I'll renom for delete or merging myself. --Robdurbar 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom, but you don't need AfD to do that, just be bold and have this discussion on the talk page. · rodii · 12:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: part of the idea, I think, was to reach a consensus on the need to jettison (delete) most of the content that's there (OR). Have you seen that article's talk page? Suggesting a merge would only lead to endless clamour and bickering from people wishing, against all good sense, to keep what's there. Albrecht 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

An Afd proposal is not the way to force changes to an article. If you object to the contents then as a matter of courtesy you ought to bring it up with editors on the article talk page (as a matter of fact, I might be wrong but don't believe that you have made any particular contribution to the article - 1 minor edit, that seems to be all). As for the article title, 'Major power', I will take your word for it that this does not have a basis in academic political science. If this is the case then it would have been nice for you and Thames to bring this up on the talk page; I don't think that you would have found any disagreement with moving/editing this article if you had calmly and reasonably explained the situation - simply slapping OR tags on the page isn't really a meaningful contribution towards its improvement.

Xdamr, you, I think, are missing the point. We have before us a purely OR article; discussing "changes" or plastering its content on another page won't solve anything. It simply needs to go. Also, your talk of "forcing changes," I find, is disingenuous—"Major power" is not a scientific term and so cannot be "defined" in a manner that would not run contrary to Wikipedia principles. I think this AfD nomination is legitimate and its goal is simple and very clear: delete the current OR article and replace it with a redirect to Great Power, where the general concepts, provided they are encyclopaedic and verifiable, can be developed. I am glad you noticed that I never substantially contributed to what I have openly identified as OR; why would I add to the problem? I see no contradiction. In brief: do you dispute that the article is original research? If not, let's get this behind us and turn our discussions to something called Political science. Albrecht 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So, for those with the relevant academic background, is there or is there not a term for 2nd tier powers, powers such as the UK, France, and Russia?

Xdamr 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're going about this backwards (that's how this mess was started in the first place). One does not create ad hoc polisci terms to fit arbitrary groups of states; one classifies countries according to existing categories and principles. Albrecht 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. ISTM (as a non-expert) that most of the content is indeed original research, so there may not be much to merge. — Haeleth Talk 22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I can't vote in this matter, but I would like to defend the claimed OR in the article. GB, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, and India are widely talked about as Major Powers in the world. Other countries also deserve mention such as Italy, but because they are not "documented" as a major power are not included. Whats ironic about this is that Major Power is the older article of the two. Anyway, if this is merged, all content should be merged. Anyway, the content currently presented, is only there after a LOT of discussion. Slowly but surely, these articles are becoming NPOV, with the current group of dedicated editors, namely Xdamr, Guinnog and Noble Eagle but several others as well. 12.220.94.199 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being "widely talked about" doesn't mark them down as legitimate. If these countries were expressly classified as "Major Powers" in social science texts and peer reviewed journals, you'd have grounds for an article. They aren't, and you don't. Like it or not, Xdamr, Guinnog and Noble Eagle, whatever their other qualities, are not the arbiters of polisci taxonomy, and their discussion, however much of it there was, is no justification for an encyclopaedia article. Albrecht 02:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A point I have made several times on the talk pages of these articles (Superpower etc, which this one derives a lot of its OR from).Guinnog 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The term major power perhaps. But major power is simply a term describing the usage in the media. Take this link that took me five seconds to look up for example. [4] While the article is purely speculative, it does make the important point of the major powers in the world. It lists off China and the U.S.(obviously) as the main powers, with the spoilers being India and Russia and the signficant allies being Europe for the U.S.(speculative) and Japan for China(highly speculative). Nonetheless despite the large amounts of speculation, it does show who are the signficant powers in the modern world. 12.220.94.199 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think that there is scope for an article on major power/great power etc. Whether they should all be redirects to one article, or could even deserve their own, I'm not sure. However, this current version appears to be almost entirely an invention of someone's mind. Delete it, redirect, and then hopefully in a few months it can be recreated with decent conetent. --Robdurbar 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the article is largely unsourced. We were going to pursue that in time and already cut down on much OR in the UK and Russia sections. But firstly and most importantly, rather than going on about your 'no political term' talk can you just tell me what political science students would call powers such as the UK, Russia, China, India etc. that are NOT Superpowers. Just tell me that so that we can move the information to the related page. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you want to keep the article then vote keep; as it stand its being redirected but there's nothing to stop you changing that by voting against it. This isn't really a place to discuss the article's content; hell, you have three or four days - go, find sources, improve it, and people might even alter their votes. --Robdurbar 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research, or provide sources for the term. Vizjim 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, or come up with proper sources. As well as being OR this is also a highly charged political topic and thus draws away editors' energy from more worthwhile work they could be doing. Guinnog 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but appears to be original research through and through. Was tagged for sources on April 25 and I see no attempt by anyone to add any. Other articles such as Hyperpower, etc. should be investigated as well (I have not done so). There would be a need for a non-OR NPOV article on great powers listing some of the factors outlining some of the issues in these classifications, but this is not it and the gentle prod of the sourcing tag seems to have had no impact - I suspect (but cannot be sure) that this is exactly because it is OR/interesting intellectual speculation. Martinp 19:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect, not Delete The only "power" weaker than a major power is a minor power. Xaxafrad 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the political science / geopolitics journals don't really do peer review per se, but all of Hyperpower, Superpower, Major power, Regional power and Regional superpower are in moderately common colliqual use in those communities. They may not precisely define them, but they do use them. If they're terms in use, Wikipedia can and should report on that. Georgewilliamherbert 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not mince words: Since when is Wikipedia a repository of terms that are in "moderately common colloquial use?" Which guideline sanctions; whose authority supports, the creation of Wikipedia articles that are venues for personal opinions developed through the editors' own research? Our mandate here is not, I would think, to pick up scraps of what the media blurt out and to try to cobble articles out of them. Another expression used fairly commonly in the media, for instance, is "major player," i.e. "the Republic of Foo is now a major player in Southeast Fooian affairs." Should I then go ahead and create Major player (international relations) and define it arbitrarily? Albrecht 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Moderately common colliqual use within the political science / geopolitics journals. I don't care what comes up in popular press reports; this is in use within the professional journals and publications of the political science / geopolitics research and policy communities. Georgewilliamherbert 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Further that: Geopolitics/Political science book title, College course title, Ppaer by geopolitics researcher at policy center, paper by former US secretary of state. These primary sources are from the first page of googling the term, not even starting back through my library at home of books or back issues of Foreign Affairs or other journals.

The claim that this isn't in sufficiently common use to document in wikipedia is ill-informed. This is Clearly NOT WP:OR and the AfD premise is faulty. Please DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Georgewilliamherbert 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

George, I've done enough homework to know that the Major power article is OR in all its bearings, that this AfD premise is sound, and that your own "sources" (such as they are) confirm this. Your third link, in particular, bears out the problem with its flippant talk of "major Eastern actor," "major and active players," "major geostrategic player," etc. These are all off-handed, rhetorical expressions with no strictly defined application in the field of international relations. Even its use of "major power" is shaky and suggests a morphous definition:

• "Japan is clearly a major power in world affairs..."
• "Great Britain, to be sure, still remains important to America. It continues to wield some degree of global influence through the Commonwealth, but it is neither a restless major power..."

Nowhere have you illustrated a common usage subject to verifiable criteria. If the term "major power" were a staple in the political science discipline, as you seem to suggest, there would be no need to clarify its meaning with a phrase like "in world affairs." And all this, of course, does not even address the plain and obvious OR nature of the article's content. Albrecht 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is somewhat beyond me how you can state that there's no common usage subject to verifyable criteria. I just pulled up a bunch of sources with 30 sec on Google, and from having studied the field for a decade on and off I can tell you that any semi-competent library search in a Poli Sci / Geopolitics section will find loads more. The word is

1. in common use in the field
2. clearly enough defined that people in the field don't argue about it all the time

The specific country entries are highly problematic; they don't say anything I know to be false about the state of geopolitical analysis / publication, but it's very opinionated and many of them approach or pass OR on content summarization. A shorter list of nations which are labeled Major power in the literature would be far superior, without the problematic longer expansion. Georgewilliamherbert 19:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You just pulled up a bunch of sources that use the term frivolously and arbitrarily along with a handful of others ("major player," etc.) that ought not to have articles. Good effort, but not good enough. ("common usage," by the way, means that the sense (meaning) of the word shouldn't vary substantially. It does.) And if you think the term is "clearly enough defined that people don't argue about it all the time," then you ought to conduct that semi-competent library search you've been talking about and find a definition. The onus is on you. (Oh, and I recommend you take a look at the article's talk page, for instance the section titled "ITALY, WHY YOU DON'T YOU EVEN MENTION ITALY?" Not exactly encouraging.)

Then feel free to try and get reputable cites for the criteria the article is based on, and the content written around them. The main reason it fails is its all-OR nature. Change that and I might change my vote. Guinnog 18:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put those references into the article. The basic definition there, and its usage re: the validity of the term, should be established sufficiently by now.

The question of whether the individual nations listed, and the format or detail of their listings, are appropriate is a completely different question. Shrinking those to a much more compact list, and clarifying that there is no universally accepted list but that these nations have been labeled as such (and preferably, working to reference each nation's labeling) are good things. But that's article improvement work, not deletion justification. I will poke around and work on that, but I can't do it all today. It does need to happen over time, though. Georgewilliamherbert 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good effort. The trouble is, as it stands, beyond the dicdef, the entire article consists of "the individual nations listed, and the format or detail of their listings". I don't think anybody doubts the possibility of a viable article with this title in the future, though it is harder to justify when there an adequate article exists on Great Powers, a term with a much better academic pedigree which seems to include this article's subject. Guinnog 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Powers are distinct from Major powers; conflating the two is a mistake.

In terms of fixing this article; articles which need major repair are specifically listed as a reason not to AfD in the AfD criteria. This needs to get tagged with cleanup and related tags (and fixed...), not deleted. The "nuke it and recreate it later more appropriately" approach is against stated WP policy, though it's something people commonly want to do. Georgewilliamherbert 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The only difference between "Great Power" and "Major Power" is the former is well-defined and solidly entrenched behind history while the latter remains redundant and unsubstantiated (look at the list of Great Powers and spot those without a "downfall" date—they correspond exactly to your ad hoc list of "Major" powers!). As "Great Power" falls out of fashion, other terms like "major power" (or "major geostrategic player," as per your links above) are popping up to express basically the same concept. Or am I missing some Earth-shattering difference between states "that have substantial influence on other states" and those "whose opinions must be taken into account by other nations before effecting initiatives"?

Uh... the only difference between "Great Power" and "Major Power" is that a Great Power status is a historical recognition and that a Major Power is a current status designation. A country was a Great Power, or is arguably a Major Power. This is not just a minor semantics point... Georgewilliamherbert 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nuke it and recreate it later more appropriately" is a gross misrepresentation of the situation when we're talking about an unencyclopaedic term defined only by a smattering of OR: There's nothing to nuke, and very little to recreate that can't be added to Great Power or Power in international relations. Moreover, your calling into question the politics of this AfD does not constitute a defence for the article. Defending the article would involve backing up the substance, structure, and assumptions of its content with the proper sources, and so far, you simply haven't done this. Albrecht 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is at the very least a major overlap between the two terms, and if you deleted the OR bits, there wouldn't be anything left. Sorry, but FWIW I am not convinced. I speak as someone who has tried hard to improve the current article over the past months. Guinnog 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If criticising all the efforts to improve the articles is improvement then pardon my ignorance. See Talk:Superpower to see what I'm talking about. Firstly, we've got the criteria sourced by a reputable organization, what more do you want? Secondly, your work on this article has comprised of very few edits. I didn't want to make this personal, but as a guy who's accepted as a frequent editor of the Power in international relations articles, you've got on my nerve with your criticism and lack of helping the action. Anyway, no hard feelings. It seems we've got a Political Science dispute here, which should have been sorted on the talk page before nominating for deletion. I'm voting keep until you PS students can come to a conclusion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Show me criteria sourced by reputable organizations and I'll change my vote to "keep" in a heartbeat. So far, the citations in the opening paragraph lead to a laughable assortment of blogs, news stories, dead links, and a book cover. Sorry, no game. Also, (and I hope I don't "get on your nerves" by saying this), my conviction is that a "delete" vote on this gangrenous wreck of an article is the single best "helping action" one can offer here. Albrecht 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

An organization by the name of Global CPR was used and is used to source the criteria. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would question though whether this one reference (interesting though it is) is notable enough to base an entire article on.

I would note too that their criteria (which are unreferenced) are subtly different from the ones in the article, and that the conclusions they draw are slightly different from those in the article. There remains the nagging doubt in my mind too about whether this article may be based on an earlier version of this Wiki article, leading to a circular situation! Best case scenario, we establish that this article is based on (plagiarised from?) the OR of one website, moderated and modified by the original research of several Wiki editors.

While it is an interesting debate, whether such-and-such a power is a "Major Power" or an "Emerging Superpower" etc, I don't think it belongs on an encyclopedia as it is too arbitrary. Really, who are we to decide whether Russia (say) is a Major Power?

If this article is allowed to stay on Wiki in anything like its present form, we could have next an article on Possible Superpowers of the 22nd century, or one on Countries which will probably never amount to much, or one on Countries which could have been Superpower contenders but blew it. Synthesise some OR criteria and make a list of countries, then let the arguments begin. Entertaining though this might be (up to a point), it doesn't seem apppropriate for an encyclopedia.

I appreciate the work you have put in to try and improve this article, and understand how galling it must be to see the work seemingly deprecated; be assured this is nothing personal (as I mentioned in your talk page), but just a recognition that there is no way to save this from being OR. Guinnog 12:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, OR, Wikipedia is not a Repository of Terms in Moderately Common Colloquial Use. See discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_9#What_the_heck Hornplease 07:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge verifiable content with Great power. I've decided to put my vote for something worthwile as the Keep vote just won't work. Unfortunately, these aren't the best days for me to actually edit these articles and I don't get too much time on Wikipedia. So I'm not going to do rapid changes to the articles as I did for another political science deletion a couple of months ago. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Change vote to Keep.

• Redirect and merge verifiable content. I would urge to extend this same discussion to thr following articles : Emerging superpowers: India, Emerging superpowers: Europe and Emerging superpowers: China. Same problems, such as original research and colloquial knowledge and citations, happen there in an intensive way. Cloretti2 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

India's an FA, the guys involved with that don't want the content in the Emerging Superpowers India article. :) Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Barno and merge per WP:V. --Slgrandson 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, rehash of Emerging Superpowers—India and similar crystall ball articles. Pavel Vozenilek 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP the page The only thing that must be done is expanding the sources, which exist and include one or more countries that have this status but you don't mention them becuase you think there is proofs or documentation of their Major Power status, which is the case with Italy. There are enough books about this, there are also internet sources and if you want more sources you can contact some persons which where in Italian government, specially in foreign affairs and defence that can provide reliable sources too you.And in the end there are many italian books regarding this theme. One major writer of italian geopolitics is Mr. Lelio Lagorio, a military that was defence minister in the early 80's.

If you decid not to keep the page, I think you shouldn't delete it, simply merge all its conyents plus the expanded ones with the page Great Power and complement the two pages, but I think this is a wrong idea. ACamposPinho 1:40 10 May 2006

• KEEP I've been away for the fast few days and have been unable to follow or contribute to the discussion, however I see that there have been developments.

From my reading of the Afd proposal there are two main points of contention: firstly, the concept of 'Major Power' is OR and secondly the listing of nations within the article is OR. To my mind only the first is a valid AfD criticism; debates over OR in the article content are properly dealt with on the article talk page - the fact that an article is poorly written is not a reason for its deletion, it is a reason to improve it. As Georgewilliamherbert says above, 'the "nuke it and recreate it later more appropriately" approach is against standard WP policy'.

Either you have not thoroughly read the discussion or you are deliberately obstructing the issues involved. No one wants to delete the article because it's "poorly written." What we have here is an indefinable term built on foundations of bickering and sloppy OR. The grounds for deletion, as previously stated, are that the term is redundant, OR, and, not being a polisci term, "cannot be 'defined' in a manner that would not run contrary to Wikipedia principles."

The question of whether 'Major power' is a term of political science is one for political scientists to debate. Personally, I accept in good faith Albrecht's assertion that it is not. However I do not consider that this alone makes the article OR. We see above, and now in the article, that 'Major power' is a term in colloquial usage amongst those involved in the area; it can no longer be seriously asserted that this is 'OR/interesting intellectual speculation' (per Martinp above). Whether it is a strict term of political science is not the point; it has been shown to be a term of art, this makes it worthy of remaining.

If colloquial usage warrants an article then I expect your full support when I create Major player (international relations), Geostrategic player, and Restless Power.

The term is now sourced. The content of the article may remain open to debate, but the grounds for a legitimate Afd have surely now gone. Informed discussion as to content should now take place on the talk page.

The term, as I said above, is sourced to a laughable assortment of blogs, news stories, dead links, and a book cover. Sorry, no game. The AfD, if anything, is more valid now than when it began since we now know that none of the article's main contributors have shown any serious interest in finding a legitimate basis for the term or demonstrating that it can stand on other foundations than OR (the poor job with sources confirms this). Why not channel our energies toward something productive?

I question whether the votes above can now legitimately stand; now that the term is sourced it is no longer OR. Those who voted above based their conclusions on a superceded version of the article. Either way it would have been much better to have thrashed this out on the talk page before bringing it to Afd. Albrecht said '[I] have never substantially contributed to [an article] I have openly identified as OR'. No-one expects you to contribute to such an article but I would ask whether this precluded you from raising your concerns on the talk page?

Xdamr 13:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice attempt to dismiss the process out of hand. And if you want to thrash things out on the talk page go right ahead; I invite you to debate ACamposPinho's Italian case and his assertion that "there are many italian books regarding this theme. One major writer of italian geopolitics is Mr. Lelio Lagorio, a military that was defence minister in the early 80's." Good luck. Albrecht 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not necessary luck, only money tobuy the books, go at www.internetbookshop.it(ibs.it) and search for Lelio Lagorio, there you can buy his books.There are many others from other sources,including anglo-saxon schoolars and researchers of these theme. ACamposPinho 3:48, 12 May 2006

That's just quoting an example of a one-off. It doesn't happen very often that someone comes and says that they want different nations in the Major power article. In case you haven't noticed, the same nations have been on the article since it's creation. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact of you saying that it doesn't happens very often,is alreadymentioning thatit happens.

I talked to people in wikipedia and they say that I could edit the page, according to the facts that I showed. Neverthless, I talked in the discussion page,because I want things to be done fairly. I'mnotasking to includ my country or other minor powers. Its Italy.I already showed more facts than all thefacts that areon that page for all the countries, and I showed only for one, because I know what I'm talking about. Even if GDP, military, industry know-how and self-knowledge to construct their own things besides geopolits aren't enough, look at Italy cultural and historical impirtance since Roman epoch untill nowadays. 50% of the worldpatrimony is there. I can provide facts and facts, people doesn't wan't to see them because they prefer a forgotten and more fragile Italy.But the reality is very different. I reed above someone saying that Japan is Major Power, while UK is also a Major Power, usefull to USA but a restless power. Its wrong. Besides UK GDP, financial markets strenghtit has the second most active personel on "peacekeeping" actions in the world, its a major EU member, member of Nato with nuclear power, has a UN Permanent Seat on Security Council besides being the chief country of the British Commonwealth. As you said,one must take into account the powerof the region itself and the power that the coutry has in the region to determinate its power in the world stage. Japan is a Major economical power, but can't influence all Asian continent byitself, altough itsan importantcountry in world stage, its more a regional power of East Asia, not even Asia at allits dimension. Japan cannot deploy its armed forces for war purposes, only in peacekeeping or if it where attacked.In that it's more a puppet of USA than UK. The fact the page has the same nations since the begging is a very poor argument.Everything evolves and develops. The Wikipedia project is always in development, look at the newarticles, pages, expanded articles it has compared with the beggining of that project. The english page is evolving every day. The fact that you don't want the page to be developed is that it was created according to your views or its you that have some prejudices against the thruth. Since you have a personal aproach to these geopolitics,you say that are the others that have this sentiment. Nobody its ownerof the thruth, people could only know more of this or moreof that and someone knows more of this and the other knows more of that. You are not owner of the thruth and not even of Wikipedia, you should listen, or reed what someone knows better than you. I've been studying Italian Geopolitics,culture, politics, military,...,for a very long time. What I want is that the Major Power page shows more fairness and the Great Power pages shows historical accuracy, things I don't see on them now. ACamposPinho 2:18, 13 May 2006

OK, you don't need to get touchy about it. And this isn't the place to discuss it anyway. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I dislike the antagonistic approach to deletion; I had thought to persuade the article's editors of the validity of my concern. If their consensus is against me I will annul my vote and leave the rest to their judgment. But I'm not touching that article again. Albrecht 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Strong Keep as per my notes. The crusade has begun, and must be stopped. For this article, I'd have to agree it'd be better served being in Great Powers. However, if this is the start of another crusade against any article with the word "power" in it, then Strong Keep as all the others are well-known, well thought out political articles that tally with public knowlege and the media. It'd be a Wikipedian failure to the public not to include these kinds of articles. However, for this particular article, I fail to see need for a differentiation between Major Power and Great Power Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would invite all people here discussing this subject to extend this treatment to the Emerging superpowers (China, EU, and India and Russia...and blablabla). All sourced points there can be used in their appropriate articles (India..or China..etc). All of them contain original research and NPOV. I know that many fragments are sourced, but to draw a global conclusion based on several facts (very recent ones, still needed to be analized in an historic context) is a little complicated. Anybody here remembers about Japan in the 80's? When the Japanese Royal palace used to worth more than California??? Well, that's my point. Even with sourced facts, a great deal of crystal balling still remains. 200.171.168.91 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Emerging Superpowers and Major powers aren't related enough to be dicussed in the one AfD. Secondly, the Emerging Superpowers articles already survived AfD. Thirdly, fragments aren't sourced, everything (at least in India and China ones) is sourced, the India one uses inotes because it was way to messy with 130-odd sources lying everywhere. Fourthly, there are also a number of links used that directly link India's, China's, EU's power with a rise to Superpower status so that isn't OR. Fifthly, the Russia one and a couple of other made by patriotic editors need to be speedily removed. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You would be foolish to begin this again. It'll only lead to an edit war. You know full well that these articles need to stay for the good of Wikipedia's political section. I will not tolerate this tiny majority inviting people who know little of the subject matter to swing deletion votes. The majority of people who worked on these articles want the articles to stay. Never mind if you manage to whip up enough support from faceless editors in an AfD, you will be defeated by the majority. You were warned. Wikipedians please note the contributions of 200.171.168.91 and their counterpart 201.1.154.57 - nothing other than these articles for deletion. Yet they seem strangely knowlegeable of the Wikipedian workings. Sockpuppets if I ever saw one.Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. All random faceless editors who've had their say on this, please note all the media sources appearing on this article. Whoops. As these articles are all OR by us, someone really out to ring the media up and tell them to stop lying! Shocking, eh? Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong KEEP. Excellent article, very valid topic. Maybe a bit long, but should NOT be deleted. Theonlyedge 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nolte Burke

This article was de-prodded a week ago; the prod read "No indication of meeting WP:BIO." I quite agree. TheProject 03:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Less than 20 unique GHits that actually refer to him, mainly forums and Wikipedia. I have removed him from List of philosophers. Fan1967 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No proof that he isn't actually what people say he is. For all we know, he could simply be featured in local news papers and such that aren't featured online. User:ModernGeek 22:47, 8 May 2006 (CDT)

• Comment. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules on verifiability. In order for an article to be in Wikipedia it must be provably true. "It might be true" won't cut it. Fan1967 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. mgekelly 04:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This person may have some interesting political ideas, but would only be notable if they've somehow gained significant attention. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Zaxem 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:BIO. DVD+ R/W 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, possibly a vanity page by User:ModernGeek.--TM 06:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Part soapbox, part vanity, a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not verifiable per Fan1967. Kevin 12:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Men in Black 3

Delete - Crystal Ball syndrome. Film is only rumor and fan conjecture at the moment. Provided link for "source" is nearly three years old. TheRealFennShysa 03:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - yeah. - Richardcavell 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the lack of an IMDB entry suggests that this project was canceled before it got off the ground at some point in the last three years. --Hyperbole 04:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't deserve a page right now. (Whether it will one day remains to be seen). Zaxem 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until this project is green-lit by a major studio & a press release issued, the page is not required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 3 rumours and a dodgy link doesn't cut it for verifiability. Kevin 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was going to say "Keep" on the grounds that the article could be changed to say that the movie's proposed existence is a rumor, but when absolutely nothing official has been released, there's no point in keeping it. Jared W 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Eternal newbie

Non-encyclopedic topic; description is worthless, nothing more than a vanity chat room rant.

• Delete; this "Eternal newbie" article is not encyclopedic; besides which, it's so badly written as to be worthless even if the topic were encyclopedic. - Reaverdrop 10:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopædic in scope, tone & content.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Reaverdrop. JIP | Talk 06:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't understand how this differs from the definitions of "eternal" and "newbie" combined. --Metropolitan90 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete You've got to be kidding me! (Metropolitan90 makes a good point, too.) Jared W
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Eternal damnation to... WIKIHELL!!! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Metropolitan90's argument. Vizjim 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris Paddock

Delete- vanity, non-notable. This is kid's work, as noted by this revision [5] where Chris Paddock was listed as being born in 1990. Fabricationary 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy a7, but it has nothing to do with him being a child, it has to do with him being non notable. --Rory096 04:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Can't find any Google links which link both Chris Paddock and Paddock Productions together. Quite possibly nonsense. Zaxem 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for reasons above. DVD+ R/W 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and the article has already been tagged. TheProject 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable company and biography.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Borderline neologism.  RasputinAXP  c 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pod slurping

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. History shows article was originally proposed for deletion on 21 Feb, tag was subsequently removed, and article was erroneously proposed for deletion again on 21 April. RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• No vote. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Concur with RobertG -- Simon Cursitor 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ipod or expand. --Several Times 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, neologism verified by cnet and others. — AKADriver ☎ 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it's important enough to take seriously. I have no idea why there are two 'no votes' here. What precisely is that supposed to achieve? - Richardcavell 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • RobertG just brought it here to be decided since it was prodded twice by other users. I don't know what Simon Cursitor meant, though. I would guess that he meant delete, since that is the default position for those nominating articles for deletion. I would either ask him or discard his vote, if I was the one closing the nomination. -- Kjkolb 09:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - 364 unique Ghits makes it a bit borderline. I have a feeling this neologism will be dead and buried in five years, but for now it seems to have acheived some notability. --Hyperbole 04:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. -- Kjkolb 09:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ipod until the term comes into more general usage. Kevin 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kevin. Or delete. But not a separate article, thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO.--Isotope23 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Kjkolb and Isotope23. --Amalas =^_^= 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with ipod Real issue, unnotable neologism. or Delete--Nick Y. 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO RobLinwood 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ipod. Vizjim 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and wikify. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Road Ahead; America's Creeping Revolution

This article was speedied, but is not a speedy candidate; restoring for a proper AfD. Seems like something that can be improved, NPOV'd and kept, if notability can be shown based on influence, citations to the work, sales volume, etc. BD2412 T 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - what's wrong with it? It had a distribution over 500,000. - Richardcavell 04:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Caveat - the article says so, but can that be confirmed? BD2412 T 04:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Verify, NPOV and Keep. --- GWO
• Delete unless that number can be proven. I doubt that a book that has sold that many copies would get only about 30 unique Google results, some from far right websites and most of the others from bookstores. -- Kjkolb 09:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It was published in 1949, and is still available on Amazon. WP:BIO says we should keep authors who has an audience of 5000 or more. There's probably more copies than that in libraries (my own unverified POV). Kevin 12:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kevin. However, it could use some wikifying. --^{speak to}gadren 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, wikify, etc. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can find about 220 google hits[6] so I think that an article on this subject might just about meet WPN:NN. However, this article is not it: unsourced, with some of the claims appearing hard to verify, and written in a very POV style. I think that there is a much stronger case for an article on John T. Flynn himself, who appears to have been a prolific writer on these matters for decades, from a perspective which is notable. Such an article could discuss the book as well as his other writings and broadcasting, and more readily accommodate a balanced account of the man's work. --BrownHairedGirl 08:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Might be best to write such an article and merge this into it as a section. BD2412 T 12:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep iff distribution can be proven. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 14:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Krewmembers

• Keep - Its a webcomic, not very big but more popular than many that have their own entries. Although the article needs to stress more on the webcomic, not on the forum. -Noob User 06:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be nothing more than promoting a non-notable website/forum, advertisement, vanity WilliamThweatt 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom - looks like they're mostly just an attack group of some sort.Tony Fox 04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's a page about a webcomic & the history behind it. No vandalism or attacks, potential for growth. Zombie Dave 05:33, 8 May 2006

Note:this user appears to have been created purely to vote in this AFD (the above entry is their only ever edit), and so is probably the article creator. mgekelly 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Vanity. mgekelly 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. --MaNeMeBasat 05:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be especially notable. Zaxem 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable website/forum. Alexa rank of 2,724,297, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable web forum, vanity. JIP | Talk 06:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This (still in early writing stages) article is about a legitimate fledgling webcomic based off of the life and times of the forum go-ers and the conversations within the threads in said forum. Drawingfreak 02:59, 8 May 2006 (EST)

^{to closing admin: this is this users first and second edit}

• Delete non notable website, advertising.--Dakota ~ 07:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WilliamThweatt. DarthVader 08:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I ran across this webcomic while researching webcomics for a project. I believe this comic is more valuable then many others that have thier own wikipedia page. I do believe their entry could be cleaned up and expanded but I do not feel it should be deleted. GHGoddess 11:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - this is GHGoddess's only edit--WilliamThweatt 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Does this mean that my comments are untrue? This is simply the first thread I felt deserved my time. Thank you,GHGoddess 12:34, 8 May 2006

• Delete Ironically, User:Drawingfreak's keep argument is actually a good reason to delete. In Wikipedia, if your site can still be described as "fledgeling", it probably hasn't achieved enough notice for us to maintain a document that abides by the three content criteria (i.e., WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR). Many assume getting an article on Wikipedia is a good way to get the word out, but that's not how it works. Krewmembers will get more traffic from Wikipedia over the days of this AFD than it would for years otherwise. It's just one article in a million, after all. If you'd like this up on a Wiki, I recommend Comixpedia:. It is based on the same MediaWiki software, uses the same license, and is dedicated specifically to webcomics. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment' - Yes it is just one article in a million, which makes me wonder whats with the attack group, non-notable web forum, spam tags? Its no wonder wikipedia still gets blasted, you guys cant even do research before typing down your opinions. And why put up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics at all if a webcomic isnt allowed an entry? -HailCeasar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.10.184.66 (talk • contribs)

• Transwiki to Comixpedia. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (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.

--WilliamThweatt 04:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jung Sin Yuk-Do

Reason Bacmac 03:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC) not notable group A Google search for Jung Sin Yuk Do martial arts comes up with nothing of great note see: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=jung+sin+yuk+do&btnG=Google+Search&meta= . Other than the Wikipedia related pages the search only shows two links which point to one website in north queensland. The article contains edits that looks like a case of somebody writing an article about themselves and editing out criticism and calling it vandalism. The discussion pages contain entries by Aaron Barnes who says he used the JSYD school pc to work on the article, there is an edit to the entry by Rod Cook(?) confirming. WP:POV Constant revert editing points to possible Ownership of articles with a further possibility of WP:VANITY (search on founder in wiki brought up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_Cook Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles) I have spent time and gone through the article its edits and discussion pages and I suspect Sock puppetry. The use of legal threats on the discussion page (Legal threats) (Libel), personal attacks and placement of personal details (eg. names, email etc. No personal attacks) appear to be used to stifle or hinder discussion or changes being made to the article. There is a lot of editing to wade through in the article and discussion pages so if any Admin have specific questions I am happy to point them in the direction in an effort to cut down time spent locating it. Bacmac 03:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Due to problems with notability. By the way, the name Rod Cook rings a bell. I think that this article or his might have been at articles for deletion before. Capitalistroadster 10:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 10:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is listed on CKD Breakaway Organizations with other styles of similar notability. It could be merged with that page, but it would be inconsistent to merge one article and not the rest. BMurray 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A review of the history of CKD Breakaway Organizations seem to indicate that the JSYD/Advanced Choi Kwang Do/Choi Professionals 'founder' created the list in order to give his newly created organization an appearance of credibility and to place an external hyperlink to its website on the Choi Kwang Do wiki page. Lazydaisy 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Just for clarification, the CKD Breakaway Organizations page was originally within the main body of the Choi Kwang-Do article under 'Hybrid Styles'. It was added on the 6 June 2005, by user 65.35.195.210 from Florida, USA. This user added 8 out of the current 10 'Hybrid Styles' and, in the introductory paragraph to the section, described some of the styles as "outright forgeries". Given this user's choice of words, they are probably not the founder of any 'styles' in the list. BMurray 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The user contributions for the ip BMurray mentions, shows contibutions done over 3 days with no furhter activity in Wikipedia. Bacmac
• Keep The user from Largo, Florida, USA originally created the 'Hybrid Styles' section (now CKD Breakaway Organizations) to disparage Shim Shin-Do, a breakaway style of Choi Kwang Do (CKD) which operates in their geographical locality. The user claims to be the instructor of Steve and Shelley Elrod, which a google search shows are members of the CKD Martial Arts International organization; Therefore this user is a member of the CKD Martial Arts International organization. It is alleged that the user BACMAC is from Townsville, the self-proclaimed Australian headquarters for the CKD Martial Arts International organization. It is also alleged that the user Lazydaisy is from Kennesaw, Georgia, USA, which is the actual World headquarters for the CKD Martial Arts International organization. Any user who disagrees with Lazydaisy in article discussions is automatically labelled as 'Rod Cook', which highlights thier personal vendetta. Surely it is wrong for interested parties and direct competitors to have input into such a project, with the aim of reducing exposure of, or discrediting their competitors? BMurray
• Comment. BMurray to continue typing "Keep" will not result in ballot load of the voting, Comment would be more appropriate for your third entry and would make reading easier. Get rid of the conspiracy theory and instead of allegations against people who are contributing provide information that would support your 'Keep' vote. This article is up for deletion because it has been tagged.." not notable group". Bacmac 10:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Any input from organizations in competition with the subject of the article really should not be given any credence. But if they are, why does the same organization get to use two user names, isn't this a form of 'sockpuppetting'? Just of note for users in this discussion, AfD is not a poll or a 'vote' as perceived by BACMAC. As pointed out before, there are other organizations listed in CKD Breakaway Organizations of similar notability and it would be impracticle to merge them all. BMurray
• Comment I do not know who Lazydaisy is. Bacmac 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC) . Doesn't look like BMurray can contribute anything to to suggest the group in Notable. Bacmac 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear to be notable.--Adrift* 17:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment BACMAC if you believe the article Jung Sin Yuk-Do is "not notable" then why did you create your account with the immediate purpose of nominating the JSYD article for deletion? BMurray 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The_Counterparts

Vanity article. No external references, no significant content updates in past two months, subjects of article are not notable/meriting encyclopedia inclusion Marysunshine 04:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment also see WP:MUSIC -- I forgot to cite it.--Marysunshine 04:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable student band. Zaxem 05:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Music violation - no albums, singles, chart positions, tours, notable members. Myspace would be a better place for this band.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Gyre 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. DVD+ R/W 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete--Nick Y. 01:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete RobLinwood 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- Caim 05:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, unverifiable bio.  RasputinAXP  c 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadhu Sundar Selveraj

Claim of notability is, er, a miracle. I think this violates our verifiability policy. Chick Bowen 04:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. mgekelly 04:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I ran a Google search on this man ("Sadhu Sundar Selvaraj" is the more common spelling), and he seems to be a well-established international evangelist with several mentions from evangelical religious sites and a few books published. The article, as it stands, is not WP:NPOV, but it could be cleaned up into a more autobiographical piece. We have articles on equally unknown American evangelists such as Beth Moore; I don't see why we should delete this one.--Marysunshine 04:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Completely rewrite and rename: his name is Sadhu Sundar Selvaraj. Still, a Google search indicates to me that he's a notable person: [7]. Let's get that unverifiable miracle out of the article ASAP. --Hyperbole 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Well, I'll concede that I didn't notice the spelling issue, and thus was getting many fewer google hits. However, looking down your list I'm not really finding anything I'd consider a reliable source. If this can be rewritten, let's rewrite, but how would you propose we get started? Chick Bowen 06:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatic Delete to this. Not opposed to recreation of a normal article on the evangelist. This stuff is pure WP:VSCA - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Essentially a rewrite of this page. Gyre 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Notable person, name misspelled, written in spam form, unless someone is willing to rewrite it it's got to go. They can come back and rewrite it correctly.--Nick Y. 01:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep `'mikka (t) 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

List of ethnic group names used as insults

Where do I start? Firstly, I think as it stands, this is borderline nonsense. It's not true, and not even verifiable. If someone calls a Bulgarian a "bugger" one time, does it go on this list? It's unmanageable too, not to mention POV. The existence of List of ethnic slurs ought to be enough to satisfy anyone mgekelly 04:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I suspect there is a misunderstanding here. If someone calls an Australian a bugger, it is an insult; moreover, the word used as an insult has an interesting etymology: it comes from "Bulgarian", which is an ethnic group name. That is what this list is about; this is very different from ethnic slurs; in the example the fact that the insultee is Australian is entirely irrelevant or (presumably) not the reason why he was insulted, but rather the fact that he finished the bacon from the fridge that I bought for my breakfast. Lambiam^Talk 04:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This explains what the criteria for inclusion on this list are better than the page itself does. But most of these words surely are not generic insults. I mean, "Aussie"? Are people really running around calling people "Aussies" for stealing their bacon? mgekelly 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Once public awareness that Australians are habitual bacon nabbers reaches a critical threshold, yes, then people might start calling actual or suspected bacon thieves "Aussies", and not as a compliment but by way of insult, something which need not involve ambulatory motion. We haven't quite reached that point yet. But don't say I didn't warn you — you know who you are. --Lambiam^Talk 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 05:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As an Australian, I haven't heard of Aussie being used as an insult. Capitalistroadster 06:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If you called a New Zealander an Aussie, he'd be insulted ;) Grutness...wha? 06:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (delete, BTW)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete relvant items to List of ethnic slurs. Aussie is not a relevant item as aussie is never taken by citizens of Australia as an insult. It would only be so in collateral to non-citizens. List name is based on POV and hence cannot stay under its current heading. Ansell 07:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Listen a sec, people. The entries Paki, Muzzie and Aussie were added recently, on March 31, 2006, by an anon who apparently did not understand the criterion for inclusion on the list. I've removed them. This list has basically been stable since the end of 2004. If some anon adds the Danube, Drau and Mur to List of rivers of Australia, unaware of the difference between Austria and Australia, that does not make that list nonsense and a candidate for deletion. It is just an erroneous edit like so many, that can be fixed. This is a list with a clear criterion, it is not indiscriminate information, it is obviously never going to be very long, it is not nonsense, and I don't see a good argument why it should be deleted. --Lambiam^Talk 09:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The list as Lambiam describes it sounds worth keeping, but it needs to be made clearer on the page itself. Apart from that, if someone called a New Zealander (other than James, of course) an Aussie, I'd be insulted too ;) JPD (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep once the basis of the article was explained. Eh? Is "goth" an insult? --Canley 10:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes. "Goth n 1: a crude uncouth ill-bred person lacking culture or refinement (syn: peasant, barbarian, boor, churl, Goth, tyke, tike)" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=goth And in the middle ages, the "Gothic" art was labeled as such as an insult, because they considered it "barbarian". bogdan 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. bogdan 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep. But more useful if in Australia was added to the title? Markb 13:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It doesn't look restricted to Australia to me! Australia has only been mentioned so much in this discussion because someone added "aussie" to the list. JPD (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

you are right, my mistake. Markb 17:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as List of ethnic slurs already covers this. --Ezeu 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read any of the above beyond the nomination? Did you actually look at the article? --Lambiam^Talk 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did. --Ezeu 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of ethnic slurs.--Isotope23 16:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(and yes I read the article... "The entries on this list are not "ethnic slurs", which have a separate list..." is pure semantics.)--Isotope23 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm truly lost here. Isn't semantics supposed to be about the meaning of utterances? So saying it is "pure semantics" is saying that it concerns the meaning of what we are saying, rather than the typography. Is there something wrong with that? Further, do you seriously want to maintain that calling someone who, say, added lots of four-letter words to your user page a "vandal" is an ethnic slur? I say that you are really stretching the meaning of "ethnic slur" beyond reason. But maybe you don't care what words mean, because that is pure semantics. --Lambiam^Talk 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying that that there is no reasonable distinction in my opinion between "ethnic group names used as insults" and "ethnic slurs" despite the editorial claims on the List of ethnic group names used as insults. ; "ethnic group names used as insults" would fall under the canopy of "ethnic slurs". Saying that they are 2 entirely different things is, in my opinion, a semantic division. I don't see any logical reason being advanced why "ethnic group names used as insults" would not fall under a reasonable definition of "ethnic slurs"... and yes I would consider "vandal" to apply as it is ethnically derived though it has no current ethnic stigma attached to it. On a side note... I predict a keep for this on at least a "no consensus" so interpretation of the terms is kind of a moot point.--Isotope23 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as you agree that to say that "asphalt" and "butter" are different things also constitutes a semantic division, there is at least one thing on which we agree. I advise you, though, not to put asphalt on your slice of bread. --Lambiam^Talk 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an entirely different example... it's "apples" and "oranges"... not a simple semantic division. Besides... I take my toast dry.--Isotope23 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, do not merge. This topic has nothing to do with slurs for ethnic groups, they are the actual names of ethnic groups which have come into use as general pejorative terms with no racial context. I'm not a big list fan, but this is an interesting, verifiable, and notable subject. Obviously, the title is confusing, and there are still some mistakes (kaffir went the other way, becoming an ethnic slur after being coined as a general term for an infidel). But words like vandal and thug are not ethnic slurs. — AKADriver ☎ 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is original research, and encourages further additions of original research. A lexicographer-written or cited article might work, but not this. Ted 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  comment - how is it original research? The etymologies contained here are verifiable. Again, these are not racial slurs. These are the names of ethnic groups that have become words in the English language. In fact, I change my opinion to Keep and Move to List of ethnic group names that have become English words. That would stave off the confusion with ethnic slurs, add more interesting etymologies (Bohemian really isn't an insult), and give less encouragement for people to add trivial slurs like "Jew". — AKADriver ☎ 22:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Many of the entries in this list are not technically insults (and the descriptions are even prefaced as such). I know people can use "Goth" as a pejorative, but I know just as many people self-describe themselves as "Goth" or see it as a positive term. Moving content to List of ethnic group names that have become English words would make more sense based on the current content of the list if this is indeed kept (which it looks like it will be).--Isotope23 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep. All votes for merging into ethnic slurs don't unserstand the basic difference: "Bohemian" is not an insult for Bohemians, i.e., Czechs. It is an insult for something else, even not for any ethnicity. The suggestion of AKADriver about renaming/extending the scope is very reasonable, but it doesn't require AfD intervention. However we should be careful with renaming here: the name suggested by AKADriver opens the door to, e.g., Aussie and the ilk, which are out of question in the current article. `'mikka (t) 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid and interesting information. Provides encyclopediac source for the historical background of words that are commonly used. KevinPuj 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting information. Needs some improvement and expansion.--Nick Y. 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep to weak keep, I think the topic is fine, but the one problem I have with this is that I'm worried about what the standards for inclusion are. Some of these are certainly well-known, but I see potential for slurcruft --Deville (Talk) 04:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to List of ethnic group names that have become English words, as per AKADriver. Vizjim 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge as per AKADriver's suggestion. It is correct to say that my intention in creating the page was to list ethnic group names that have come to acquire an alternative meaning, rather than to list insults for specific ethnic groups. Adambisset 14:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment – Renaming may be a good idea, but this specific proposal has a problem that the present title also has, which is that it does not suggest that the meaning has changed and that the ethnicity of any designees is irrelevant to the applicability of the terms on the list. Is "Gypsy" in the meaning of Roma/Sinti an English word? One could argue that it is, and then the new title is an invitation to add it. --Lambiam^Talk 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above.  Grue  10:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft, POV/edit war magnet, identity politics magnet, and just plain unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. KleenupKrew 11:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete useless POVcruft - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've revised the lead paragraph to better cover the actual list (as well as the intention). The first sentence reads now: "This is a list of words used in the English language whose etymology goes back to the name of some, often historical or archaic, ethnic or religious group, but whose current meaning has lost that connotation and does not imply any actual ethnicity or religion." Perhaps this will inspire someone to come up with a better title for the article. --Lambiam^Talk 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was see the article next in hell - delete. Mailer Diablo 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

See You Next Tuesday (band)

WP:VAIN. No sources (apart from fan sites), no return edits, original research, and no proof of band's notability/merit for encyclopedia inclusion. Marysunshine 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 04:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Zaxem 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I also don't know if anyone's picked up the C.U.N.T. reference ('See You Next Tuesday' - British slang) - Richardcavell 05:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claims to notability for band, as per WP:Music - albums, singles, chart positions, tours, notable members.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:VAIN and WP:MUSIC. --BrownHairedGirl 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Relisted as someone decided to recreate the page after it was agreed to delete. Wasn't sure where to post this, let me know if there is another page to refer recreations to. Thanks. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep.  RasputinAXP  c 20:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hipcrime

This is a vanity page for someone who doesn't have a enough notoriety, also is an advertisement for Usenet flooding software. 167.88.201.100 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the Dippy write vandalware but this is not reason to delete meaningful story 82.99.144.128 21:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Karel Skvorecky
• Keep - an article worth read & WP admin staff should not jumping to conclusion for who is give comment 211.239.125.111 14:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Seocho Gu
• Keep - this bot master really was a trend setting and we hate his wares 193.111.30.10 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Henryk Kosinski Sienkiewicz
• Strong Keep - After reading usenet for more than a decade, I can attest to the fact that many people use the word "hipcrime" and support his/her/their activities. While at the same time, a concerted effort has been made to block people's access to the software in question and even attempt to blacken its reputation. A quick Google will verify these facts. Wikipedia should retain its WP:NPOV and keep this article intact. 59.92.46.28 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Etaoin Shrdlu
  • We know it's you, Hipcrime. This attempt to stack the deck through open proxies (this one is in India) isn't speaking well of you. 70.237.90.95 21:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Mild Keep - what are tildes? 203.115.82.4 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)tildelover
  • Oh, pull your head in and stop writing lunatic conspiracy theorist nonsense. And sign your comments: use four tildes (a 1337 h4x0r like you surely knows what a tilde is, right?). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Besides the fact that HipCrime has become a household word around Usenet, it seems that Rory096 has been removing positive comments in this article and replacing them with negative ones (and even adverts for Supernews). This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.
  • This comment is probably from Hipcrime. 70.237.90.95 21:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question - why does Rory096 edit and remove positive comments while replacing them with negative ones? What happened to WP:NPOV? --HipCrime
• Keep - Based on Google, this does seem to be one of the most notorious vandals of all time - and a precedent-setter, too, being the first to create a web-distributed spambot. --Hyperbole 05:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice towards recreation. I'm pretty sure this violates WP:AUTO (or maybe it's his followers, but this guy seems to be on a lot of IPs), WP:NPOV ("but is also considered a hero and urban legend on the many newsgroups which support his activities? Come on!), and WP:RS. --Rory096 05:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. PITA. -- GWO
• Delete Per the article: "an anonymous Usenet vandal". Enough said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - arrival of Hipcrime on Usenet was a significant event. The guidelines being developed at WP:MEMES might be (fairly sensibly) used to assess notability of this and would suggest that it was/is notable by the criteria being developed there to document the history of the Internet. - Politepunk 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Medium Delete or merge. Perhaps it could be turned into an article on the software tools, leaving the self promotion for notoriety behind. I could be wrong though??--Nick Y. 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not just any anonymous vandal, one that caused Lots Of Ruckus Back In The Day. (The same way Wikipedia might have an article on that car guy and that capitalist fellow, if we haven't had any other more significant trolls by 2015, when proposition to create such article might have any weight. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Yes, he caused a ruckus, but not to the point of being worthy of a wikipedia entry. Duskglow 02:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable. Unfortunately (grumble). Georgewilliamherbert 04:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Georgewilliamherbert. (Yes, exactly.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Hipcrime is quite notable — he's a significant member of the cavalcade of independant individuals who did their best over the 90s to make USENET utterly unusable for no good reason (along with various troll organisations, and AOL). His concerns about our anonymous nominator's excellent work in trying to keep the article somewhat NPOV are, however, groundless: an article that says "HipCrime is the bestest vandal evar!!!!!1111" is not NPOV, and complaining about people who try to tell you so will just get you laughed at. Like this: hahaha! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The kid's just trying to do to WP what he did to USENET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
• Strong keep, unfortunately. DS 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but get rid of the images. Blargh. Alphax ^τεχ 13:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep dewet|✉ 13:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I am concerned by the fact that someone has tried forging comments on this afd. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hipcrime was a major nuisance back then. Dr Zak 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• strong Keep Article is interesting and notable IMO. Looks liek this guy's work was seen by alot of people.Patcat88 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unwarranted vanity article for some insignificant usenet vandal. Protect against recreation with extreme prejudice. KleenupKrew 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Delete Interesting, but I agree with KuK (above)- someone tried doing a Google search on him/her? EvocativeIntrigue 21:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have 17 years of Usenet experience, much of which has been spent intimately involved in newsgroup creation and management, and I can unfortunately attest that Hipcrime is notable from firsthand experience. Dippie is annoying, perhaps infuriating at times, but has been highly visible and active and is clearly notable. As much as it pains me to say so, because I wish he'd just dried up and gone away 10 years ago. But he's notable. Unfortunately. Georgewilliamherbert 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable to me. I'd clean up the article a bit though to make it less POV and find more references to make the article stick.--Adrift* 17:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. --Rory096 14:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Matru Sewa Sangh

Apparently non notable non profit organization. 259 Google hits, No Alexa ranking for their site. Rory096 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Make that a keep per the rewrite (though I can't withdraw as there have been delete opinions below me) --Rory096 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable organisation. JIP | Talk 06:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to keep after rewrite. JIP | Talk 12:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; {{prod}} was contested. Isopropyl 12:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article has been considerably cleaned and importance established. Isopropyl 02:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Google is not a measure of credibility for a NGO working with the rural urban poor of a 3rd world country with a 1% internet penetration rate! Besides, did you google its name in Hindi? The other 500 Indian languages? Systemic bias, anyone? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have completely rewritten the article, removing every trace of the copyvio and flattery. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly moot due to rewrite. Does the name have an English translation? If so, suggest moving it there. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 77 unique ghits for a non-profit, non-western, non-latin-alphabet organization seem like a fair count. Judging the org by its alexa-rank is a bit silly really. --Eivind^t@c 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Have expanded based on website at bottom of page and minimal Google research. Didn't have to try very hard to find this stuff: nominator perhaps judged on web-penetration rather than on contents. JackyR 17:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Have been ordered by some lunatic person ;) to follow up the Indian end on foot, snail mail etc. Yes, sir. will be done as ordered! Regards, AshLin
  • For the record, I asked Ash to help improve the article using his Indian prowess, not to vote "Strong Keep". Ash, it is illegal and pointless to solicit AfD votes. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt intend to mean it that way. You'll find my back trail full of attempted puns|broken pottery by this bull in the Wikipedia China shop (there I go again). Just a (sick) attempt at humour. Strong keep because, in India, we have very few social service organisations as per density of our populace. An organisation such as Matru Seva Sangh reflects the Indian nationalist effort of the early twenties at following Gandhian ideals in the service of mankind. I think I'll send crzr an apology barnstar so that I'll have at least twenty gaffes more in interacting with him to my credit and I can rest in peace. BTW, I dont normally get involved outside butterflies unless I plan to get actively involved in the article.Hence strong keep since I plan to work on this for a couple of months.AshLin 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per nom. --Lakhim 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, thanks CrazyRussian. Hornplease 08:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Evil in the Night

Non notable release of non notable band which article about was recently deleted from Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merciless Death). Visor 05:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A one-hundred copy pressing of a non-notable band's first album? It may become notable if the band itself achieves notability at a future date but not at the moment.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aeropagitica. —Whouk (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Gyre 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Professor Hobo

A student comic strip that ran for two years in the school newspaper of Murray State University. --Hetar 05:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, doesn't seem particularly notable. JIP | Talk 06:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 09:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete For some reason Kentucky Intercollegiate Press Association award doesn't strike me as a major nor notable award. --Eivind^t@c 16:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I hate being the first "Keep" vote, but I personally think that all factual information needs to be represented, in some manner, on the site. Jared W 18:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Murray State University. A small blurb on it in the Publications section, with an external link to a place for more info on the series, would be sufficient. --^{speak to}gadren 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per gadren. JeffBurdges 11:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A merge isn't a good solution in this case. I suspect if you merged in content from a school newspaper comic into a university article, it would be reverted as spam. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable college newspaper comic, not worth merging into University article. -- Dragonfiend 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge Italian Americans to here. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Italian-American Neighborhoods

Redundant. This information is already on Italian Americans in a more comprehensive listing. Passdoubt | Talk 06:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the ridiculously long list at Italian American to here. It really should in its own subarticle. Also, rename to List of Italian American neighborhoods. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:18 UTC
• Merge per Cuiviénen. --Eivind^t@c 16:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge the long list at Italian American here, per Cuivienen. This will make the Italian American article much more concise. Oh, and rename per Cuivienen as well. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge as per previous votes. This article is actually quite a good idea for reducing the size of the bloated article on Italian Americans — the list should have been split out of there long ago. --BrownHairedGirl 08:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this article and reorganize the list and layout. It should be aligned with the Little Italy page--somehow. There should also be a map of the United States with dots marking each and every Italian-American neighborhood listed.

Why would Wikipedia even consider deleting this page? No list like this can be found anywhere else on the the web, and it is far to useful and interesting to delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgattino (talk • contribs) .

• Merge with Italian American article--Adrift* 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily userfied as non-notable club. Just zis Guy you know? 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Camberwell High Liberal Club

Appears to be created by the founder of this club, hence vanity and self-promotion. Club has been around for two years and it is a student political group at a high school who propound their ideology I guess. Not notable. It is a;lso full of commentary on the politics of the high school which is completely unverifiable gossip.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Rockpocket (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ansell 07:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to authors space with a note about notability on wikipedia articles not going as far as school political groups. Ansell 07:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--cj | talk 07:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Indulgent, unverifiable, parochial, not relevant to wikipedia. Pvazz 08:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. High school clubs of any sort are generally not notable unless there are verifiable sources indicating notability exist. None have been shown so far. A search of an Australian New Zealand media database came up with nothing. Capitalistroadster 10:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 10:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete as copyvio. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sosa gliding club

Tagged for speedy as nn-club, but notability clearly asserted; I can't offhand think of the applicable guidelines and can't make up my mind whether this claim to notability is encyclopaedic or not. A gliding club of 150 members - is that big for a gliding club? If it was, would it make it important? Can't decide. Just zis Guy you know? 11:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I agree this is a tough one. I note that the article claims that Sosa is the oldest in Canada, which is (I suppose) notability of a kind. My tendency is to allow the borderline cases to stay (wikipedia is not paper). Bucketsofg✐ 13:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Bucketsofg on this one. Maybe stick a {{wikify}} tag on, too. -- MarcoTolo 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Change to Delete per ReyBrujo (as copyvio). -- MarcoTolo 02:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Agree with the above, perhaps edited a bit for POV. --Eyaw Nayr 21:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although it seems notable, it is a copyvio [8] -- ReyBrujo 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ReyBrujo. Ardenn 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's a partial copyvio. Delete as barely notable club, but if kept, clip the copyvio parts. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable enough. --Arny 18:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possibly a marginal case. Runcorn 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, if any gliding club were notable, this one probably would be, but I don't think that such clubs are notable. -- Kjkolb 09:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a notable sports club in Canada. What's the problem with keeping it? If someone has identified a copyvio, why not get stuck in and edit? Markb 13:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; copyvio -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 22:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Schweinefleischdummkopf

I got no Google hits for this, so I cannot verify it. The creator has repeatedly changed the date on the prod notice instead of removing it, so, I'll bring it here. Grandmasterka 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Their alleged record label, Roadrunner Records, is a real company with a real website that completely fails to mention this band anywhere. The title of their second album also gets only one Google hit, and that spurious. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, probably non-notable. --eivind^t@c 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Might just meet WP:MUSIC, but WPV:V and WP:HOAX apply. --BrownHairedGirl 08:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. They do exist, I have one of thier songs. GJ203 21:55, 09/05/06

  Which one? --Lambiam^Talk 22:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NMG and WP:V. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable at best. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Crothers-Memorial

A university dorm, which is not notable, per countless AfD discussions. Prod removed. Delete. Grandmasterka 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - or redirect to Stanford University? —Whouk (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claims as to notability for either the building or institution.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Could also redirect to Stanford University.--Isotope23 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, as per nomination. We've been here before so many times with NN univerity dorms that a puff for them really ought to be elevated to grounds for a speedy delete to save everyone's time. --BrownHairedGirl 08:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. It's pretty clear to me that the article itself focused on nothing but the fact that he made racial slurs in class outlines he posted on a website. I'm not prejudiced against recreation of a more encyclopediac version of the articlem, or creation of an article regarding the "controversy," but it all seems pretty weak to me.  RasputinAXP  c 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi Alejandro Camara

The notability of the person in this article is suspect. As of the most current edit, this article does not fit Wikipedia notability criteria (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)).

There are only three unique points in the article:

• He graduated early from Harvard Law School with a fellowship.
• He wrote an arguably offensive article.
• He coaches high school debate at Mountain View High School.

Many people coach high school debate, some graduate early, and others let the word nigger slip out on accident. More than half of the article has to do with how Camara pissed people off. Not only is this article uncited, but one of its important external links are "humorous video at debate practice."

Crzrussian suggested that Camara's status as a former John M. Olin fellow in law and economics at Harvard is grounds for notability as a fellow is basically a junior professor; however, this is a misunderstanding. As evidenced by Wikipedia's article on the John_M._Olin_Foundation, the foundation gives a grant to fellows at universities, including Harvard. Now that the confusion regarding the "John M. Olin" moniker is out of the way, let us examine what a fellow really is.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [9], a fellow at a university would be a graduate student appointed to a position granting financial aid and providing for further study. This means that a fellow can hardly be equated to a college professor of any sort- they are just not the same thing.

Furthermore, Jahiegel has argued that the publicity surrounding the racial conflict at Harvard and Yale would be grounds for notability and would merit an evolution of the article into that incident. However, I contend that publicity is not enough to substantiate importance of subject based on two premises:

• Anyone can be subjected to publicity for any reason, good or bad. To set a precedent of writing articles based on the subject's publicity would be writing millions of articles about people who are potentially not notable. So, if there was any way for us to assume that publicity is a notability factor here, we would also have to assume that:
• The reason why Camara's publicity would be notable is because he himself is already important. However, I have already disproven this assertion in the first half of this nomination.

Camara himself is not notable enough, which logically means that the publicity surrounding him is not notable either. Consequently, this article should be deleted. Big.P (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep 1. Involvement in a major flap over the allegations of racism covered in many major newspapers, as the article states. 2. Fellowship (like a junior professorship) at Stanford Law School. 3. Work published by the Yale Law Journal, the nation's preeminent law review. Ladies and gentlemen, this person meets WP:BIO with gusto. Also, article has been here awhile, edited by many people. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• You suggest that Camara's status as a former John M. Olin fellow in law and economics at Harvard is grounds for notability as a fellow is basically a junior professor; however, this is a misunderstanding. As evidenced by Wikipedia's article on the John_M._Olin_Foundation, the foundation gives a grant to fellows at universities, including Harvard. Now that the confusion regarding the "John M. Olin" moniker is out of the way, let us examine what a fellow really is.

• According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [10], a fellow at a university would be a graduate student appointed to a position granting financial aid and providing for further study. This means that a fellow can hardly be equated to a college professor of any sort- they are just not the same thing. -- Big.P (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable as a child prodigy although the criteria over at the c.p. article page is 12 years old. also for junior proferssoship. Also, Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline 'not policy'. Notable(slightly?) as the youngest Harvard law graduate.--Jondel 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• He is not a junior professor. A fellow has nothing to do with professorship. This dictionary page[11] and this Wikipedia article disagree that fellow=professor. -- Big.P (talk • contribs) 05:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Graduating from law school at a very young age does not clear the notability bar. Coaching high school debate certainly does not clear the notability bar. This person's strongest claim to notability is having caused a little controversy because he used some offensive racial terms. Even if the media coverage of the controvery can be verified, that's just not very remarkable. I see nothing notable about this person. --Hyperbole 06:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per long winded reasoning of nom. DarthVader 14:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I differ with Crz to the extent that I do not think Camara to be notable as an academic (per WP:PROFTEST), and to the extent that I am disinclined to think him notable in view of his having graduated at a young age from HLS. Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding his prospective YLR publication, and the media coverage such controversy received, likely seems to confer notability. Notwithstanding WP:NBD, I see nothing in this situation to distinguish Camara from Kristi Yamaoka, whom we've found to be notable. On the Yamaoka nomination, I supported "delete", believing that "where a personnage is notable only in view of his/her tie to a specific incident, our article ought to focus on the incident (as against on the person)"; I thought, then, that the Yamaoka article ought to be retitled and refocused on the incident writ large. Here, though, because the incident and person are wholly inextricable, because and where a singular person is the main participant in an incident, I am inclined to think that we ought to have an article apropos of the person; in either case, the event/person is notable. Joe 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Camara was already notable as a child prodigy, see this link. :) --Noypi380 11:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Interesting controversial story = an article Wikipedia was designed to house. 12:01, 3 May 2006(UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.242.187.243 (talk • contribs) .

*Strong Delete Wikipedia isn't some news organization- the controversy isn't that notable. Lots of people are smart, but it is their accomplishments that define them. I see none mentioned in the article, so let's vamoose with it. -- 71.132.154.106 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet arbitration will decide whether or not this vote is legitimate, not CrazyRussian, who isn't even so much an administrator. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 23:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Wikipedia isn't a medium to ruin someone's professional career at this young age--the Yale controversy is only mudslinging, and is not newsworthy at all. I live a few miles away from Camara and i never got to know of it till now. -- 71.132.154.106 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.237.109 (talk • contribs) (this was the second edit from this IP address). - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 11:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of edits from an ambiguous IP does not indicate experience on Wikipedia. Maybe the user forgot to sign in, or their IP changed as a result of ISP, like mine does. Then again, you wouldn't understand. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:71.132.154.106 where anon admits to being Big.P, the nominator. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppetry case against User:Big.p based on this AfD.

NOTE. I have moved the unrelated conversation over to User_talk:Big.P#Conversation from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Alejandro Camara moved here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

HI. Sorry about the sockpuppetry case or whatever, crazyrussian you can close it, i have no effin clue how to use this talk page but i wanted to voice my opinion and i screwed up the edits while commenting -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.237.109 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Notability not established. Runcorn 11:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 08:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Thanks for relisting, I was meaning to put in my .02. I think he is notable for his age at graduation from Harvard Law School (his Olin fellowship aside). As an aside, the Google Video link on his page is priceless. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Being a graduate at 14 is not notable, 'coaching' debate at a secondary school in the US is not notable, making a racist comment is certainly not notable. However; I agree with deleting errant nonsense from Wikipedia, I agree with deleting advertising from Wikipedia and I agree with deleting vanity articles. This one fails each test. Markb 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This article focuses almost exclusively on the racial-slur issue, and is clearly designed solely for the POV purpose of calling attention to it. I see nothing about him that passing notability guidelines anyway. wikipediatrix 16:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. He's just some guy who pissed off a lot of people via the internet. If that's a criterion for inclusion, I should get my own article. Brian G. Crawford 20:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Message I'm not voting but I think the nominator should strongly consider this policy WP:CIV. OSU80 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are concerned with my behavior, please leave anything regarding this outside of the AfD nomination and refer to my talk page instead. Thanks. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What is the criteria for notability as a child prodigy? If defined too broadly, many don't ammount to much. JeffBurdges 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this child prodigy is notable Yuckfoo 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep. Here's what we know about the Olin Fellowship on Law and Economics at Harvard:

'..during the first eleven years of the Program, thirty-two John M. Olin Student Research Fellowships have been awarded to advanced graduate students for the general support of their training in law and economics.In addition, 104 Student Research Fellowships have been awarded to students to support specific research projects during the summer.' Also, we dont have articles on everyone who published a comment in the Yale Law Review. (If we did, I would have had a lot of fun writing some of them.) Fails WP:Proftest completely. Also, Prodigy-Schomidigy.

However: the controversy was certainly notable. At the time, there was a long article in the New Yorker that discussed both this and the Ward Churchill affair, treating them as if they were of equal importance. It has also been brought up time and again in the past year when people were discussing Larry Summers and his comments on women in the sciences. Ideally, I would support moving this to a page specifically dealing with the controversy.' Hornplease 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the reasoning for your vote, would you support a deletion of this article and the creation of a new one that centers around the controversy? -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 05:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Hornplease 12:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Graduating from Harvard (or any university for that matter) at such a young age is a notable achievement, despite the sniping from some here (jealous much?). -- Jalabi99 14:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Brian G. Crawford. ForbiddenWord 16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It appears that the controversy is more notable than the individual.--Adrift* 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Angelique Lihou

Less than 5 Google hits, fails WP:BIO Optimale ^Gu 08:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as one only gets a handful of ghits on her.
• Delete. Sounds like she could be notable in the future, but isn't notable now. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per EWS23. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Suzen Johnson

There can never be a perfect article about Suzen Johnson. The only reason she is listed is because she's slept with Frank Gifford and as a consequence appeard on the front of Playboy. The relevant information, of which there is little, is mainly there at Frank Gifford. Delete. The Land 09:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She became famous for the affair, but it was a more notable affair, than just Frank Gifford's role in it. It involved issues of how far a tabloid could go for a story; she filed a notable lawsuit. She also did get the cover of Playboy; that's been the high point of many a model's career. She also had a back-story about a fitness club scam (journalist's words, not mine). I expanded the relevant information at Suzen Johnson. AnonEMouse 13:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She's not notable for the best of reasons, but she's notable nonetheless, if for nothing else than the large amount of media coverage associated with her. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, not enough reliable sources exist to create an encyclopedia article.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - this version of the article has a fair number of reliable sources. An admin reverted my changes, saying they read like "an indictment", and asking me to "go easier on Mrs. Johnson". I'm negotiating with him now to see what kind of compromise we can reach, which should be soon; until then, please don't assume there are as few sources available as in the current article version, rather look at the version I linked to just here. AnonEMouse 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Those are mostly tabloids, and half of the article isn't confirmed by those sources.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please look at it again, folks. I expanded, while "being nicer to Mrs. Johnson" (mainly being briefer on the unfavorable parts) and it didn't get reverted again, so it looks like most of this is going to stay. Lots of references. AnonEMouse 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Being on the cover of Playboy makes her sufficiently notable. The rest is extra. --Rob 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree. Yes, a list of playboy covers is encyclopedic. An article on every playboy cover model isn't when they will mainly be populated with their current area of residence, their dog's name, and their profession. Suzen Johnson might be notable but I don't think that can e the reason for it. The Land 07:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - While it doesn't look like we're going to have any great consensus for delete, I want to note that most of the items included in the article are very non-noteworthy (and tabloidy). I think this article needs to be trimmed down to its bare bones, and left there. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Seems notable enough to me, and well enough sourced. Keep ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Won't be notable in another year. Heck, who's even going to remember Frank Gifford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: Added by anon (IP address) editor. [12] EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. (note comment above) If the individual made national news, and I've heard of them before Wikipedia, it passes my own criteria for notability. Bastique 12:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep People will remember Frank Gifford because of his football days and, for what it's worth, his ties to Kathy Lee. The article is well referenced and while she may be thought of as a footnote by some, many people will remember the affair. There are also those who dislike Kathy Lee with great vehemence and would like to know what they can about the woman who had an affair with her hubby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dismas (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Verifiable, interesting, relevant to important matters... --maru (talk) contribs 21:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Billericay School

There is no meaningful content in this article. A speedy tag was removed with the statement that speedying of schools is not valid - I could find no such staement on WP:CSD -- SGBailey 09:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - tag as a stub (there being differences of opinion on whether schools are notable per se). —Whouk (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Since Bumrush High School, Idaho is notable (under the present idiotic criteria (still thats what happens when High School students are allowed to make policy)), then so is Bumrush High School, Essex. -- GWO
  • I would agree with this if the article sid anything, but I paraphrase "Billericay school is a school in Billericay. It has blocks A to F". What is meaningful in that? <rant on> Can I add an article 17 Neasden High St reading "This house is made of bricks"? If someone were to add even a tiny bit of information (Queen Victoria went to school here; Oxygen was invented here; Headmaster John Doe was knighted for sevices to football in 1966; ...) Then I'd be happy to keep it. I mean it doesn't even say what age range it covers, what student type it has, what specialities it has - perhaps "Billericay school is famous for having no interesting features at all"? <rant off> -- SGBailey 12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The present criteria (did I mention they were idiotic?) say schools are automatically notable, and that an article sucking is not a deletion criteria. Sanity says Delete, policy says Keep. I love bureaucracies. -- GWO
      • Present criteria? Last I checked there presently is no school critera (and there never will be... but that is another discussion entirely), which means in practice everything gets kept.--Isotope23 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. I have added some information from the recent (2004) OFSTED report on the school - age range and size of the student body, plus a link to aforementioned report.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It will obviously be kept, so tag it for "cleanup-school" and then watch for several months as nobody bothers to clean it up.--Isotope23 15:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hey This is my school. I've added a bit more to the article. You can't delete my school! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.104 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. As per practice. Schools are notable, why do people keep on putting them up for deletion; did they have a bad time during their school days and never wish to be reminded? Markb 17:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent for schools. --Rob 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are importanrt only to the people that attend them. If the students/ teachers of a school bother to write an article then why not? Wikipedia should contain the wealth of all knowledge - This would be useful to a student giving a presentation on the history of their school. I don't care about many articles on wikipedia but i don't put them up for delection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.74.242 (talk • contribs)
• Here here! Three cheers for the Billericay School! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.125.104 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Schools are notable, and have been consistantly kept on Wikipedia. I do not share the belief of 172.209.74.242 that Wikipedia should be a place for everything, but schools are sufficiently notable. --^{speak to}gadren 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although I still dont understand why schools are notable and churches for example are not. Jcuk 23:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Two words: Systemic bias.--Isotope23 16:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep And please don't use this page for cleanup. Scranchuse 04:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There was some meaningful content when this was proposed for deletion. Looks like there is a whole lot more now. -- JJay 01:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC

Keep this page!!!!!!!!1 why not my friends made it and it is very well written and they worked hard on it! leave it alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.108.39 (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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Trotskyists

Redundant per Category:Trotskyists. A list of names in alphabetical order (which is what the category does), adding nothing to the encyclopaedia except maintenance overhead. My usual problem with lists applies: adding people to the list may not be noticed by editors of the person's article, so is vulnerable to unsourced or POV additions or deletions. In short: this list does precisely the job categories were designed for, only worse. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and use cat. —Whouk (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• This list is very useful and I would like to keep it. Of course it's not nice that persons like Paul Wolfowitz get added to that list because they have been influenced by ex-trotskyists but such things happen all the time on the Wikipedia pages so that is no reason to delete the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvanbemmel (talk • contribs) (Suffrage note: This user's second edit on WP. —Whouk (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
• Delete. Category will suffice. youngamerican (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zat Guy. Unlikely to be verifiable but for the most well-known adherents. Fluit 17:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This list is useful, a list allows adding info about its members, there are hundreds of similar lists, and more, there are categories for lists. There's no valid reason to delete this article. I worked on the List of municipalities of Portugal, shall we delete it because we already have Category:Municipalities of Portugal? Afonso Silva 19:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Deleting List of municipalities of Portugal would be an excellent idea. I'm with Richardcavell - an article ought not duplicate the function of a category. Fluit 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

WOW, it would be the first featured list to be deleted. Can't you see that a list allows us to include, in this case, the date of birth, the nationality, the country, etc...? Afonso Silva 09:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

List of municipalities of Portugal isn't really comparable, IMO - not least because it's a finite list and would be useful regardless of whether there were separate articles for the municipalities themselves. A list of people such as List of Trotskyists though depends on the people on the list being notable themselves, and therefore it would be reasonable to expect them to have their own articles which can be categorised and provide sources for their political affiliation. —Whouk (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - because it duplicates the function of a category. - Richardcavell 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep lists do NOT duplicate the function of categories, they are in fact (IMHO) far more useful, in so far as you can add things to them you just can't with categories. Jcuk 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - useful as categories are, they do not support red links or notations. Warofdreams talk 01:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've made the exact same arguement before, but one has to remember that we are not building wikipedia for editors, but instead for readers. If you think that a red link list would vbe useful, add it to a talk page or userfy it before deletion. youngamerican (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - as a reader, I would find it useful to see a more complete list, which included Trotskyists on whom we do not yet have articles. Warofdreams talk 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep contains red links and other links. Scranchuse 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. As above, lists do not duplicate categories: the two complement each other. --BrownHairedGirl 08:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete leave it as a category. List is hard to verify and potentially of interest to only a limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jcuk. Not convinced there is any need to delete this, particularly given the arguments above. Would favor deleting the category though. -- JJay 01:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is there policy about this? If not, there should be. Lists in the main space are more accessible and likely to cause the creation of new pages than those in user spaces. Hornplease 08:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: potentially infinite, vague classification, no content apart of the label put on one's forehead, unsourced, listcruft, unencyclopedic, OR without the "research" part, attempt to contribute when one has nothing better to say. Pavel Vozenilek 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep categories are not the replacement for lists.  Grue  10:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel. Arbusto 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. If this isn't deleted the category should be. KleenupKrew 11:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A. Roy Medley

Tagged nn-bio, buit notability of a kind is asserted. Article is written informally. Subject is general secretary of a small denomination, American Baptist Churches USA. I'm afraid that long experience has made me sceptical about any American Baptist subject, there has been too much Gastroturfing in the past. Just zis Guy you know? 10:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I don't know enough about Baptists to be able to frame this relative to others' notability, but it sounds somewhat notable. I'd like to see the page cleaned up and links made (that would help to make his notability more apparent). Just FYI -- "A. Roy Medley" has 600 Google hits. --^{speak to}gadren 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above. Needs cleanup, but it at least sounds notable - though I can't personally vouch for it. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was article to drop dead - delete. Mailer Diablo 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Bring Me the Horizon, Oli Sykes, Drop dead clothing

Deleted once by WP:PROD, reposted. I'd happily speedy it, since they have released precisely one EP but it's evidently contested, so I guess it gets its run on AfD. Also for your consideration, Oli Sykes, the lead singer, and Drop dead clothing, his clothing label. Any resemblance to vanispamcruftisement is purely unintentional. Just zis Guy you know? 11:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Bring Me The Horizon is a repost from a different capitalisation, deleted by AfD in December. No change in status since then (one EP and no albums released) so speedied and earth salted, leaving Oli Sykes and his clothing label. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This "salt the Earth" philosophy, is one reason why so many people find it necessary to keep just about anything that has a hope of turning into something good. While some would like to delete certain articles in poor condidtion, and have a new/better version made later, they can rest assured, that, if deleted, the page will be protected for all of time (effectively). Isn't this suppose to be a wiki? (e.g. where anybody can edit any page, right now)? Also, the fact it was re-made under a different title, pretty much shows how useless such protection is *except* against those wishing to make a good faith creation. note: I'm not objecting the the speedy (I can't judge what I can't see), but the protection seems unwiki.--Rob 21:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If the band is deleted for failing WP:MUSIC, its members should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Someone has been going out of their way to insert this guy into as many other articles as possible. Rockpocket (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Beno1000 01:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Buildings and sites of Oklahoma City

Tagged for speedy as redundant per Category:Buildings and structures in Oklahoma City. Hard to argue: it is precisely that. But it's not a speedy criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• (speedy) Delete supplanted by Category:Buildings and structures in Oklahoma City. Can't it be speedied as WP:CSD A6 WP:CSD G6? - Politepunk 16:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, no, because it's not an attack page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • <blush> - Politepunk 19:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant with category and an arbitrary list anyways.--Isotope23 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The category provides a more complete list than this article. --fuzzy510 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge to Oklahoma City. Lists do not duplicate categories: the two complement each other. However, this list is not long enough to justify being a free-standing article, and Category:Buildings and structures in Oklahoma City suggests that it is not in any imminent danger of growing too long to be merged. --BrownHairedGirl 08:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a category is fine. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonization of Venus

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Venus should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Can be encyclopedic if all of its information comes from reputable sources (NASA studies, for example). There is nothing preventing us from having articles about future events or even presenting predictions about future events as long as we are not the originators of the predictions (they come from a reputable source). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:24 UTC
• Keep. siafu 12:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article is encyclopaedic provided we have verifiable sources. --13:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - legitimate article about the idea of colonising Venus. If it has any faults of OR etc, that is a matter for editing or cleanup, not a valid reason for deletion. The article actually has some good sources already. Metamagician3000 13:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, the biggest problem I see with this article is that it is patently ridiculous... It basically admits in the article this is a complete impossiblility (a surface colony on Venus in its present form would appear out of the question.) Moreso than any of the other colonization articles here this is complete science fiction crystalballism. It is kind of amusing though to see an article on colonization that is basically a big list of why it can never happen.--Isotope23 15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. This article is not advocating colonies on Venus, it is presenting ideas for such a venture that have been published elsewhere and listing their pros and cons. If you come away with good reasons why Venus is not a great place for a colony, the article has served a useful purpose.--agr 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep — Of interest in terms of terraforming discussions to describe the scientific issues of the problem. It is more theoretica than practical, but it has been discussed scientifically.[13][14] — RJH 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As someone who has worked extensively on this article I realize I may have a POV in this discussion. However, I believe the article is encyclopædic. It concerns a matter that has been under discussion in the mainstream scientific community for decades. The article does not try to predict the future, nor speculate, but rather simply lays out differing perspectives that currently exist about its topic, as per Wikipedia convention. Furthermore, the impact upon or resemblance to science fiction of the topic is not a sufficient reason for deletion, in my opinion. In fact, I had been planning to add an "In Fiction" section where the topic was a major background or plot element in science fiction. LeoO3 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nominator. Complete speculation, plus the article itself is more argument/opinion than anything. Fluit 17:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It will need to have more citations (as per the other entries in "Colonization..."). Keep as a package. Speculation is OK, so long as it is Professional Speculation. Ted 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - because it (ideally) discusses objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. See also more extensive debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury, and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization. - Reaverdrop 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup (add cited content) per Reaverdrop and others. Barno 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Metamagician3000  :) Dlohcierekim 18:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Lankiveil 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Georgewilliamherbert 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Article is based on very legitimate scientists and researchers work on this subject; overall, a very irresponsible attempt to delete this article, and I question the knowledge of the subject by those who would nominate it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as with my opinions with the other space-colonisation articles. Beno1000 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonization of the Moon

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of the Moon should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup First, this article doesn't really adhere to any criterion required for deletion. This is not a crystal ball article; philosophically, we have no valid ground to call for deletion of this article and retention of articles like Dyson Sphere and Stanford Torus. User:Vedek Wren 13:25, 12 May 2006
• Keep. Can be encyclopedic if all of its information comes from reputable sources (NASA studies, for example). There is nothing preventing us from having articles about future events or even presenting predictions about future events as long as we are not the originators of the predictions (they come from a reputable source). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:25 UTC
• Keep. siafu 12:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is a topic of much real-world discussion. Article does not purport to discuss non-existent colonies on the Moon, but discusses the idea of colonising the Moon. There is actually scope for expansion of the article to discuss more of the history of the idea, its fictional treatment, etc. Metamagician3000 13:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Of interest due to analysis of issues related to building a habitable station on the Moon, irregardless of whether it happens or not. — RJH 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This article is perfectly valid. Note that this article is one among many space-colonization-related articles being AfD'd by Worldtraveller for some reason. wikipediatrix 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have little to add to the excellent points made above. LeoO3 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nominator. Complete speculation, plus the article itself is more argument/opinion than anything. Fluit 17:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Speculation is OK, so long as it is Professional Speculation and cited. Ted 17:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - because it (ideally) discusses objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. See also more extensive debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury, and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization. - Reaverdrop 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and continue adding cited content. Same arguments as with the other "Colonization of ..." articles, but this nomination seems to be most out of line, as there has been more practical work done by NASA and other agencies (not just by us wild-eyed dreamers) regarding lunar colonization. We could have a base there now if Nixon hadn't shut the space program down when his paranoia advanced. This isn't just crystal-ball flights of fancy. Barno 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• This is a speedy keep - Afonso Silva 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep However, add more cited sources. Beno1000 14:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Reaverdrop. Cite.  :) Dlohcierekim 18:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Reaverdrop. Cite. Erkcan 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Georgewilliamherbert 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep Dspserpico 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per points from above. --antilived ^{T | C} 08:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This subject has a long history of scholarly research and should therefore be retained. It is NOT original research in the slightest. Judgesurreal777 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Snowball Keep. Tawker 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonization of Mars

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Mars should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Can be encyclopedic if all of its information comes from reputable sources (NASA studies, for example). There is nothing preventing us from having articles about future events or even presenting predictions about future events as long as we are not the originators of the predictions (they come from a reputable source). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:25 UTC
• Keep. siafu 12:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is a topic of much real-world discussion, and the article gives a pretty good account of the state of play. Article does not purport to discuss non-existent colonies on Mars, but discusses differing approaches that have been suggested, etc. There is scope for expansion of the article to discuss more of the history of the idea, its fictional treatment, etc. Metamagician3000 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — A scientific topic that has received a fair degree of research and investigation. — RJH 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep LeoO3 16:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as with other colonization articles. Bucketsofg✐ 17:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nominator. Complete speculation, plus the article itself is more argument/opinion than anything. Fluit 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Speculation is OK, so long as it is Professional Speculation and cited. Ted 17:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - because it (ideally) discusses objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. See also more extensive debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury, and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization. - Reaverdrop 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Optichan 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Revolución hablar ver 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, for much the same reasons given above. Agateller 04:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, please  :) Dlohcierekim 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Iwalters 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Georgewilliamherbert 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep Dspserpico 04:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What the hell, there is mountains of literature on this. - FrancisTyers 16:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is a long history and extensive literature on real scientific work on the prospects of this venture. Very encyclopedic. Judgesurreal777 23:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Appropriate entry. --Davril2020 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Anonymous User 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Snowball Keep. Tawker 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonization of the asteroids

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of asteroids should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Can be encyclopedic if all of its information comes from reputable sources (NASA studies, for example). There is nothing preventing us from having articles about future events or even presenting predictions about future events as long as we are not the originators of the predictions (they come from a reputable source). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:25 UTC
• Keep. Discusses future possibilities which are being thought of. Definitely not something that has been created as a joke. --soUmyaSch 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. siafu 12:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - legitimate article about the idea of colonising the asteroids, an idea often discussed by enthusiasts for space colonisation and in science fiction. Any faults with current article are reasons for editing, not for deletion. Metamagician3000 13:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to colonization of the outer solar system.--Isotope23 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above args. — RJH 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above args. LeoO3 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as with other colonization articles. Bucketsofg✐ 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nominator. Fluit 17:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In particular, see the very first sentence: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Merge, at best. Kafziel 17:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep From the same policy cited above "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."--agr 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Speculation is OK, so long as it is Professional Speculation. Article is a stub and needs work, though. Ted 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - because it (ideally) discusses objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. See also more extensive debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury, and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization. - Reaverdrop 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but expand, cleanup, fix. The article is not much right now, but it could become a well balanced article, not about a putative future event, but about a concept that may or may not be developed upon.  :) Dlohcierekim 18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my. Barring what I said above, merge into Colonization of the outer solar system.  :) Dlohcierekim 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Georgewilliamherbert 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another irresponsible request for deletion about a very well documented subject that many legitimate scientists have discussed. Judgesurreal777 23:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Very well documented and very credible in the scientific community. Beno1000 01:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Snowball Keep. Tawker 05:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonization of the outer solar system

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of the outer solar system should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Can be encyclopedic if all of its information comes from reputable sources (NASA studies, for example). There is nothing preventing us from having articles about future events or even presenting predictions about future events as long as we are not the originators of the predictions (they come from a reputable source). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:25 UTC
• Keep. siafu 12:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keep with cleanup - or belongs in space colonization Crum375 13:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It was an expansion of space colonization, but was split off because that article became overly large.siafu 13:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It does make sense to have a separate section for the solar system, but this needs a clean up - I changed my opinion above to 'keep' with cleanup Crum375 14:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - legitimate article on the idea of colonisation of outer solar system. Any faults are not reasons for deletion. Metamagician3000 13:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — speculative entries need citations or removal. — RJH 16:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep LeoO3 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as with other colonization articles. Bucketsofg✐ 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nominator. Fluit 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In particular, see the very first sentence: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If the 2028 Olympics are specifically listed as unencyclopedic (because it would contain nothing but speculation), then the colonization of other planets is even less encyclopedic. Kafziel 17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Speculation is OK, so long as it is Professional Speculation. Needs work, particularly with citations. Ted 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - because it (ideally) discusses objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. See also more extensive debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury, and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization. - Reaverdrop 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but spruce it up.' :) Dlohcierekim 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lankiveil 00:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Georgewilliamherbert 04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found this page interesting
• Strong Keep - Yet another irresponsible attempt to delete a subject with tons of scholarly research done on the subject and many famous scientists having worked on the subject. Judgesurreal777 23:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Update - Normalization of article begun by WP:SPACE. - Reaverdrop 02:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's more of a magazine/summary article, but deserves a place. However, it needs a lot of work, as some things in it are stupid IMO. E.g., Enceladus is easier to colonise than Europa, because it has liquid water closer to the surface. Sheesh, if you're in outer space, the first thing you'll have is a good energy source, and you just use that to melt the ice for water. There are a hundred other bigger problems than melting ice. If it doesn't improve in 12 months I'd just ask for it to be deleted. Basically it's borderline speculative, but does have some sources. JamesHoadley 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep *sigh* All of these articles about colonising various parts of the solar system are credible among the scientific community, so should be kept on Wikipedia. Beno1000 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Merge (fixed, I can't read). Tawker 05:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonization of Titan

NOTE: See more extensive, parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury.

This article is speculative and unencyclopaedic in my opinion. If colonization of Titan should ever occur we would want an article on it, but I don't think we need one right now. We do not try to predict the future. Worldtraveller 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Can be encyclopedic if all of its information comes from reputable sources (NASA studies, for example). There is nothing preventing us from having articles about future events or even presenting predictions about future events as long as we are not the originators of the predictions (they come from a reputable source). -- Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:25 UTC

• Merge all the above colonization articles, except the moon (which is presently the only one that is not highly speculative by nature). -- GWO
• Keep - legitimate article about the idea of colonising this large moon, an idea discussed by space enthusiasts. There is no reason at all why Wikipedia cannot have articles devoted to ideas about the future if they are ideas that some people actually discuss and consider. Metamagician3000 13:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - all above 'colonizations' into either the colonization of space or colonization of the outer solar system. If any of these, esp. the latter become too large, then it would be time to split off but not a priori. Crum375 15:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Looks like the content is already present on colonization of the outer solar system, so just a redirect and a delete of the "main article" link on the colonization page should suffice. — RJH 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to colonization of the outer solar system (or redirect as stated by RJH).--Isotope23 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep And it should remain distinct rather than being merged, as the topic is robust enough to warrant its own article. LeoO3 17:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as with other colonization articles. Bucketsofg✐ 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nominator. Fluit 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Whatever article this was originally split from will not suffer with the re-addition of this lonely little paragraph, which is not likely to be reliably expanded for the next few hundred years. Kafziel 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Colonization of the outer solar system needs beefing up anyway, and this would work there. It could be broken off later if need be. Redirect is good, since this is the place most talked about in this context in the outer solar system. Ted 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• [Strong keep] *see below - because it (ideally) discusses objective, factual information about the great deal of past and current commentary and technical research on these ideas, a great deal of which has been funded by NASA and other space organizations and which has been carried out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, the record of which is entirely a matter of fact, not speculation. The first peer-reviewed scientific paper on colonizing another planet (by Carl Sagan in the prestigious journal Science, on the potential to terraform and colonize Venus) was published almost fifty years ago, and such literature has been growing exponentially since then. Such factual information on past and ongoing research and commentary is no more speculative in nature than is any subject of scientific or engineering research. The Colonization of Mercury page is so far sparse and lacking in sources, but those should be remedied by further work, not by trashing a valuable subject. See also e.g. Terraforming, Planetary engineering, Robert Zubrin, Gerard O'Neill, Martyn J. Fogg, The Mars Society, The National Space Society, the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, Verein für Raumschiffahrt, and the links from these articles. And this is besides the further value of the entries to provide factual information on the idea of colonizing these planets in literature and the arts and as a subject of anthropological, cultural and sociological interest. See also more extensive debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonization of Mercury, and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization. - Reaverdrop 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge - I've supported keeping all of these articles, but the Titan article is small enough that I'm questioning it. If someone can come up with a good collection of new material, that would be a reason to keep. Are there any groups focused on colonizing Titan? Chadlupkes 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Colonization of the outer solar system per RJH- at least until substantially more attributable material becomes available.--agr 03:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Colonization of the outer solar system and redirect. I like the other colonization articles, but this one doesn't offer much more than in the outer solar system article. ScottW 15:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Ted to Colonization of the outer solar system.  :) Dlohcierekim 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lankiveil 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Georgewilliamherbert 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ted, Chadlupkes et al to Colonization of the outer solar system - I change my mind on this one colonization article out of the bunch - unlike the other colonization articles, I don't know that there are many references that discuss this as substantially separate from discussion of colonization of the outer solar system in general, so I think it would be fitting to merge or post a redirect for the time being, unless a significant wealth of references specifically on Titan is made known. - Reaverdrop 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - Perfectly legitimate topic that should be moved to Colonization of the outer solar system, as there is simply too little of it yet. Judgesurreal777 23:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It looks like the sci-fi nerds are going to win this one, though. Duckdid 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is just as credible as the other solar system colonisation pages. Beno1000 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bait dog

Was recently run through AfD with no consensus, and has now become orphaned and transwiki'd. It was proposed for deletion, but since there was no dicdef consensus in the last debate (and since it had previously been an AfD case), this seems like a bad use of prod, so bringing it here.

• Delete as nominator, transwiki'd dicdef. Mangojuice^talk 11:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Dog fighting and History of dog fighting breeds. There's potential for a little more than a dicdef, but not for more than a stub, I think. David Sneek 12:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless expanded. Dlyons493 Talk 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Needs to go! OSU80 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Crenovation

Tagged for speedy as "unverifiable and/or neologism - unable to find any support on Google for the claimed origin. Would AfD but can't create pages." AfDing. Term scores <300 Googles, not obviously related. Looks like a protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. If it looks like a protologism, and sounds like a protologism, it's a protologism. Fan1967 14:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. There is no proof this word exists. wikipediatrix 16:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing more than newly created management jargon.--Nydas 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Julian Gibson

The subject of the article is of questionable notability: the author of a short opinion-piece of dubious merit in a now defunct literary magazine and a poem in a web-fanzine. This fails WP:BIO. WP:NOR and WP:VAIN are probably also relevant. Bucketsofg✐ 12:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Maybe in a few more years. Ted 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Non-notable. Although Circle magazine is not defunct, the short opinion-piece is only relevant to a niche market gays. The poem was in the print edition of the web-fanzine, but science fiction pieces are almost meritless. Maybe in a few more years, but now is not the time WP:VAIN is probably taking it too far since this is a published author, but this fails WP:BIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.128.71 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. As Ted sys, maybe in a few more years. --BrownHairedGirl 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 13:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus Assasination Incorporated

Is a fake article with no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayechaw (talk • contribs)

• Delete as {{hoax}}; now tagged as such.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete junk Crum375 12:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Lancelot's Brother - A Champion's Chronicle (novella)

Delete: advert-like article about a book by an author with no WP article of his own ::Supergolden:: 12:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete self-published novel (publisher is Xlibris). Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... per JzG.--Isotope23 15:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, please. wikipediatrix 16:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated above. DVD+ R/W 00:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Park

Delete: Apparently NN park, in Madison. Which Madison is it in? You just have to guess... ::Supergolden:: 12:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Week keep. Liberty Park could be the only source on entertainment in a vast, humdrum city whose residents are desperate for recreation & therefore would be notable. Sadly, we never get to know where Liberty Park is, so can not judge. Perhaps the author could help us out? Markb 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't have to know where Liberty Park is to know that this article is only notable to people who care who runs its concession stand. wikipediatrix 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication of notability, unless the residents of that particular Madison (not Wisconsin, I used to live in the middle of that city) have been described by reliable sources as being desparate for the concession stand's products. Barno 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The Madison it refers to is Madison, Mississippi. I don't think that helps the article, though. Ted 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. City parks are not notable. And who would have guessed Madison, Mississippi?? Grandmasterka 04:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 08:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Matt Lundy

fails WP:BIO, Division III college athlete. ccwaters 13:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

article is linked to the wrong Cornell [15]. He's a Div I college athlete that still fails WP:BIO. Still Delete ccwaters 14:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, whether he's a freshman bench-jockey at Cornell University or Cornell College. Barno 18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Ted 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and Barno. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Watercolour Home

Non notable site. Adveertisement and promotion --soUmyaSch 13:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete spam. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete spamspamspam as per previous people up there^- Politepunk 16:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, please. This is ridiculous.wikipediatrix 16:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete... Unfortunately, not a speedy. Grandmasterka 04:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Too quick to jump... The page was still undergoing editing when saved for safety! Suggest that you recheck it. WaxingSteve : original author, without any intention to Spam anywhere! --Waxingsteve 11:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, fails WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  c 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Television's Interloper

A local musical group, one gig at the local rugby club, no records, no record deal, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Middenface 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Meets WP:CSD A7. A {{db-band}} tag might work better. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Feel the comments to request for deletion are unfair. Middenface downpats that the private gig was to 170 people and tickets were purchased for the show. A cursory glance at TheKoG would indicate a desire for revisionist behaviour and vandalism and would like to take this into account on a speedy deletion. Music is available to download via the website and myspace site. The band does contain a member of British Beef, Felix Morvan Rocksta AKA Felix Milburn Foster who were signed to a developing deal with Sony/BMG, the largest label currently in Britain. As outlined in WP:MUSIC His band are currently still signed to Fat Fox Records Writer of blog is insuring to keep in view of WP:NPOV policy. New Way Of Decay

• Comment There is huge difference between "signed to" a record label and actually having released a CD, and having significant numbers of people buy it. Myspace and website downloads are worth practically nothing, as it seems every teenage garage band has those. Fan1967 14:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While the above point is a viable one regarding accessability of music downloads, the argument for the wiki to be deleted is that it does not follow the WP:MUSIC policy. It fulfils this criteria by including a member of a band who have had national press and a single release 'Without Me' on the 25th of July. New Way Of Decay

• • Comment Not sure if New Way Of Decay is accusing me of vandalism or not (desire for revisionist behaviour and vandalism?), but I recommend you read WP:CSD like I mentioned in my vote. How does this article in its current form not meet the criteria for speedy deletion? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, am I correct in reading that the claim that Michael Television's Interloper meets WP:MUSIC is based on the inclusion of one band member (Felix Milburn Foster) who is also in the band British Beef? I'm not sure British Beef meets WP:MUSIC, so that would kind of kill the idea of confered notability to Michael Television's Interloper under WP:MUSIC. I'm still looking into it before rendering an opinion though.--Isotope23 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:MUSIC suggests "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)", "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" and "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network" As the band have been as interviewed in the national press, widely publicised magazines , television and radio rotation and airplay and the inclusion of the single on the console game FIFA Street 2 then the argument that British Beef and therefore it's guitarist is not 'notable' would be a woeful assumption. New Way Of Decay
    • Strong Delete -- with exactly three hits on UK Google for MTI, two of them being this band's Myspace page, one being its website (and zero links from Alexa other than itself), I take any claims of national press, radio airplay and magazine articles not merely with a grain of salt, but with the whole bloody shaker. Any actual citations to be had here? RGTraynor 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment May I request should you like to argue about the verification that the above band British Beef have not the credentials listed above that you re-read all the comments in the article. It currently features a link to a multi-national console game. Should you need to find an article, there are dozens online. This article clearly mentions heavy rotation on tv and radio. There are more. This one mentions winning BBC Radio 1's best unsigned act and getting airplay from that. Unfortunately for people requesting it's deletion are on the grounds of contributors who have mostly scan read articles. Hopefully, should we be allowed to continue working on the wiki by moderators who do more than do a quick browse. The band is by an large fledgling, but the request for deletion should be based solely on the dispute that it does not serve a higher purpose, which frankly, if it's enough to annoy contributors who seem largely not to read English publications, would be justifiable in itself. New Way Of Decay
    • Comment May I put forward the following links which support the fact that British Beef's track "Without Me" was part of BBC Radio 1's playlist?[16][17][18][19][20] Also, here is a link to the official website of the Electronic Arts game, Fifa Street 2, which was recently launched worldwide. FIFA Street 2 Clicking on the "Launch EA Trax Music Player" link will open a new window showing the game's playlist. British Beef are listed at position 7, alongside artists such as Roni Size, The Flaming Lips and The Subways. I would also like to add that British Beef won the "Radio 1 Best Unsigned Act" prior to their deal with Sony. Miscellaneousfiles 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - (glancing at the top of the page) Err, last I checked, this wasn't British Beef's AfD -- although you do need a page in the first place for that, and BB doesn't have one. But MTI scarcely exists -- just one gig, no albums, no singles, no nothing. Even stipulating that BB is notable, MTI sure the heck isn't, short of Eric Clapton deciding to front it. RGTraynor 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment New Way Of Decay is latching onto the line "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" in WP:MUSIC. The logic is: since MTI contains a former member of BB, if BB barely makes the cut as notable, then MTI can stay. Fan1967 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To correct Fan1967 MTI containts a CURRENT member of British Beef. He is the frontman, lead singer, songwriter and founder member of BB and therefore I would suggest, the most notable. Further, to correct RGTraynor Michael Television's Interloper has in fact played TWO gigs and has future live outings planned. 82.68.93.190 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I can assure you that the difference between one gig and two does not matter in the slightest. Whether or not the BB connection is sufficient is the only claim that's remotely arguable. Fan1967 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Arguably by the logic instilled in the reasoning for its deletion is that it doesn't hold up to the wikipedia rules, when it does in fact do this. Simply arguing that the band entry itself has no reason to exist because you personally doubt its merits when it more than succesfully fulfils criteria is sour. The argument by following the string of text should be as follows: the claim that the band are local, when the information has been garned globally, that the band have no recordings, when songs are directly available to download for free and that the band have played a venue of no sizeable note when in fact an entertainment license must be held by the proprieters. That the band have are not a profitable enterprise should not be the first and foremost reasoning for a wiki not to exist. Fairly pointed out by TheKoG that the page may be deemed as vanity is a fair one and has been noted above that the text will be adjusted accordingly. However, further arguing against obvious links to reliable media sources should be discounted or more realistically, contributors should honour the media source before posting further doubt. As for the comments regarding 'whether the band gigged once or twice' should be held as valid, in the first instance because the reason a page should be flagged for deletion should at least be factual to gain any weight and secondly, that the information by standards is grossly inadequate. The example in this case comes in the form of Fan1967 and their reassurance about gig numbers. The room for error was 100% When you do the maths, this is no small percentage. If the argument for the pages deletion is in splitting hairs, then the case for its approval should be held with equal intensity. In other words, if contributors are reluctant to stick to the discussion in hand, then they should at least honour the facts, or find another wiki page to gripe about. Noteably RGTraynor is under the impression Eric Clapton needs to front a band for it to fulfil the criteria, which clearly shows a lack of understanding of both the wiki guides and irony.

• Comment - Perhaps you might debate the points we've actually made, rather than presenting straw man arguments. No one has said MTI should be deleted because it's "local," nor does the "information [having been] garned globally" factor in to the slightest degree -- any 14-year-old wannabe can put up a MP3 that can be downloaded worldwide. Nor does anyone allege that it has made no recordings at all; simply that no recordings it has made has verifiably satisfied WP:MUSIC's 5,000+ (or certified gold) sales mark. Nor do the reasons MTI hasn't played in a major venue figure into the criteria; only that it hasn't. My comment about Clapton was a sound analogy; it might not take a Clapton to make a band notable, but it sure does to make a band with only two (tiny) gigs, no albums, no sales and no airplay notable. I recommend WP:CHILL. RGTraynor 07:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By the bye, while I'm at it, the sole edits of 82.68.93.190, Miscellaneousfiles and New Way Of Decay are in this article and this AfD discussion. We might add WP:VAIN to the till, at least. RGTraynor 07:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Rantings Of Madmen

Claims to be a sort of dissident forum created by users banned from the forum for the Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic. However, the article doesn't even include the forum's URL. The article is mostly about an utterly non-notable spat on an Internet forum. Falls way short of meeting WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as being - well, the ravings of madmen, really. Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:WEB all too miserably; no sources; no external link. --Slgrandson 14:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB, varifiability issues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:WEB - non-notable web forum whose URL is not important enough to be included in its own article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You noticed that too? Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete--Nick Y. 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Jonang-Kalachakra Controversy

There is no reason for an article under this name - the term/phrase was an invention of its creator, a since-banned wikipedian who created a number of POV diatribes that have also been deleted. The issues referred to are discussed in the respective pages for Jonang, Kalachakra, Shugden, etc. Sylvain1972 14:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nandesuka 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran

As a selective collection of factoids, the page constitutes original research promoting the thesis that a US-Israeli alliance threatens Iran. The verifiable facts it contains should be presented in context as part of United States-Iran relations and Iran-Israel relations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: More discussion at Talk:2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran#Original Research Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep - Declaration of potential conflict of interest: i'm the person who started the page and probably have contributed most of it. Back to the AfD request: Quote from WP:NOR: However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. In other words, wikipedia policy encourages us to collect related factoids and organise them. Tom harrison claims that the selection is "selective", but hasn't tried adding what he alleges are the missing factoids. i agree that bias by omission is bias, and have done my best not to omit relevant NPOV facts. IMHO i have not stopped anyone from adding missing facts - please check the history and discussion pages. As for merging into United States-Iran relations or Iran-Israel relations, the problem is that the conflict involves all three of these countries together; it has only come to crisis in the past few years, especially during 2005-2006; and it is already about 30kb long (source), which is hitting the maximum recommended. A potential name change could be to 2005-2006 claimed US-Israeli threats to attack Iran, but then there would need to be some verifiable references claiming that the threats do not exist. Boud 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a synthesis of facts in so many ways:

1. The mere allegation of "threats" is mere speculation based on current policy. A nuclear-armed NK isn't acceptable either, but it's pretty clear we're not about to attack them.
2. the three-country link. There's no link between the U.S. and Israel other than expressed concern over Iran's nuclear weapons programme. That's hardly unique and many other nations have expressed such. Yes, they are the most likely to strike Iran, but that's OR and not apropos for this article.
3. combining "possible attack targets" in this article. I don't see the point of combining this with the threats or perceived threats other than as crystal-balling a future attack.
4. Motives. When the U.S. hasn't even issued an overt threat to attack, merely stating that it doesn't wish Iran to be armed with nukes, and now we're speculating about oil? Speculation on the motives of a yet-to-happen event is just terrible.

It seems like this is being written as a precursor for a presumed or predicted Iran-Israel-Iran war. If that happens, go ahead and write up your Precursor, Targets, Motivations, etc. Until then....it's groundless. --Mmx1 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete article is just a thesis and could be summarized in a few cited referencs in United States-Iran relations and in Iran-Israel relations--MONGO 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Shorten, Rewrite, and Merge into the articles Mongo mentioned. --eivind^t@c 15:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of facts or a timeline. You can't skirt the NOR criteria by making a list of your points and leaving out your implied agenda. Ask yourself: how could this list of events be tied together into an encyclopedia article and not just a list? You can't do it without introducing an original synthesis of facts. --Mmx1 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. RGTraynor 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Huge POV problem. Details belong in other articles as nom suggested. --Hetar 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename: (Interesting how all the Users who vote Delete are American. Hmmm... Do I detect some bias here?) As a non-American, non-Iranian editor, I just don't see the POV your talking about. Can you give an example? Seabhc?n 17:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A compromise suggested by ADB below is to rename to 2005-2006 Iranian diplomatic conflicts and then work on the POV. Seabhcán 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- Interesting that every single Keep vote has come from a non-American. Should I trouble myself to detect some bias there? For my part, I didn't make a judgment on the article's POV, but on its plain original research. Essays and op ed pieces certainly have their place, but encyclopedias are not among them. RGTraynor 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I'm an American, and I think the information should be kept. I don't see as much of an NPOV problem as others do. There's lots of WP articles that have implied perspectives, even if they're simply cultural blind spots. In this case, it's good to have material which provides an alternate viewpoint.

• comment - the article itself is POV/OR in its title; why bundle the actions of the US and Israel into one article, other than to imply a deeper relationship on this subject between the two nations than a shared concern? I'd consider changing my opinion to split to "US threats..." and "Israeli threats...", though it would still have some POV problems, albeit ones that could possibly be solved by editing. — AKADriver ☎ 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I too am not an American, I'm a European, but I don't think one's continent is relevant here. Markb 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The information presented here is not all that bad from a factual standpoint, but the intent is obviously to draw some sort of unique conclusion. Too much crystal ball and too much original research. If it happens, create the article then. There is a reason Americans are keen to delete it, and it's not national pride; it's that this article takes certain concepts for granted that aren't widely believed here. Given that there could be shifts in the foreign policy of the US government after elections this year and in 2008, this could all be so much rubbish anyway. — AKADriver ☎ 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am a Russian. And I am crazy. Go figure! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This collection of cited information is useful to digest the myriad facts thrown about by different sides in this escalating dispute over Iran's nuclear program. Abe Froman 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Include information in the article United States-Iran relations otherwise delete. OSU80 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete content/POV fork, crystal ballish, etc...--Jersey Devil 01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a well researched thesis but I don't think that is what wikipedia needs. --Nick Y. 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as POV starting with the article title. The subject can be discussed in United States-Iran relations and Iran-Israel relations. Since Iran is making threats of its own (see [21], [22], [23]), it is best to cover the threats in a broader context. --Metropolitan90 03:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment ref 1 sounds to me like self-defence (reaction to attack), which is not quite the same as a threat, but could be a non-OR reason for changing the article title; refs 2 and 3 are about Ahmadinejad's remarks, including the misquote of "wiping off the map", which are already in the article Boud 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete. The article as it stands is strongly POV, but it is commendably well-researched, well-sourced, and contains a useful collection of references to an Iranian perspective on the current crisis. However, I cannot see any way in which it could be turned into an BPOV article, because its raison d'?tre is its attempt to tell the story from an Iranian perspective. To my mind, that's a story worth telling, but not on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the relevant information into an existing article or a new one. The information is too good to lose, but it's currently messy. Perhaps a new article, something like "2005-2006 Iranian diplomatic conflicts" or the like. ADB 08:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy with this alternative. We could then include more prominently threatening comments made by the Irianian president.Seabhcán 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Iranian president's remarks have been already covered in three separate articles namely: Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad and Isreal and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore Seabhcán argument is not acceptable.--Mitso Bel21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge if there's anything worth saving. The POV is very largely in the title and grouping, which thankfully I see AKADriver has already outlined. --kingboyk 10:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment So please suggest an NPOV title which is accurate and consistent with the externally documented, verifiably claimed facts, and enables adding the missing facts. Boud 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

United States-Iran relations and Iran-Israel relations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Why does controversies around Ahmadinejad's remarks on Isreal need a separate article form Iran-Israel relations, but a continuous threat to attack a country in near future does not worth a separate article ?! The threat is not merely speculations. Several politicians have clearly mentioned it and the plan to attack Iran is everyday discussed in conferences and media. A simple google search will find milions of links about attack on Iran. I think the article should be improved and kept. --Sina Kardar20:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles about Iran's WMD and Iran's nuclear threat are nothing but speculations. However I think nobody (including me) is against having such articles in wikipedia. Keeping the current article is encouraged by wikipedia policy. --Sina Kardar20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per norm -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research and badly-defined topic. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very informative and well-sourced article. There are similar articles that covers the other side of the story. For instance the article on Iran and weapons of mass destruction is only there because of Israel and US claims, as it is stated in the article. To stay neutral, we need to have the other side of the coin as well. --Fooladin06:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above. 1652186 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per norm. --Mitso Bel21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What norm?--Mmx1 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that the Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board is again being used for votestacking advertisement ([24]). Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: i hope that this attempt at NPOVing the note on the Iranian wikipedians' noticeboard has fixed this problem. Boud 00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete POV pushing--Ahwaz 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are hundreds of articles that are not NPOV and no one wants to delete them. The point of wikipedia is to build and improve articles, not to delete them at the drop of a hat. Raemie 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is notable, it is properly referenced... the only thing that needs a little touching up is the POV, but that's not warranting a deletion of the entire article. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal-ballery.  Grue  10:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The article contains only references to documented past events and makes no predictions. How is it "Crystal-ballery"? Seabhcán 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Excessive POV pushing, bordering on propaganda. --Gabi S. 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You call it "bordering on propaganda"? Can you give an example of which parts are incorrect? Seabhcán 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. First of all, the title "Threats to attack Iran" imposes that the US and/or Israel deliberately threaten Iran. It is not the case. Iran actively procures nuclear technologies that will allow it to have nuclear weapons in 5-10 years, while US and Israel react verbally to these actions. It is not a symmetrical situation, and highlighting the threats, as is done in this article, serves Iranian propaganda by making the verbal threats look as frightening as Iran's nuclear plans. Second, every insignificant statement said by any US official is recorded, as if it is really important and reflects an official policy. Again, US officials are just reacting to Iran's actions and statements, which are an order of magnitude worse. All this makes me want to just delete this article and put just a small paragraph about the whole issue in "United States-Iran relations". --Gabi S. 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the title could be changed to something more NPOV, but that is not a reason to delete the article. I don't understand your claim that the threats are not deliberate. How can you accidentally, repeatedly threaten to invade a country? These threats have been repeated numberous times by many high level US political figures. It is widely believed that the US is threatening Iran. It is daily news. Rebels in Iraq have vowed to defend Iran from attack, so they must believe it too. Many writers and commentators, including numberous respected US journalists have commented on these threats. The former UK foriegn minister commented on them. France today declared it would not support such threats. It is notable.

You say that US politicians are simply reacting to Iran's actions. By this I assume you mean Iran's production of nuclear fuel. Why do these politicians react to Iran's actions with talk of bombings and invasion, while they give no such reaction to Brazil's recent announcement of production of nuclear fuel. Surely this difference of responce is notable?

Finally, Iran has no proven plans to produce nuclear weapons. The only countries which accuse it of secret plans are the US and Israel. On-one else seems to think there is a great threat. Infact the entire issue of this supposed Iranian conspiracy theory, true or not, has no evidential backing and is based solely on US and Isreali government statements. If this article is deleted, then there is a very strong case to also delete Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Seabhcán 13:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The article contains no comments from US figures other than speculation from journalists and other outsiders about unnamed high-level officials having made up their minds on the matter, and the official U.S. position which is fairly vague about invasion.

WMD is not solely nuclear weapons, there is well cited material regarding Iran's biological and chemical weapons programs in the Iran WMD article.

The link between the US and Israel is OR. Until such an event happens and you can point to a link between the two countries, these shouldn't be covered together.

Moreover, as I stated above, the article is collected around crystal-balling a potential attack - listing potential targets and motivations. This is silly and absurd when there is only speculation about treats to attack/invade. If and when such an attack is made, these no longer become OR. However, basing an article on speculation is crystal-balling. --Mmx1 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the war is speculation or the threats? Because this article is about threats. Seabhcán 15:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you said, but I also think I made my point clear, favoring the deletion of the article. I'm not going to take it any further. --Gabi S. 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

President Bush has stated publically "all options are on the table," and specifically refuses to rule out military action. Pretending this is not a threat is naive. Abe Froman 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should he rule out military action, and why would you expect him to, invasion or not? The link is speculative and OR. Nobody in their right mind makes any concessions in diplomacy unless it is calculated to win trust or as part of a quid pro quo. --Mmx1 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The previous passage is the OR. President Bush stating "all options are on the table," is verifiable. The rest of the Threats article also meets WP:V. Nearly every passage is cited. Conclusions editors draw beyond the sources in the article is their own OR, not the article's. Abe Froman 16:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not proposing we put my speculation in the article. You are. Bush has said all options are on the table W.R.T. North Korea, as well as the speculated tax hike, for strengthening social security, and many other policies. The belief that "all options are on the table" somehow translates to "we'd really like to do this" is a fallacy and speculative on your part. --Mmx1 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet in relation to Brazil behaving in exactly the same way as Iran, Bush has said nothing. Isn't that notable? Seabhcán 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is notable, in Foreign relations of Brazil or Foreign relations of the United States. If there's enough material, someone more knowledgable than I could write Brazil-United States foreign relations. I would oppose the creation of Suspicious absence of US-Italian threats against Brazil. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As would I. However, if the US spent three years issuing near daily threats to Brazil, a list of such threats would be notable.Seabhcán 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to see such issued threats, as opposed to implied or speculated. More like "daily speculation in the media". --Mmx1 17:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If the Iranian President was asked whether he would bomb the US, and he answered "All options are on the table", would you not consider that a threat? Seabhcán 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would consider it nothing new and political-speak for "Do you take me for an idiot? I'm not revealing my cards" If I wanted to stir up anti-Iran sentiment, I'd claim that it implies a threat, but that's not the place of wiki.--Mmx1 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure; in Brazil-United States foreign relations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is too much material to merge. It would flood the article. Seabhcán 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide any info that Brazil has threatened the existence of any other country? Hence, why would the U.S. threaten Brazil....how farsical.--MONGO 01:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Threats and Alleged violations sections are all that needs to be merged, and the former frankly longer than it needs to be as it is a cataloguing of media speculation. You could do a 1-para writeup of each and cite the same sources.

Any useful Likely Targets should already be in Iran and weapons of mass destruction#Facilities (that's where it was pulled from, it appears)

Please read the section again: Cities likely to be targets according to the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies [17] and the Oxford Research Group [23]: the likely targets according to the CNS and the Oxford Research Group are not just towns with nuclear research facilities, but also towns with military facilities. Boud 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Motives should already be in the individual "relations" articles.

• Delete inevitably, irredeemably POV ➥the Epopt 16:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (although this may be premature, since the issue is still in progress) or Rename to conform to NPOV. Juansmith 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• comment - i think the relevant NPOV definition of threat in the wikipedia is A threat is also an explicit or implicit message from a person to another that the first will cause something bad to happen to the other, often except when certain demands are met. Often a weapon is used. ... The message may be vague and implicit in an attempt to avoid blame, including legal consequences, while still clear enough to serve its purpose, (emphasis added) except that the definition in our case concerns States, not individual people. i think the last sentence may particularly help for people who think that "All options are open" statements are vague. In a legal system, many options are closed. In a typical legal system, a policeman walking around carrying a gun does not have "all options open" for using that gun; in fact, he has a very restricted set of (legal) possibilities for using that gun. Boud 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep - the article is not too badly written in spots. It does actually present multiple viewpoints, which is good. The title is a bit harsh, though and could be toned down. Wallie 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Reeking of POV. -- N3X15 ^{( Scream · Contribs)} 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very informative and well defined. There are no hypotheses and bias. The facts remain facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.244.43 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 13 May 2006

This is the user's very first edit of wikipedia, probably a sockpuppet.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article contains a wealth of information not easily found elsewhere. I would say that the US government propaganda reeks of more POV than this article, so I find any information on this topic very relevant. Details are necessary in order to have a full understanding of the truth of the situation. Granted, this article needs very much work in regards to its concision in the least. Narcissus 07:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Censorship of legitimate and referenced material because of NPOV and/or OR is wrong. There are better ways of dealing with these problems than deleting entire articles. SouthernComfort 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am the fist American to vote keep, b/c this topic is very encyclopedic. Raichu 16:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What is the problem with the artical? All I see is emotional responses from the other side! 72.57.230.179 19:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with this article is that "as a selective collection of factoids, the page constitutes original research promoting the thesis that a US-Israeli alliance threatens Iran." Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV and unsourced original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure original research designed to advance a POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. One wishes articles on current events were banned, as the present version is pure and utter POV conjencture. Hence: slash POV and transwiki to Wikinews. JFW | T@lk 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as others have noted, original research and POV. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. May need a renaming (US-Iranian 2005-6 tension may be) and a {{NPOV}} tag, but it is clearly a significant occurance. --Midnighttonight 10:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a selective collection of evidence in order to support a particular point of view. That point of view might well be correct (to be honest, I think that it is true in part), but the article is not acceptable given Wikipedia policy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pov and original research. gidonb 11:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 11:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete violates NOR Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Genda Singh & Sons Ltd

Delete. Two line vanity article written by User:Bharj, which is the last name of the owners. If "manufacturing the coat of arms of Uganda" (whatever that means) entitles GS&S to an article I do not know, but this substub is not it. Google search for ("Genda Singh" Uganda) returns one unrelated hit. ("Genda Singh") alone returns a lot, but none related here. If this thing really did exist, it could be recreated later with sources. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. WP:V and WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl 08:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CORP, WP:NN Beno1000 01:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 20:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Goodspaceguy

Nickname for a non-notable political candidate, but since this pushes the bounds of notability, I am bringing it here instead of prodding. According to Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004, Michael had 5,687 votes to (somewhat narrowly) lose the nomination of the Libertarian party. I don't believe this meets WP:BIO, although references to press, etc., might sway me. "Some people read his proposed program" doesn't do it for me. Delete, but if kept it most definitely needs to be moved. bikeable (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. This isn't merely a guy who failed to win the election. This isn't merely a guy who failed to win a nomination to compete in the election. This is a guy who failed to win the nomination of the Libertarian Party. The poor bastard had a third the votes of a Democratic candidate who ran under the name of "Mike The Mover". Any more non-notable and you have the guy who ran a sticker campaign against the incumbent mayor and racked up fewer votes than Mickey Mouse. RGTraynor 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Failed to get the nomination in a party that routinely wins 1% of the vote in the general election. More non-notable would be the loser in the Socialist Workers Party primary. Fan1967 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. —Wh

ouk (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Libertarians are frequently ignored by the news media. In 2004 only people who selected the Libertarian ballot in Washington State in the September Primary Election were allowed to choose between Michael Nelson and Ruth Bennet. Nelson received 43 percent of the Libertarian vote. Bennet received 56 % and won the Libertarian nomination and then went on to represent the Libertarian Party in the November General Election. Since only about 1 percent of the voters had selected the Libertarian ballot and over 50 percent of the voters selected the Democratic ballot, it is unfair to compare Mike the Movers Democract vote total with Michael Nelson's vote total.

Most people who run as Libertarians know that they are not going to win their election race, but they run because they think that it is so important to be a spokes person for individual liberty. In the political arena, people who run as Libertarians are like people who are willing to die in battle because they believe that individual liberty is so important. When the Libertarian Party lost its major party status in 2004 in Washington State (leaving only the Democrats and Republicans as major parties) the news media did not even feel this loss of choice was newsworthy and did not significantly inform the voters of the loss of this third choice. The big significance of Goodspaceguy is that he is actively advocating for the coming Orbital Space Colonies which will be the huge accomplishment in our new Twenty-first Century. Our technological advancement is continuing at rapid speed. In the 20th Century we humans went from the Horse and Buggy Age to the beginnings of the Space Age in only 57 years - In 1957, the orbiting Russian Sputnik announced the beginnings of the Space Age to the people of Earth. People just do not realize the fantastic future that is coming. Libertarian Democrat Michael Nelson (goodspaceguy) is attempting to contribute. Michael G. goodspaceguy Nelson 02:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a debate on whether he is a good person, or is trying to contribute to society. The question is whether he is a notable person. In general, losing candidates fail on that score unless they have some other claim to fame, or managed to lose in a noteworthy fashion. Neither appears to be the case here. You may also want to review the discussion about autobiographical articles at WP:AUTO. - Fan1967 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Information sources not provided. I reject NN as an argument because it is too subjective. DanielZimmerman 06:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Many candidates are considered notable because they win. Often they win because they have been financed by special interests. After their victories, they are indebted to those who financed them, and it is payback time. It is then the taxpayers who provide the payback to the special interests who financed the winning candidates. I, goodspaceguy, decided not to solicit special interest money and since the voters tend to vote for the big spenders, I, except for one time, have always been the loser in my attempt to raise the living standard in our society. Michael G. goodspaceguy Nelson 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Indeed, candidates for legislative office do become notable per Wikipedia guidelines by virtue of winning. That being said, Fan1967's comments are spot on. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and I'm sure that as you must respect that legislatures have rules and laws governing their operation, so do we. Indeed, there's a standard delineated on WP:VAIN: "The best way to increase the level of one's wide ranging interest to others is to first actually do something of interest itself, then wait for someone else who has a neutral interest in what you have done to write about it. Attempting to raise this type of interest in one's self or in one's associates via Wikipedia is putting the cart before the horse. Since we are all inherently biased towards ourselves, it is usually best to await the day when someone whom we have never met might choose to write such an article about ourselves, thus proving beyond a doubt that such a neutral interest does indeed exist." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public advocacy forum. RGTraynor 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Knowledge about people who have tried to help but who have lost is usually lost.

People usually don't write about those who have lost. That leaves only the loser to write about the attempts to defend individual liberty. The media usually ignores the Loseatarians. It is up to the Loseatarians to spread knowledge about what they attempted to do. Others will write about the winners. 206.188.48.177 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. POV.--Adrift* 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected to Bricks and clicks business model. Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Click And Mortar

Advertisment, Scam Optimale ^Gu 14:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - actually, this is a takeover of a redirect page (see the site history). I'm going to be bold and revert it to the redirect away from this vaniadspam. RGTraynor 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. While I nominated this and probably shouldn't be closing it as well, I will, based on the discussion and this message left on my talk page. It is obvious the students that created it are getting into trouble at their school and I feel like helping them out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mandarin tiger

Wikipedia is not for things thought up in class even if they are well written. Delete and send to WP:BJAODN. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - this is a hoax, however amusing or well-written it might be. Fabricationary 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Fabricationary. wikipediatrix 16:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Due to vandalism and reversion the following comments were accidently taken out. (That should have said the following two comments). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Noooooo please just leave it up for a week, or forever. but if anything, a week, because it is very popular among the people who created it and their friends, and it's giving Wikipedia many visitors —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk •

contribs) 15:15, 8 May 2006.

• Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Ezeu 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it even admits to being something made up in school one day. —Whouk (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• "Giving Wikipedia many visitors"? Delete unless this article is single-handedly responsible for increasing Wikipedia's traffic by, say, more than 1%. TheProject 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Uncyclopedia Mandarin Tiger Well, it's on Uncyclopedia now. At least they make no pretensions over the legitimacy of their articles. Wikipedia will NEVER be accepted as a legitimate source, precisely becuase of the reason that people can edit whatever they want, such as that incident with the Kennedy Assassination last year. To all of those getting your panties in a twist over a single article of just a few hundred kilobytes on the website - is Wikipedia really being harmed that much over a few lines of text about tigers? --Chris Conway 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Chris Conway --Chris Conway 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment--Chris Conway was mentioned in the article as a "known tiger expert". If it's not clear enough, this comment should not be given any weight since this person is most likely the (or one of the) authors or authors' friends.
• Why do people care so much that it's on the site? Save unless you care enough to hurt high school kids, and rob them of a great and funny thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 May 2006.

• Save Encyclopedia- a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge. As long as the data is appropriate for all ages, it should be fine. After looking through your “deletion policies,” I have found nothing on “Mandarin Tigers” that has violated these rules. If you could be so kind to try and point them out. So far the only thing I have seen on this deletion entry is: “Wikipedia is not for things thought up in class.” Shows how well you examine things before deletion. Show me a quote where you thought that this creature was “made up in class.” Also, how do you think most scientific theories were created? Didn’t Einstein create his 4 theories while working at a patent office? And the very internet that this site depends on? Some person even went so far as to call it a hoax. I’ll just speculate that none of you have even seen Bergen, so I will rest my case that you have no idea what you are talking about.

1. Primary (original) research- The Tiger wasn’t my idea, but I did research it. 2. Original inventions- Its not my invention. 3. Critical reviews- The entry is kept strictly unbiased. 4. 5. and 6. have nothing to do with the Mandarin Tiger entry One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers- It is a fact that tigers appear at Bergen Catholic, and many people are interested in the subject. Who is a more reputable publisher then an eyewitness to every single event? A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon- Mandarin Tiger spawning are not only a piece of history for Bergen Catholic, but is a social and natural phenomenon as well. One common temptation for young editors is the urge to share new phrases, fashions, or ideas that they or their friends have invented. Writing an article on Wikipedia might seem like a great way to do this -- after all, if you enjoy this new fad, won't other people appreciate it too?- Mandarin tigers are not a fad. The entry on them does not explain how to create one in great detail, and only is listed in order to give some background. We are not encouraging people to create them, just explaining the history.

Oh and look again Hetar, I only compared them in the matter of creation if anything. Hu-hu-hook-edd on Phuhonics just isn't cutting it with you huh?AA Savage 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: not funny enough for BJAODN. If you seriously want policies that this violates, check out, Wikipedia: Not a publisher of original thought, WP:V and WP:RS. Oh, and WP:NFT too. Comparing this article to one of Einsteins theories is laughable. --Hetar 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Save: While the action in class was a joke, it actully happened, and this recounts the past months at school, and describes the joke itself. The page itself is not a joke, simply a recounting of something that has influenced the school. This can and may be used as a source for projects and power points describing the "Bergen Catholic Culture" If need be, we can create a page about the school's culture (Its own slang dialect, running 'jokes', our own holidays and what now and the Manderin Tiger can be a sub article of that. CJRogers8 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.242.141 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 May 2006.

Save if you want this deleted, prove to me how it violates the rules. and once you say something like "its not real" prove to me that it isnt real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 May 2006.

This page is based on a factual account of an actual witness of the said "mandarin tiger" therefore in accordance with New Jersey law if this page is taken away it will be taken as a matter of harrasment towards the said "witness" and therefore the persons at fault for the deletion will be sued for the harrasment due to the deletion of the page and there by questioning and insulting te integrity and powers of observation of the said "witness" of the said "mandarin tiger". -Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius

keep the page, this is not original it is fact it is a scientific discovery that must be spread throughout the world for all to know.-Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius

However, as long as this page remains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooka the page of the mandarin tiger cannot be deleted. Otherwise Leprauchauns, aliens, pookas, unicorns or any other mythical creature with no known tangible evidence of existance MUST BE DELETED FROM THIS SITE.-Peter Coyne AKA Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius

THe following must be deleted if this page is deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon Peter Coyne AKA Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 May 2006.

Strong Emphatic Delete unnotable neologism--Nick Y. 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is more than debateable that if a unicorn no matter of its fame, being a mystical creature conjured in the imagination of another...a "original idea" if you will which falls under the policy of deletion as do all the topics that i gave the links to, that a mandarin tiger is a myth just the same which becasue of all in favors of deletions opinion of the topic it is in violation of the deletion policy. I propose that though this (mandarin tiger) is a myth,, your unicorns and leprechauns are just the same, and so in since the only difference between them is that you wish to delete our myth and keep another, and that ours is not as widespread in fame but then again the only way for the Mandarin Tiger to gain the reputation of the unicorn it must be spread to the public through sites such as this as a historical myth of a real place: Bergen Catholic High School case closed -Peter Coyne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 May 2006.

• Delete per WP:NFT. Unlike unicorns, leprechauns, elves, wizards, warlocks, and dragons, Mandarin tigers are not famous parts of folklore, since they were just made up last week. Anyone who votes "keep" on this is strongly advised to read WP:NFT several times until they understand it. --Metropolitan90 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I've read your "WP:NFT" and I'm pretty sure that I already proved the Mandarin Tiger entry worthy of keeping its page. Or did you just miss that? /sarcasm AA Savage 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

SaveAll those creatures are the same thing a creation from someones mind, except that they are more famous, so tell me how many people to know about a mandarin tiger does it take to get it to the level of fame needed to become a true myth? I am saying this: If this page is deleted becasue this is considered made up then the pages i listed above must be deleted becasue no matter how famouse they are they are a figment of someones immagination, unless anyone who calls for the deletion of this page can preovide more tangible evidence for the existance of a unicorn than we have for the existance of teh mandarin tiger.-Peter COyne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2006.

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. And yes, it will be up for one week. Grandmasterka 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Save My argument is right and whoever put up that warning at the top knows it, has nothing to say, and therefore resorts to something stupid like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 May 2006.

Save

THIS DOESNT SAY IT WAS MADE UP IN SCHOOL ONE DAY!!! for the 13th time or something. And Peter Coyne, the IP adress guy, who also helped create the Mandarin Tiger, is right. i back that up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) .

As the author of this, let me say that I'm not ballot stuffing. People want this to continue and it's not harming Wikipedia anyway. It's not as though this site will ever be accepted as an academic source. --Chris Conway 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Save - Someone please tell me, why do you care so much? who cares if a Mandarin Tiger article is here? and why do you care? are you afraid that people are going to think that they're real? well they are! and if you dont think they are, prove to me that they aren't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 May 2006.

Delete - It's a well-written and amusing hoax article. It would be perfect for a web page, but ultimately does not belong here on wiki. Whpq 16:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Save - It's not a hoax! it's a real thing! and if you dont believe that, prove that it's fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 May 2006.

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for pathetic little inside jokes. And they did a study that showed that Wikipedia is more accurate that Encyclopedia Britannica and other traditional encyclopedias because there are volunteer fact-checkers who make sure that everything is legit. But your stupid prank wastes their time. CClio333 17:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Save "Pathetic little inside jokes?" You know what's a joke? You and your argument with no facts to back it up. How would you seriously expect anyone to believe your little "study" on Wikipedia? Other encyclopedias don't need you volunteers because they can't be changed. "Volunteer Fact-checkers?" Did you think of that clever title all by yourself? I hope you do realize that anyone with the mentality of a five-year-old could run this site. My "prank" wastes their time? Anyone who thinks being a "volunteer fact-checker" is something cool to do, they obviously have way too much time already. As for it being a prank, everyone has still failed to prove it so. Its interesting how you all leave a comment and then run away from the computer so that you don't see how much you are ripped apart in these entries. WHY DON'T YOU CHECK THE WHOLE PAGE, AND THEN COMMENT. Or is even that out of your aptitude for reading? And if you think one organized tiger page is too much for Wiki to handle, try a thousand angry students with all the time they want during school to paste little Mandarins into every single Wiki article. Your blocks are too easy to skirt anyway, so don't think you are protected. AA Savage 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• delete this please it is pretty fake Yuckfoo 18:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• You cant prove that it's fake. Stop saying that it's fake. DanBC08 19:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles should be verifiable. The onus is on the article to prove that it's not. —Whouk (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The burden of evidence falls on those who wish an edit to remain. And besides, nobody is buying this. Grandmasterka 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an only-slightly-amusing hoax. Guinnog 19:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the study that showed that Wikipedia is legitimate is a real study. It was in a lot of magazines, for example: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/online-encyclopedias-put-to-the-test/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html. The "Mandarin Tiger" is not an actual creature. I am basing this assertion on the fact that there is no record of it existing anywhere. By nothing I mean no scientific studies, no captured specimins, no published papers, etc. It is your job to prove that this creature is real, not the job of the fact checkers to prove that it isn't. I am willing to believe that the Mandarin Tiger is an idea that is important to your high school. But this is too small a group to support its inclusion as an entry on Wikipedia. Also, saying that being a fact-checker is a waste of time is very judgmental of you. What do you do with your free time that is so important? CClio333 20:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• See, now you go and waste my time. If you read the above, then you would realize that the "Mandarin tigers aren't real argument" has already been tried by you Wiki people, and destroyed. Once you delete all the other mystical creatures entries, then you can come back. Again, it is not a hoax, as we all have said before, it is a historical document, that is updated as required. Heh, what do I do? Hmm. . . . *Deepbreath* I practice three different kinds of Martial Arts everyday; I am an excellent archer, and skilled as a hunter as the best; I'm an expert tracker, and can survive in almost any condition known to man; Not only do I fence, but I am also trying to make a team at my school, and I pratice with real swords also; I have a fair amount of accuracy with throwing knives, and can easily attack up close with one; Ot of a thousand, I have rarely lost a fight; During the winter, I ski every other day, and went to Nationals 2 years ago, and invited every year, but didn't go; On a lower tone, I'm an avid reader, mainly fantasy, science and history; I play video games and the like, yet still have enough time in the day to beat the hell out of kids like you who fool themselves everyday by thinking they amount to something. AA Savage 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• It isn't that they are fictional. As I said, it is because it is not a fictional creature believed in by a large enough group. Dragons, unicorns, etc., have been a part of world cultures for thousands of years. Even the Flying Spagetti Monster has thousands of people who use it as a cultural reference. Look at that website if you want something to model yours on - they do not claim that the FSM is real, only that it has relevance to a large segment of society. They explain exactly what the idea behind it is and link to a large amount of outside sources that have referred to it. But the Mandarin Tiger still doesn't qualify because is only relevant to a handful of people and therefore not important enough to merit an entry. I agree with the person above who suggested it as a subcategory on your high school page. But your argument that because there are other fictional creatures on the site you can make up whatever you want is not a valid argument.CClio333 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN, see WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Tsk Tsk Tsk. How many contradictions can one man possible make? "The "Mandarin Tiger" is not an actual creature. I am basing this assertion on the fact that there is no record of it existing anywhere. By nothing I mean no scientific studies, no captured specimins, no published papers, etc. It is your job to prove that this creature is real, not the job of the fact checkers to prove that it isn't." Well then you can prove the unicorns are real. "As I said, it is because it is not a fictional creature believed in by a large enough group." Stop changing your mind, it doesn't help your argument. How is it not important enough? Last time I checked, there wasn't a restriction on how many people had to know about it. Don't make up rules. Also, if you don't consider an entire school, then how many people should have to know about this. And as for your website, all I found was some statistics that did not prove your argument, and some jokes aimed at Wiki. "almost as accurate as the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, at least when it comes to science." First of all, wasn't your statement "And they did a study that showed that Wikipedia is more accurate that Encyclopedia Britannica." Not more, but less. And take a look at that last part of the Magazine quote: "at least when it comes to science." Why would it be science? Whats wrong with histo. . . . Oh Yeah! that's right . . . . Wikipedia doesn't like Mr. Seigenthaler. Where were your "Volunteer Fact-checkers" then? My counter-point, not argument, was that you can't exclude certain animals, because they are more recent. Once again, the Mandarin Tiger is a historcal entry, not a fictional hoax. Everything on that entry is true. And adding things to the Bergen Catholic entry never worked, everything tried has been deleted. Believe me when I say that one Mandarin Tiger page isn't a problem, compared to thousands all over the entire site. Scroll up BJAODN. I have already told you why my entry doesn't break these rules. How do you all edit pages, if you don't know the first thing about reading. Here's a tip: start from the top and go down. That way you won't miss as much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AA Savage (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 May 2006.

• Delete I personally think WP:NFT could singlehandedly crush this page. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I was wondering if you would actually read the article. You are absolutely right, the article only deals with the scientific articles of Wikipedia. But the goal of the people who treat Wikipedia seriously is to make it as accurate as possible in ALL areas. That is not an unreasonable goal because there are sites like Urban Dictionary for people who just want to have fun. It is unreasonable and immature for you to argue that because other people vandalize (and get caught) your site should be allowed to stay. Also, I don't think you understand the difference between the mythical creatures articles on Wikipedia and the mandarin tiger article. Regarding the unicorn article as an example - the unicorn article does not refer to it as a real creature. It refers to it as a "legendary creature" and does not use the definate language that is used in the mandarin tiger article. Unicorn horns are "said to" have healing powers, but your mandarin tigers "can" fly and become invisible. It seems like a minor thing but changes the whole tone from one of scientific skepticism to baseless assertions. Maybe if you phrased things that way on the school article people would stop taking them down, but I looked through the page's history and didn't see the attempts that you were talking about. CClio333 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

TO ANYONE TALKING ABOUT WP:NFT

It states there: "School crazes, fads, and fashions can end up in Wikipedia. But only if someone first sits down and researches them, and publishes a book, an academic paper, or a magazine/journal article detailing that research. Then the subject becomes eligible for Wikipedia."

The Mandarin Tiger can be considered a school craze, because our school is crazing about it. So basically, i or one of my colleagues will write an academic paper, and then the Mandarin Tiger page shall be forced to stay, according to the WP:NFT guidelines.

If the paper is published in a respected journal or widely-read book, yes that would probably do it. Guinnog 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Right... We'll take it then. Grandmasterka 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My Two Cents

If I say so myself, I persoanlly think that Wikipedia is extremly corrupt and bias towards what they allow on their website. You guys are very hypocritical when you allow unicorns and such to be on the site yet you exclude the Mandarin Tigers. Also, i would like to ask a few questions: Are livestrong bands a school carze, fad, and a fashion? Yes they in fact are considering I walk around the halls at school and about one in three kids has one. On this note, has there been scientific reaserch, a book, or an academic paper published on a livestrong bad? No, there has not. So why should it be allowed on Wikipedia. Oh and... if anyone thinks that livestrong bands are legitimatly on this site because Nike has written numerous magazine articles on it, then whats stopping Nike from writing any old article to be posted on Wikipedia. What I am saying is: Wikipedia says that it wants to obtain the sum of all human knowledge when in fact a "Mandarin Tiger" is part of the sum of all human knowledge. I think you should change that to "the sum of only a select few 'Fact-checkers' knowledge", which in my opinion, is not much at all. ;) 24.56.143.101 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Chris, Thaureaux (Long live the Mandarin Tigers!)

The livestrong band was widely published in verifiable sources. This exists in only one high school. We are trying to have a credible and reliable encyclopedia, and allowing a craze that exists in only one school to be here does little towards that end. Grandmasterka 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) , I'm leaving this discussion, as many people here refuse to be convinced no matter what reason we provide. I also suspect there may be some trolling going on. Grandmasterka 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Check and Mate. "But the goal of the people who treat Wikipedia seriously is to make it as accurate as possible in ALL areas." Thanks, I believe that Mandarin Tigers fall under the category of "ALL areas." Here is something for you: www.reading-tutors.com Try that for a month or two then come back here. How and where did you find anything remotely close to "It is unreasonable and immature for you to argue that because other people vandalize (and get caught) your site should be allowed to stay." in my statements? The only thing I ever said about vandalism, was that in the magazine article you gave me, there were jokes played on Wiki. Anything else you get from that sentence means that you have some sort of hallucinatory disorder. I see what you mean with the sentence structure, which I fixed, however, many people edit that page, so I lose track of what the original entry was like. That's what you fact-checkers are for right? You should make sure it stays in the proper context, and if it isn't then change it. As for the school article, it has been tried to add a Culture section, but to no avail. In conclusion, quit pointedly skipping over some of my points, and only answering the ones you can. It doesn't say much for your comprehensive skills. And for you "Grandmaster" what material were livestrong bands published in? A shopping catalogue? "does little towards that end." but it does do something. "as many people here refuse to be convinced no matter what reason we provide." HA-HA Reason? you mean you and your Wiki buddies going "l00k t3h WP:NFT!!! t3h 5k00l cr4z3!!!" Meanwhile we actually respond to this, and then you skip right merrily over it, and put up warnings for people not to enter their thoughts, because YOU ARE BEING SHREDDED!! AA Savage 00:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to address some points that haven't been explained over-and-over on this page, I comment. Don't compare the livestrong phenomenon to your isolated joke about the Mandarin Tiger. Shopping catalog? No, we have references from six sites: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Your Mandarin Tiger has zero. You seem to assert that WP:NFT doesn't apply for some reason. Well, NFT is part of a policy, not a little game we play to keep kids from Oradel from vandalising the site. You say YOU ARE BEING SHREDDED!!. Hate to break it to you—you're not doing anything revolutionary. Seems like you're keeping this up to rebel. To you, this is a valiant rebellion against the Wikipeida empire. To the people who want to delete your page, it's just an everyday AFD. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 03:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Why wasn't this speedied as a hoax? --maru (talk) contribs 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Because hoax is not a speedy. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Criteria, if it was I would have deleted it right away. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Maybe move to BJAODN. The Ungovernable Force 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• SAVE- this country is based on the right of free speech. As long as this article is not harrassing or maliciously criticizing someone, it should be left up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.174.227 (talk • contribs)
• Comment For those wishing to keep the article please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Save - Everyone opposed to this article keeps dodging the fact that there are other made up characters that are on Wiki. And you claim that they are there because they have a lot more people that believe in them. BIG DEAL, more people will catch on to the Mandarin Tiger, just like they did for the first "warlock" or whatever. The warlock had to start somewhere, and the Mandarin Tiger has to start here. DanBC08 13:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Right! Warlock started as an idea; so does Mandarin Tiger. But Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so Mandarin Tiger can't start here. Seriously, though, if Mandarin Tiger does get published in a reputable publication, Wikipedians will gather to make an article about the glory that it is. But until then, we just can't have it. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 13:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And people think this is stupid .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster 198.143.64.82 13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Chris Thaureaux

• Strong Delete as a hoax, WP:NFT and a vandal magnet. Gwernol 13:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, all of the above and nonnotable! NawlinWiki 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Save- Wikipedia contains articles of made up creatures within movies, videogames, and books. The "Mandarin Tiger" article is no different.

But not things made up in school one day, as has been explained above. Guinnog 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Save': The mandarin tiger is not a hoax. You cannot say that simply because you've never heard of it before. True it is a made up creature but there is a myth of a mandarin tiger Bergen Catholic. Let me just say this. How do you think we know about the cultures of the few still uncivilized groups of natives and tribes left in the world? (and by uncivilized i just mean they are untouched by modern society) People go out and study them. And that is just what we are doing with the myth of the mandarin tiger. Maybe it isnt real but all we are doing is studying the myth and recording it for posterity. You say that not enough people belive in it, well how about a school of almost a thousand, when those tribes i said earlier only had 1 or 2 people studying them? The only way more people will know about those tribes or the mandarin tiger is if it is allowed to be recorded where people see it. Zyrm (Suffrage note: user's first post. —Whouk (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

• Delete. My 6 year old German cousin knows what dragons, leprechauns and unicorns are. No one in Texas has heard of a Mandarin Tiger. It has no place on Wikipedia. As sure as I am of that, I know the other four people clamoring for a "save" are equally steadfast. But seriously, deletedeletedelete. And if you and your friends can get this written in a legitimate academic paper, like real scientists do, you won't even have to worry about rewriting the article - surely more people would be eager to do it for you. Bkessler23 02:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious delete per nom. It's nice to see so many new users participating actively at AfD :)) Joe 04:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Clearly vandalism/hoax. Royalbroil 05:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, wikipedia is such a joke. any1 can just post anything on here. wikipedia sucks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.223.198 (talk • contribs)
  • That's kind of the point :-) —Whouk (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As an originator of the page - just delete it. The joke's over. Delete the page as quick as possible. It's done.

Speedy Delete I withdraw my statements made before and now move for the deletion of this site.

• Delete Google shows that there are a few pages on the web with these keywords, but they're all irrelavent. IE: They're all oriental restaurants or related to the film Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Beno1000 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If Anyone can help get this page deleted, please do, because it is causing big problems at a school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.38.126 (talk • contribs)

Heh, I'm pleased it is. Ever heard of Karma? But cheer up, chipmunk, for it almost certainly will be deleted soon. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Martha Angle Dorsett. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles William Dorsett

The only claim to notability according to the article is unsuccessfully running for governor about a hundred years ago. There's no information about any impact or significant career before, during or after that. Hirudo 15:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. His actual notability seems to have involved being married to Martha Angle Dorsett, the first woman lawyer in his state; perhaps merging there would work. I'd be inclined to keep this, if only on the prima facie grounds that he's a minor politician that someone still wanted to write about today: but the consensus seems to be that unsuccessful third party candidates don't become notable for that alone. Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Martha Angle Dorsett. His unsuccessful gubernatorial candidacy doesn't provide enough notability to keep his own bio, but it's a mildly useful bit of fact that can reasonably be included in her article. No other impact/influence shown. Barno 19:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Barno. --BrownHairedGirl 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Most Frequent Words of the Persian Today Corpus

All of the information on this page is lifted verbatim from the page Persian Today Corpus so nothing is lost by deleting this article. The information in it is important and interesting but is, in my opinion, much better suited to its current place on the Persian Today Corpus page which also has been expanded to include more information. That article is not overlength or anything else so there seems little reason to keep this page. The Persian Today Corpus page is about the publication as a whole and The Most Frequent Words of the Persian Today Corpus is just a brief summary of the publication.

• Delete. Iancaddy 15:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be redundant with Persian Today Corpus--Nick Y. 02:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

LanceHeart

This article has been around for awhile, but it's about a character in a defunct webcomic we've never had an article for. It doesn't meet WP:WEB, and as it was created and primarily edited by User:LanceHeart, WP:VANITY is also an issue. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete- non-notable nonsense, and it looks like vanity to me. Fabricationary 15:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, the article is of no consequence whatsoever.--Nydas 18:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

CurbCarrier

Is that notable or just an advert? Together with Curbcarrier Optimale ^Gu 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advert. If this survives AfD, CurbCarrier & Curbcarrier should be merged.--Isotope23 16:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad --Nick Y. 02:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strog Delete advertising as per WP:NOT, non-notable as per WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl 08:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Curbcarrier

Is that notable or just an advert? Together with CurbCarrier Optimale ^Gu 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advert.--Isotope23 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

List of series connected to the Tommy Westphall Universe

This should be deleted for many reasons: This article violates WP:NOR, as there are no definite references to this in any listed series; the article is nonsense, in that it doesn't explain criteria and lists shows that premiered years before or after St. Elsewhere, and it violates WP:NOT in that all this is, therefore is a list of shows that have some sort of tenuous link based on one person's speculation that doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place. MSJapan 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It needs some rewriting/cleanup and some sources, but the basic information is not Original Research - I just did a quick Google search and this came up on the first page of results: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers.html wikipediatrix 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, while that's somewhat well-organized, if still a bit "I've got too much time on my hands" inspired", nobody's got any idea where any of the other shows are coming from as far as this list on WP is concerned, and therefore it's really not telling anyone anything that is of any use. I could conceivably add any show I wanted, becauzse there's no way to really check. If there is a way to check the actual sources, but it's only off that site you found, don't we have a copyvio problem? MSJapan 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Couldn't hurt from some sourcing, but this is what "(making) the internet not suck" is all about. Useful ref tool for this bit of pop culture. youngamerican (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• weak to the point of needing resuscitation keep. There is some debate about this so its not OR, but the whole thing is built on such a faulty premise that it is ridiculous. A shame really, since you could infer from it that if I imagine I'm talking to George W. Bush then it would be impossible for him to exist in the real world. Unfortunately, that's no reason to delete. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting reference, as noted above. I believe this has survived AFD before, too. As noted, this is something that was introduced in a major work of fiction and has been alluded to elsewhere; it isn't original research nor is it specualtion dreamed up by one person (except, I guess, the creator of Tommy Westphail). 23skidoo 21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional suggestion to incorporate any useful information from the article Tommy Westphall which is also up for AFD and which I support deleting, and rename this article Tommy Westphall Universe or some similar title. 23skidoo 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE nonsense, this is just trying to aggrandize St. Elsewhere. 132.205.45.148 02:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I just voted to keep Tommy Westphall, the list of shows connected to the "Tommy Westphall universe" is not meaningful without explanations of how they connect to each other, and Wikipedia can't include that without going into original research or a copyright violation from a source such as Tommy Westphall's Mind - A Multiverse Explored. --Metropolitan90 03:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with the other Tommy Westphall article. I see no real need to keep both, but I think the idea is valuable and worthwhile---it is not original research, it is not the figment of the imagination of one Wikipedia user, no is it nonsense. The argument for deletion offered here is even more weak than the one offered in the other AFD. --Charles 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no context or citations. Either original research, or a direct lift from whatever website originated the Westphall Universe 'family tree'. Why is (for example) Hi Honey, I'm Home in this universe? You couldn't even begin to guess by reading this list. The list really only serves as a pointer to the website that hosts the annotated crossover listings. -Sean Curtin 05:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Aside from being completely unsourced, the logic upon which the universe is based is fundamentally flawed. I have not seen a reliable source supporting the existence of the "universe" from a factual standpoint (quotes from producers or writers on these shows) or a sound, convincing logical articulation of how and why Tommy Westphall dreamed all these shows. The whole concept is the domain of "wouldn't it be cool if" and is completely speculative. It should not be legitimated by a Wikipedia article. Croctotheface 11:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with other Westphall article. Notable and clearly highlights an important televisual phenomona. Ydam 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with BitTorrent. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Torrent shocking

The linked to article does not appear to relate to the article. No google results about "torrent shocking". Bittorrent is designed in such a way it is not possible to place different material in a torrent than that which it was originally supposed to contain, or at least there has been no reported cracks have occured. Appears to be designed as a scare-article. Mrjeff 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with BitTorrent after signifcant clean up and shortening. Otherwise delete as unnotable neologism.--Nick Y. 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per Nick Y. --BrownHairedGirl 08:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with BitTorrent, but this needs a thermonuclear-grade cleanup before that: currently, this is just unsourced FUD and a neologism, too. Plus, P2P poisoning is hardly a new idea, and as the nom says, BT is a bit more resilient to that, due to a robust protocol and lack of centralised index... I'd be interested to see if anyone has researched BitTorrent's actual resilience against P2P poisoning, though, so as a part of BT article, this might have some value. Just rewrite it. Pretty much. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I looked quite hard to see if BT poisioning is possible. Doing it would involve first cracking SHA1, which while theoretically performed hasn't been practically done yet. If it was, quite a lot of other programs would be in trouble, for example most linux distributions use it to sign packages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs) .
    • Ok, so it's hard. The topic is worth discussing; a lot of P2P apps have suffered from poisoning, it's worth exploring why BT isn't currently suffering from that (non-idiotic hash algorithms + someone actually maintains the indexes to flag/delete completely bogus torrents). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • True, the bittorrent page should discuss this. "Torrent shocking" doesn't however appear to be on google at all (there are 109 results, but none of them seem to actually be about torrent shocking). Mrjeff 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to BitTorrent. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Desikids

This is an advertisement for a UK-based website that sells books to the Indian sub-continent. The website has an alexa rank of 1,588,563.

• Delete as a spamvertisement for a website that fails WP:WEB. --Hetar 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete they can come back and make a decent article until then it is spam. --Nick Y. 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Pizza delivery. The merge was already done, so nothing else needs to be done but a redirect. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pizza box

This article has no use and is on a non-notable topic. It doesn't even need to be transwikied as this is not a definition of a word, nor of a phrase that cannot be understood from its constituent parts, both of which (Pizza and Box) have their own definitions already. It is not possible to give a cultural history of the pizza box, nor its current cultural impact: it's a box; it contains pizza; that's it. Vizjim 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Update comment - I've put all of the current content of this article into Pizza delivery, where it's in context and makes sense. The onus is on those voting to keep to provide new content for the article that would justify its existence, as currently it is entirely redundant. No information currently in Wikipedia will be lost by deleting this article.Vizjim 09:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• The only loss in deleting this article will be to Ric Romero. Fluit 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough noun. This seems at least as notable as cardboard box and popcorn bag, both of which survived AfDs. youngamerican (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Merge per edits to pizza delivery by Vizjim. youngamerican (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I fail to see the notability. The article itself simply restates the obvious, and it boggles the imagination to think of how this article could be expanded. Tautology at its finest. Fluit 17:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not everyone who reads the English Wikipedia has seen or eaten a pizza, so are hardly likely to know what a pizza box is. Markb 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Vizjim and Fluit. If they don't know what a pizza is, this article won't help them. If they do know what a pizza is, they won't need an encyclopedia article to figure out that a pizza box is a box with pizza in it. Fan1967 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - what's next, spice rack or pickle jar?--Nydas 18:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I submit that it is possible to give a cultural history of the pizza box, but it would be pretty trivial, though I'd love to be surprised. — AKADriver ☎ 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan1967, unless someone can show reliable sources describing some sort of cultural history that's not trivial or commercial. I'll point out by comparison that popcorn bag survived AfD because there were citations showing that it was a bit of technological pioneering that influenced the industry. I've never seen anything saying "innovative use of the previously near-cubic cardboard box enabled the start of the delivered-pizza industry," for example. (My POV disclosure: I love pizza and often eat box-delivered pizza, but I have no financial stake in pizza-box stocks.) Barno 19:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything that warrants an encyclopedia article. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Unfortunately, dicdefs of mundane nouns usually get kept. Dust bunny and Pillow fight were kept after I brought them to AfD. Brian G. Crawford 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Until there is some vague idea of where to bring this article that might make it, well, an article... Lundse 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Pizza. Very funny nomination for deletion though. I notice no "pizza delivery" section on pizza "Pizza is a common take-out or delivery item in which it is often delivered in a cardboard box called a pizza box..." --Nick Y. 01:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, but let you introduce you to my thoroughgoing friend pizza delivery. Vizjim 12:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment ... and it looks like this subject is covered quite thoroughly in that article, at Pizza delivery#Pizza boxes. - Fan1967 12:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - look at the history - nobody has tried to do anything substantive with it in a year and a half. If someone wants to create a good article, they can, but this one is little more than an obvious dictionary definition. BigDT 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand I see no reason why this can't be expanded with the history and variations of the pizza box.. It could also include related products like those plug in bags Dominos has.. EnsRedShirt 06:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete after any interesting facts (none yet!) are merged with Pizza. -- GWO
• Redirect to pizza delivery, without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, easily. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Go for it! Vizjim 08:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not sure I support a merge or redirect to pizza delivery since not only delivered pizza is boxed, carry-out pizza and sometimes eat-in pizza is boxed too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously, why would you want to keep this article? It's a non-notable dictionary definition which nobody would be likely to search for, the entire content of which is duplicated in another article anyway. Nobody's expanded it in a year and a half, and nobody during the course of this AfD vote has managed to work out a way of expanding it beyond a pointless nn dicdef stub. Vizjim 13:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to pizza or pizza delivery. -Sean Curtin 03:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep potentially interesting topic.  Grue  10:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is really quite beyond the limit, IMHO, and I think the creator, while doubtless well-intentioned, has not understood what an encyclopedia article is. I agree with Fluit. —Encephalon 05:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Looking at the article history, this was first created during as part of the creation of the 1U server article, and was not originally intended to be an article at all. Merge content into pizza delivery, then delete. -- The Anome 12:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Black billionaires

Technical nomination of what appears to be an incorrectly-done AfD. No opinion from me -- yet. TheProject 17:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, though I predict it'll be difficult to keep this article away from POV and original research. Subject is notable and verifiable; race and economic status is the subject of quite a bit of research and debate. — AKADriver ☎ 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable topic. Maybe rename it to something else, but I'm not sure what would be better. Jdcooper 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per AKADriver - big issues about race and money, will be an increasingly interesting and important article. Iancaddy 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but could we clean the thing up a bit? - Richardcavell 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Message I tagged the article for clean-up. If it is kept it definetly needs it. OSU80 00:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV. Contrasting Oprah Winfrey and African dictators is orginal analysis. Scranchuse 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• comment The page has also been created anew at "black billionaires" - without the AfD tag. I think that version of the page should be deleted as soon as possible, but it doesn't technically appear to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. GRBerry 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I got bold and switched that version to be a redirect to this page. GRBerry 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per POV. 1652186 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no encyclopedic content, taken from rumors and chats instead to listing reliable statistics. Pavel Vozenilek 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I have tidied the article and backed the rumors and chats (see above) with actual refs. --Oscarthecat 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but leave that stub tag on it for a while, this is a weak article. GRBerry 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs major cleanup. Amalas =^_^= 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but needs major rewrite; there is a potentially interesting article here. Saga City 10:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I also agree that its an interesting topic and worthy of more attention. It doesn't really come off POV as far as I can see. I agree though that the title should probably be changed.--Adrift* 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Le gree de haut

This seems to be some fellow named Spurrier putting his own house on wikipedia. I'm sure I've seen this house and it's just a normal residential one. - Mon Vier 13.41 26th March .

• listing now -- Melaen 17:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless some evidence of notability is supplied. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Edgar181. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Adrift* 17:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bill McConnell

Not notable and possibly vanity: appeared as a guest on a 71-second track by the band Tool, but other than that, all he seems to do is run a camp. I suspect that these may be two different people, however, neither of whom would merit an article on their own. There seems to be no information regarding this guy (e.g. DOB) other than his minor participation in these two ventures. Dylan 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Rory096 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. See also PAST Skills Wilderness School. --Rory096 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. --cliffhodges 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) The guy sings an all-accapella track on an album that has sold over half-a-million copies in less than a week. Tool is one of the biggest bands of all time. How is this not notable?
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for guildines regarding musician notability. Dylan 12:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. 24.61.84.44 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy A6. Royboycrashfan 18:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

David Denenberg/Temp

POV essay/personal attack. There may be an encyclopedic article on this local politician but this is not it. Court Jester 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• If I recall correctly, subpages for deletion are supposed to be on MfD, not here (I could be wrong, but I believe United States/References was moved to MfD for this exact reason). Either way, it's an attack page, so I've tagged it speedy delete per A6 anyways. TheProject 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Subpages are only to be listed on MfD if they're subpages of User space, or, in the case cited, not really an article. Speedy delete or rewrite. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I'm closing this early, either WP:SNOW or pushing CSD A7 to it's limits as it's essentially about a group of amateur "film makers" with no assertion of notability. Take your pick. kingboyk 11:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoy productions

Complete & utter vanity. Unencyclopedic, non-notable...need I say more? Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not at all notable. —Whouk (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Terrace view

Delete. Obviously non-notable apartment complex; article meerly [sic] serves to demonstrate the low quality of education at Virginia Tech. Was prod'ed by Blnguyen, who remarked, "a random block of flats, not notable". discospinster 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable, verging on the speediable. —Whouk (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. It's simply vanity. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been to Blacksburg. I'd drink if I lived there, too. But not notable. Fan1967 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my own prod.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, almost speedy material. -- Caim 05:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ringmonkey

Somehow an extended discussion of this term came into being where it's really only worth a dicdef. Used -- if at all, which is by no means certain -- only by a very limited community. Flunks Google test with only 2 relevant hits, both from Wikipedia. Unreferenced and probably will always remain so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless a reference and citation for the usage of this term can be provided.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aeropagitica. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Banana faced wild rabbits

Zero google hits for "Banana faced wild rabbits", "Banana faced rabbits" or "Banana faced rabbit". Zero Google hits for the paper listed by Gilland. There is an "E. Gilland" who does research into rabbit anatomy, but there is nothing but that one paper to claim the existence of these rabbits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Clearly a hoax. Bucketsofg✐ 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Despite what the above say, this article is factually correct and definitely NOT a hoax. How many rabbit experts are there on here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.184.115 (talk • contribs)

The details of this article are, as far as I am aware, all correct.

Verification of the details of this article can be found in the following:

'Latin American Species', F. Thomson, 1983 'Native species of Paraguay and Uruguay', B. Killigon, 1993

Please note that the above user removed the Afd and hoax tags from the article, blanked Template:AfD in 3 steps, and created an article called Cunt in the face. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note also that a google search on "Killigon" turns up only gaming sites. It appears to be a character name. Also note the earlier edit that claimed this rabbit has a gestation period of 21 months. That's an elephant, not a bunny. Delete this farce. Fan1967 18:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax. --eivind^t@c 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD G4, as per previously-deleted material. Also, my comments on Zzzzzz1's Talk page refer from previous deletions.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete --Ed (Edgar181) 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Dairy_Hill

It's about a small-town ice cream stand -- WP:NN Marysunshine 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. --Eivind^t@c 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Valiant attempt at an encyclopedic article, but the "locally-owned and operated" bit dooms this. Aplomado ^talk 18:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no notability outside its locality. —Whouk (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable concession stand, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless notability can be established. PJM 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above. -- Caim 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Shanel ^§ 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

El kondor pada

Recreation of previously-deleted content under a different name. The original article was deleted because there are absolutely zero references to indicate that this song has any notability. The song article keeps getting recreated, keeps getting deleted because it's a recreation, and keeps getting undeleted with no valid reason, there are still no references to support the contention that this song is notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There would be references if the article wasn't deleted :) But, this is NOT recreation under different name, this is a new article. I'll start adding references promptly. --dcabrilo 18:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not going to comment on how "notable" it is, but the whole "recreation" stuff is false; the previous versions were totally different, consisting mainly of lyrics. This is actually an article. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The previous deletion by User:Samuel Blanning was done solely because nobody could come up with evidence of notability. It was not deleted because it was only lyrics, and that's false, anyway, there were several paragraphs of text. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not what he said in his closure note. In any case, give other users here, who were not aware of the first vote in time, the chance to present evidence. I certainly will do exactly that. A little patientce please, and try to do things by the rules this time - both admins and users. BabaRera 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The song has a good number of Google hits, 80 for "el kondor pada" and even 254 for "el condor pada". Unfortunately they're almost all in Serbian, so I can't read them, but they do seem to indicate the song is notable. Serbia is not the most Internet-wired country, and half the country uses Cyrillic (including, presumably, the most anti-NATO parts, so there are probably even better searches that can be done), so over 300 links is notable. AnonEMouse 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • All we need is one reference, even in Serbian, which a Serbian speaker can vouch for and translate, but we can't even get that. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You got that. See the article --dcabrilo 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Not yet. As I said, "can vouch for and translate". User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I can vouch and translate, if you trust me :) See, the thing is that we can't link to most "references" because they include links to mp3 songs and lyrics, which are probably not most appropriate for us, because of the copyright issues. --dcabrilo 18:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
          • What does the site say about the song's notability? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
          • First of all, it's from '99, during the war, and it says that "Popular group Indexovo (radio) pozorište" already recorded songs and videos that are satirical, including El kondor pada, Ja sam ja, Oni su oni, and that they are available on mp3.co.yu :) Anyway, the song was recorded, apparently the video was shot too, it is notable. Indexovo radio pozorište is not as popular as Monthy Python, but it's nevertheless as popular as things in Serbia get. So please, do understand that standards of popularity for art in English cannot apply to other, relatively small, countries and cultures. --dcabrilo 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, existence is not notability. Did it get used at political rallies? Was it a popular hit? That is notability. And I'm talking about popularity within Serbian-speaking areas. How many records did it sell, and how does that compare to other record sales in the region? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
              • The song was released during the war, and as you can imagine, nobody kept top charts in the country at the time (not that they do otherwise). The song was used on protests, and was popular on the radio. The song, however, was later released on two compilations of songs by "Indexovo radio pozorište" (as they are not a musical group, they don't really release albums), namely "Gotov je!" and "Oproštajni koncert". Once again, sales are not kept track of in Serbia. As this is a political song, about a war, made during the war, it's not really normal to have it in your CD player. Prominent Serbian daily newspaper Glas Javnosti, released it as mp3 at [31]. The CD's where it was released are available on most Serbian on-line shops. You have to understand that the song was recorded during a freaking war, not much entertainment information was posted online at the time, and Serbia simply has no public record of sales or charts. --dcabrilo 19:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
                • (Not intentionally putting words in Zoe's mouth, but) ... and is there a page of text, anywhere, in any language, in print or on the Web, that we can reference, that says that? AnonEMouse 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • Like I said before, I can't find online sources. The song was released during a war, Indexovo radio pozorište stopped working in 2003. But, do you really think that all of us who were in Serbia back than are lying? Everything in the article is verifiable, and if I were in Serbia and had extra time, I'd try to call radio stations and ask them. There are many notable things which simply aren't source online. However, the song is referenced a lot and apparantly everyone from Serbia here knows it. I personally hate the song, and I think making songs during a war is disrespectful to the victims, but I was nevertheless constantly exposed to it. And again, this is not a song by a popular band, it's a satirical, political song created by a theater group. There are no charts or sales numbers for it (mind that if you wanted such info for any Serbian music-related article, we wouldn't have any). --dcabrilo 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Merge - at this point I can accept the evidence that the Indexovo radio pozorište qualifies as a notable band/group. As that article is just a stub, it seems for me an ideal solution to merge this article into the article about the band.Balcer 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC) We have established at this point that the song exists, as evidenced by hits on Google, links to lyrics, article on Serbian Wikipedia etc. Sadly, no little evidence has been presented so far that the song is notable. I still look forward to some demonstration as to which criteria for notability, as listed in Wikipedia:Notability (music), are fulfilled by this song. If this is demonstrated, I will happily change my vote. Let me remind everyone here that just because a song is popular and well known, that does not by itself make it notable by Wikipedia standards. Balcer 18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy you are quoting refers to bands, not songs. The evidence of notability of Indexovci is on the deletion talk page. Do you dispute notability of them? BabaRera 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It was you who listed this article for deletion in the first place. However, proposed policy says you needed to proceed differently: Disputed notability

Where an article's given topic is deemed by a particular editor to be of little encyclopaedic value, or not noteworthy, it is best to assume good faith and first initiate a discussion upon the talk page of the article. An editor may also consider using either {references}, {importance} or {cite needed}. These steps may reveal sources which will allow more value to be placed upon the article. If no such discussion or sources ensue, an editor could consider listing the article for deletion

In the case of such articles being listed for deletion, such a listing occurs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia editors should outline their reasons for believing the article's given topic to be of no encyclopaedic quality, namely that no independent sources of a reliable nature have been referenced. This will allow a balanced discussion to ensue on the topic's given value, and will determine its worth to Wikipedia. BabaRera 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a different article, with a different title, with very different contents. Why are you bringing this up here? I did not list this article for deletion. Furthermore, inserting templates into the discussion clutters it up and is totally uncalled for. Balcer 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this it the third creation of this article under as many titles. It's not my responsibility to contact a bad-faith recreater to let them know I've listed their improperly recreated article for deletion discussion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The original vote closure was not at all well justified, and the admin behavior is being disputed. And also, not all interested parties were able to present arguments, as they were not aware of it. As for the notability of the song and band, I will provide some of the links shortly. BabaRera 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of possible sockpuppetry by this user is being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning. Note that if he does have another username on English Wikipedia, by casting this vote he just violated the cardinal rule listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. To quote: Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, alternate accounts are not permitted to vote in any Wikipedia election, nor are they allowed to participate in any similar procedure, such as polls and surveys or the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Balcer 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is relevant only if he used multiple accounts to vote in a single discussion. Zocky | picture popups 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By my reading, it states alternate accounts are not allowed to vote, under any circumstances. Balcer 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Also, your description of the ad-hominem paragraph that you started as "sockpuppetry discussion" is inaccurate and malicious. I am not violating any rule here. I am entitled to a voice, and the only thing which is not allowed is behavior which attempts to present that there are more than one person while there is one - certainly not what I am doing. I did not even vote in the first voting. I am not violating "one person one vote" principle even if this were a simple vote. I just want to put the things straight since the arguments for non-notability are weak indeed and I am going to rebuke them. BabaRera 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, the rule specifically says "... or the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ". So, an alternate account cannot even contribute to discussion, much less vote. Balcer 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that page explicitly lists forbidden uses of alternate accounts. No one has claimed that the first item (circumvention of block) applies, and the other one says: Sockupuppet: An editor uses more than one account or changes IP to promote the appearance that other people (in reality the same person using multiple accounts) are involved in the same discussion. (should never be used) (bolding from that page). Zocky | picture popups 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not doing anything against the policy. Anonimous editors can present arguments in AfD, that is explicitly stated, so I have the right to a voice. BabaRera 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

First I want to rebuke arguments about non-notability of the band. Since notability(music) criteria are referred to, let me quote what that wiki link actually says - and note that it has to satisfy at just one of the criteria. This is done in detail in a separate section below on the talk page . BabaRera 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Discussion moved by Zocky | picture popups 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not an article about a pop hit, which would need proof of "popularity" to be included. It's locally well-known political satirical song about a relevant historic event, one of the most notable examples of Serbian propaganda war against NATO in 1999. The lack of online sources which would say anything remarkable about the song is simply not reason enough to delete it. It would be great if somebody who actually knows the song could present any arguments for deleting the article. Zocky | picture popups 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The shooting down of one plane, which did not change the outcome of the war in the slightest, was a "historic event"? Please explain. Balcer 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The war certainly was, and shooting down the plane played a great role in propaganda war. --dcabrilo 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The war certainly was notable, and the only stealth fighter ever to be shot down is also a notable enough event in itself. Certainly our other appropriate articles consider the event notable. Zocky | picture popups 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article from The Guardian, dated April 25, 1999, one month after the shootdown of the F-117. It is entitled Grim laughter in the rubble and it very specifically discusses the grim jokes that the Serbs are making about the war. It goes into detail about the particular jokes made about the F-117. Yet it containts no mention of this song, which was played "all over Serbia". Balcer 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an interview with Predrag Koraksić Corax, why would he talk about that song? Perhaps he hated is as much as I did :) --dcabrilo 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe. But this reporter was presumably living in Belgrade in those days, talking to Serbs, listening to the radio etc. If this song was so hugely popular, why would he not mention it? Surely it would be juicy tidbit for his readers. Anyway, the point is, clearly one can find Western newspapers writing about Serbian humor during the war. So, presumably, if this song was popular, one ought to find a mention of it in some newspaper, somewhere. Balcer 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered me weather you dispute the notability of Indexovci; there are no guidelines for notability of a song on wikipedia. However, a prominent song of a notable band should be notable. I can offer several links poiting to this. First link, from balkan repository project:[32] - song is included in 3 Index hits during NATO war.Second, they have published 'oprostajni koncert' on which this song is one of their 10 choices (the main hits of theirs) - it is a fairwall sort of compilation, so this testifies about the importance of the song for indexovci; you can google it, for instance here it is sold,[33]BabaRera 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs? Balcer 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote it: There is consensus that the vast majority of songs do not deserve an article specifically devoted to them. Most songs should redirect to another relevant article, such as on the album the song was originally released on, or the artist in question. Songs should only have an individual article if there is enough verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. If a song has a body of published criticism, the song should probably have an article on Wikipedia. Even if a song is otherwise notable, there is no reason to start an article which can only say the name of the song and who performed it.. Balcer 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So, if that is a criterion, than it is more relevant that it has some individual relevance than that if it was a hit. The relevance of the song is that it was an expression of a spirit of defiance during the war. That is larger cultural connotation. This context is confirmed in the links provided - the balkan repository project about nato art, the article in Serbian above (explaining the context) as well as what people from the Balkans say. It is not just any song or even hit. It is a song with much more background and significance than just a name and who preformed it. The relevance of this song indeed is greater for Serbian (and other Balkan) people because of this larger social context - it was a phenomenon that it illustrates that makes it notable. This is what makes it different from other songs, and this is, as you can see, why people care about it. BabaRera 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, what you quote is just a proposal and not an official guideline.

• Delete untill some evidence of notability is prsented that passes both WP:V and WP:RS. Maybe an alternitive could be a merge into the article about the person who wrote it. ---J.S (t|c) 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  Authors, publisher, date, place, etc. are all verifyable. It's also verifiable that [www.indexovci.com indexovci] have been a very prominent theatre troop in Serbia for 15 years, having produced numerous theater plays, songs and books. They're important enough that when the original lineup split in 2003, newspapers wrote articles about it and call them "perhaps the most well known satiricists in Serbia". Note that one of their most well known plays, Istočno od Rajha, gets even fewer useful hits on Google than this song. So, the question is, what more do you want? An article in English? Zocky | picture popups 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per J.smith. DGX 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yes, I came because a friend informed me of this AfD. But, as a good Wikipedian, I would not engage in this AfD if I didn't find the song notable (I tend to dissapoint my friends who ask me to support an oppinion which I... well, do not support). I tried to find a guideline on notability of songs, but failed. Can anyone provide me with the link? As of notability of the song: I do not live in Serbia, nor am I of serbian descent, I live in Zagreb, Croatia and I went to Serbia in 2003 for the first time. Yet, I've heard about this song as a very popular one during the NATO bombardement. My 2 cents. --Dijxtra 20:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as songcruft. -M^ask 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above users -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP, first of all, I've heard this song millions of times, even performed it at my elementary school and on many occasions. There is absolutely no reason to delete this song. If anyone wants me to send that song, I will do so, and if you play the song to any Serbian person, he will immediately recognize it. IT IS IDIOTIC THAT PEOPLE WHO NEVER HEARD OF THE SONG ARE DECIDING WETHER IT'S NOTABLE OR NOT. I've never heard of a bunch of US songs, but there are articles about those, and I don't complain. This song is a symbol of an era, this song was listened by EVERYONE in bomb shelters throughtout Serbia during the NATO aggression, and I was one of thousands of boys who had to spend that period in my life underground, songs were all we had. This one was the favourite one. --serbiana - talk 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The more arguments there are about how hugely important this song was, the more puzzling it is that so little information about it can be found from reputable sources. If the whole country was listening to this song during almost the whole war, could one not find any newspaper published at the time that would have mentioned this fact? This should not be difficult: many newspapers have archives which do go back so far. Could someone please try to search? Balcer 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... i'm not aware of many Serbian newspapers having archives which go that far. Zocky | picture popups 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The song is mentioned it the newspapers from the time, but a little remains at this date on the net. But there are still papers that mention it, and the references have been provided: [34] BabaRera 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. No references that prove its notability. It is a recreation of another today already deleted article. It seems like a desperate try to create an article about such unnotable song.--Mig11 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the talk page of this deletion at all? What about the references provided there? The song is notable, according to [35], for instance. BabaRera 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Jesus Christ, the song is the symbol of the bombing! Of course there are no mentions of the song in newspapers, do you think that Milosevic would let an anti-Milosevic band have publicity? And yet, the song spread like nuts, and I guess you're all supporting Milosevic on this one. --serbiana - talk 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'll try a different approach:
      • El condor pada gets 10,300 hits at Google
      • El kondor pada gets another 228 hits at Google
      • El condor pada gets another 625 hits at Yahoo
      • El kondor pada gets another 101 hits at Yahoo
    • Let's say thats about 5,000 pages containing the name of the song. Seems notable to me... --serbiana - talk 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are searching incorrectly. Try to put quotes in your search box, as in "el condor pada", and that will look for that specific word sequence, which is of course what we need for the song title. This way, we get on Google:

• "el condor pada" - 76 hits
• "el kondor pada" - 23 hits

Much less impressive, to say the least. Balcer 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes??? Why you little... Why don't we just put question marks at each end and see how many hits we'll get. Internet doesn't follow YOUR rules, and not everyone puts quotes at the beginning and at the end of a certain title of the song. Your quotes mean nothing to me, just look at how many times the word el condor pada or el kondor pada appears when you type it in without the quotes. My golly, people will really think of anything to push their agenda... --serbiana - talk 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The quotes on google mean you search for exact phrase. So, indeed, there are less hits, but there are still hundreds of hits. And some links, like this one (a very relevant link) do not have "pada" at all: [36]

You misunderstand. Enclosing a sequence of words in quotes simply means that Google is looking for the words in that specific sequence. It does not mean that actual quotes must be present for there to be a hit. Your searches without quotes will return all pages that mention el, condor and pada somewhere in the text, not necessarily together. Please educate yourself on how Google works. Balcer 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you qouted the number of hits in your google links incorrectly - there are 249 and 79 hits respectively, which is more than 3 times than what you put. Was that a honest mistake - if so, please correct it! BabaRera 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's possible. Google works in strange ways sometimes. When I click on the links I inserted, I get 77 and 25 (slight change from before), but I cannot guarantee that everyone will get the same thing. The point is that it's nowhere near 10,000, as was suggested in the comment I was responding to. Balcer 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you find some article supporting the notion that google works in mysterious ways? If not, I'll have to ask you to desist from making that argument. Profnjm 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I am no expert, but here is one possible explanation, based on information from Google platform. When a user does a Google search, he actually connects to one of the servers which is closest to him. These servers, located all over the world, are not completely synchronized, so it would be possible for two users located in different places to get a different number of hits. This is especially true in this case since, as the title "El Condor Pada" was recently created in Wikipedia and is now being picked up by all Wikipedia mirrors, the number of hits should be continually going up. So, that is one possible explanation. Am I certain this is the case? No, so take it for what it's worth. Feel free to change the number of hits to reflect what you are seeing at your end. Balcer 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

actually, there is non milosevic press and it does mention indexovci and the song. but it is really a little of it available even on the wayback machine - this was in 1999; a link above from the article in 1999 was provided, i am trying to dig up some more, but wayback machine is slow. Note that WP:N does not ask for such strong proofs of notability, and I would like to see if any other articles have been scrutinized with such attitude of disbelief. BabaRera 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about other songs, but this song is clearly different, since the main argument for having an article about it is its supposed great political and propaganda significance. Well, if it was so great and all, one ought to be able to find some mention of it in newspapers of the time, or in books about the Kosovo war. Balcer 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And the song is mentioned in such sources. However, the old newspapers, let alone books, are not available online (and why would all sources have to be online?) - try for instance searching for 1999 serbian newspapers on wayback machine (like major newspapers - politika.co.yu, blic.co.yu; or freeb92 station etc) to see how little is archived even there; Here is one source, online, that is about art during NATO agression and it gives the song in question as an important example of it:

[37] BabaRera 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Extremly Strong KeepHOW LONG WILL WE TALK ABOT THIS?? OFF COURSE THAT ENGLISH NEWSPAPERS NEVER MENTIONED IT,THE SONG IS A CRITIC OF ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL NATO AGRESSION.SO OFF COURSE THERES NO MENTION OF IT IN NATO AND ZIONIST PRESS.Dzoni 21:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Dzoni, with your paranoia and conspiracy theories, you are not helping the discussion at all. --dcabrilo 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Borise,sta bi tek rekli da smo napravili clanak o pesmama "Ja sam ja" :))))))Dzoni 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ja sam vec napisao te pesme na sr wiki, a napisacu i ovde, picka im materina. --serbiana - talk 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. If you want to converse in Serbian on your Talk pages, please do so, but don't do it on AfD or other multi-user discussion pages. Please either convert your text into English, or I will remove it. And I've already asked you once to stop referring to people you disagree with as Zionists. How many warnings do you need? I don't have a clue what Zionism has to do with this at all, but then, paranoia rarely makes sense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Trans. for Zoe: "boris, imagine what would they say if we created an article about the song "ja sam ja"" (courtesy of the Zockster) - FrancisTyers 21:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KeepJamal Curtis 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion page. Please explain your reasoning. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep or Hardcore merge Per talk page. What I'd really like to know is is the song actually funny or not? — I mean, are we talking Monty Python funny, or just Big Train funny? - FrancisTyers 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The arguments for song notability are now also presented on the talk page; not only the band is notable, but the song as well, according to the proposed guideline - the only one that exists on wiki now. Only if you suspect bad faith of editors who made the claims, that are verifiable (by contacting radio stations for instance), you can claim that, for the purpose of AfD, this is non-notable and should be deleted immediately. BabaRera 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's funny if you speak Serbian (of course), and if you didn't really like the Clinton administration... --serbiana - talk 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is deffinetly Monty Python funny,I can even send it to you in audio with english translation.There is also another very funny song: "It is me' (Ja sam ja) with very funny lyrics about Bill Clinton,Tony Bler,Robin Cook and other butchers,but its extremly funny.Dzoni 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics is avaiable here, with translation. [38]; the song itself can be heard here: [39]

• Strong Delete, this is not Serbian Wikipedia even if in this page we can meate all the serbian user wich are traing more than this User talk:Dzoni#Zionists. The votes from Dzoni and Bormalagurski/serbiana must be deletet beacose this article it hase to do much more with propaganda. --Hevnonen 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This user is voting on the basis that English Wikipedia can't have an article about something if Serbian Wikipedia has one. Thats low. I see it's good that we kept the Serbophobia article. --serbiana - talk 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I m not dreaming, you have give us a argument User talk:Dzoni#Zionists. --Hevnonen 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hevnonen,[personal attack removed. Zocky | picture popups 22:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)(UTC)] language:))))Dzoni 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Now they are making Serbian users on sr:wiki mobile for this unnotable song. See here. Regards --Mig11 22:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see that Albanian users are mobile here - saying that song is not notable. What evidence you present to that? Serbian users (and users from Slovenia/Croatia etc) that were exposed to radio broadcasts of this song certainly can comment on its significance. They can testify about the song and what they lived through and point out to relevant things. However, the votes of Albanians (who presumably did not hear about the song, which is not at all surprising given that they are living a completely separate lives, and were not exposed to any of the Belgrade radio stations, which did not play in Kosovo, and share little culturally with Serbo-Croat speaking part of the Yugoslavia) are merely asserting that a song is non-notable (I am not able to judge what Albanian song is notable, and would not make such unfounded claim) - for reasons, which I strongly suspect have more to do with serbophobia than honest opinion. BabaRera 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Translation of the link: Text on the link provided states: "AfD about removing a hit of index-guys is taking place on English wiki. Could you take a look at the page and state your oppinion, evidence and arguments about whether the song is notable" bolding as in original, undelines by me. N.B.: I didn't put the notice, I just thought that people who do not speak Serbian should have a translation to judge about "good faith"-ness of the notice by themselves. --Dijxtra 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Balcer who summarizes the matter well. JoshuaZ 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Changing to Merge but don't mind deletion. The band is notable; Balcer's logic works well for the song, I see no extensive evidence for notability of the song by itself. JoshuaZ 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

His objection is that he cannot find articles from 1999 from Serbian press online. Yet, there are almost no articles from that period online. And you are ignoring all other presented evidence. BabaRera 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the song in English newspapers and in books about the Kosovo war would be fine as well. Plus I am assuming old copies of Serbian newspapers are stored in libraries, both in Serbia and outside of it. Would it be too much to ask one of the Serbian editors involved in this discussion to visit a library and dig up a reference? That would be much appreciated. Balcer 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Weather the song is mentioned in English press, I do not know. I think Serbian newspapers are stored in few libraries outside serbia, if at all. However, they are available probably in the major national library; some people might store the papers themself - I have a whole bunch of newspapers at my home in Serbia (I live abroad though, and cannot browse them until I go there on holiday), but some other people from Serbia might be able to do it. It is not a small task to browse through the old newspapers though if one does not keep them - since there is probably few libraries that have them. Asking by e-mail the group itself would be the best way to get the references, as they are probably aware of that. See their site [40] and write to [email protected] <[email protected]> and ask them about the song references in the media directly. It is probably the shortest way to check it - if you want to make a good faith effort to come to the bottom of this, the best thing is to ask them directly (they do speak english, I am sure). BabaRera 23:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Serbiana made a good point. What else do u need?! Luka Jačov 23:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Verification of notability, which we still do not have. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate. What, for instance, have you to say with regard to the evidence presented at the talk page of this AfD (everyone is ignoring it, it seems). Also, what do you have to say about aking Indexovci themself about the media mentions of the song on [email protected] - it is a way to verify the claims that the song was indeed used on rallies, that it was broadcasted, to check the copyright status of the lyrics/ask permission etc - they can provide you with the data, since you are not satisfied with what users here are claiming; not all sources have to be online, and then, a claim that such and such a paper contains such and such a thing, verifiable in principle, can be established. And what do you think about the claim that you place an undue burden here? What exactly you want to verify, and how does it follow from WP:N policies or policies relevant for AfD BabaRera 23:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So far all I have seen are links saying that the song exists and that people liked it, not that it was notable. And it is the responsibility of people making a claim to contact those who might prove the validity of the claim, but just contacting the group who recorded it would probably only get their own inflated feelings of importance. Is there a journalist we can contact? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was suggesting to verify the claim that there were radio broatcasts, that the media mentioned the song etc. by asking them for references, not opinion; If you distrust all Sebrs whatsoever, that not only violates WP:AGF, but also makes it difficult to make any arguments at all. For instance, do you dispute the notability of Indexovci? Unlike for songs, there is accepted guideline for that; I have provided a detailed explanation on the talk page. per that guidelines. So, do you agree, per evidence presented (newspaper links with indexovci etc - it has been detailed there) that Indeksovci are notable. And then, the question is what kind of notability about the song you ask to be proved? If it is broadcasting on the media, yes, it has been broadcasted a lot, for instance, on b92 (site freeb92) and one can check with the radio stations that people who claim popularity listened to in bunkers. You can verify it by emailing the radio stations. It is an undue burden to ask people to prove it in a way you do, just to provide means of proving it, as a reference etc. And asking a site is a valid mean - it works that for copyright issues with regard to pictures - providing a way to check copyright status. Why should there be higher burden of verifiability of claims that we make here. Anyone, who doubts it, can ask the radio station about what songs were broadcasted. Given a reference which is not online, it is not a burden of those who reference it to scan it for those who want to see - they have a means to check it, and assume good faith until a reference proves to be bogus. Isnt it that way that it works for copyright issues? Why it would be different for other sources, which are not online? BabaRera 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it, it's my anti-Serb bias that caused me to put this here, it couldn't possibly be any other reason. You got me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What motivated you is of no importance. You can ask for evidence, but I am saying that there is a policy here [WP:AGF]. Also, please state your concerns clearly and explicitly, so that there is no misunderstanding.

I have put a detailed argument on notability of the band on the talk page, per criteria. The notability of the band does not seem to be disputed - they meet several criteria, and reliable sources have been given, as required (media articles discussing them are one example, then their numerous tours etc). So, the argument now seems to be not about notability of the band, that is established, but just about the song - and song itself has relevance; there are no accepted notability criteria, so I ask those who dispute the song's notability to state what they ask from a song to be notable. Then we can check how these criteria are applied in wikipedia, and I would ask that same standard be applied. Also, those who claim song is notable, would at least know what they have to prove to those who are saying that it is not notable. So, please, list your cirteria for notability, and we can then proceed discussion in a constructive way - we have to know what we are talking about, and to see bottom of the dispute about notability here; I would want to know what needs to be shown, and then, the sources can be provided (though not all will be online, but that is allowed as far as I understand) BabaRera 02:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning towards Keep. I remember this song from "Reuters oddly enough" in 1999, I think. I cannot pinpoint it any further but it was definitely noticeable, even in Western Europe. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete - A single song of recent origin does not seem worthy of it's own page even if somewhat notable. Is it a standard or something? How about merging to the artist/album page.--Nick Y. 00:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non notable in english wikipedia. OSU80 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Reasons? Google hits are quite enough. And, please read once again Serbiana point. --Manojlo 07:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep since it is a prime example of a particular type of resistance during wartime -- resistance of those who are otherwise powerless. The arguments mustered by the "delete" side are verging on being as ridiculous as some of those on the "keep" side. Balcer, for instance, appears to be doing nothing more than providing obstacles that simply can't be overcome. Profnjm 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write about this event from various angles, nothing is stopping you from adding appropriate sections to existing articles, Nonviolent resistance, for instance. Or, even better, write a separate article Shooting down of the F-117A stealth fighter in 1999 during the Kosovo War or some equivalent title, and describe exactly how that happened, with a section devoted to its propaganda, cultural and political consequences. Nobody is attempting to blot that event out of Wikipedia. In fact, given how many Wikipedians seem to feel so emotional about that event, I am actually quite suprised that such an article has not been written already. Anyway, the entire argument here is whether the song merits its own article, according to the rather strict criteria Wikipedia sets for having articles about songs. Let's stick to that straightforward issue. Balcer 01:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no accepted policy on notability of songs, and the proposal that you quoted (it is just a proposal for a guideline, nothing more), says that song has to have greater sociological relevance, and more content and context to it than just a title and authors. This song has exactly that - it was a hymn of Serbian resistance, and such songs do have articles in wikipedia. See, for instance Lili Marleen. BabaRera 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Maybe if people would understand the tough times Yugoslavia had to go through...--Krytan 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That is no argument for the verifiability of the notability of this article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is an argument for notability (are you now disputing verifiability of the claims' and content of the article? let's separate issues here, OK!). The tough times and unjust NATO bombing are exactly what makes this song notable for Serbs - not mere popularity on its own. BabaRera 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Song notability Criteria, proposed guideline in wikipedia, relevant in this case

I think it is high time to see what a proposal for a guideline (best that we have) says:

A song may be notable if it meets one or more of the following standards. If a song meets three or more of these standards, it is probably notable; if it meets two, it is a good candidate for notability, and if it meets one, it may border on notablity.

• Has appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country

It has been a hit during nato bombing in Serbia, so certainly one of the 20 - this can be checked by contacting by e-mail radio stations b92 (www.freeb92.net), radio index, etc. who can confirm that the song was played during the bombing extensively. Also, listed here [41] as one of the few examples of art in the NATO period (this link is perhaps more relevant in establishing media campagn); as there are no online links establishing popularity directly, verifiability can be best met with contacting the journalists - freeb92 is one of the most popular radio stations, and it is the way to proceed and confirm what Serbian people here say for those who dispute their claims.

• Charted in the Top 100 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, for at least six months (need not be consecutive)

I am not sure if this is formally met as there are probably not such charts, but in Serbia, it was popular for quite a few months during and after the bombing, well in the top 100; if there were some charts, it might be possible to dig them up - but system in Serbia is different, and what songs were broadcasted would be the best information that exists. But, under reasonable interpretation, this is clearly true.

• Is a song that helped define a specific genre of music

Not the case

• Is the signature song of a performer

Yes, index theatre have made few dozen songs, and this is one of their most well known. one can verify that from the index theatre themselves (contact e-mail address provided above). see also the deletion talk page where argument about this was made.

• Is a historically notable song for being the first to do something interesting, stylistically or technologically

No

• Helped launch a notable record label

No

• Has been officially released in at least one remixed version and/or has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network and/or was the subject of a major publicity campaign

Yes. It has been published on two compilations and there was a music video - as evidenced by the article from newspapers in '99, quoted above [42], that talks about music video being recorded, as well as a major publicity campaign - in fact, anti-nato sponsored propaganda effort; also evidenced in this newspapers article [43], corroborated by many users here.

• Has been placed on a "best of" or "most influential" list from a major music media source

I am not exactly sure what is meant here - probably not (what is a major music media source). It has been among "best of" (or the best of) Index songs, is one of the "best of" NATO-war songs, it is on the compilation Oprostajni koncert (evidence provided) but I am not sure if it meets formally the criterion. It was not considered "influential" in some musical sense though.

• Has been downloaded a high number of times through digital download websites

This is also the case. Numerous tribute pages and mp3 links for it provided source for download, and it has been downloaded by many users in ex-Yu and Serbs in the world. However, what high number of times means, is relative. The exact quotes might be available from some sites, like nostalgija.com [44] - warning - this site has popups; it is a site where much of the ex-yu music can be downloaded (piracy or not - it is the way many people get music from such sites, and one can get a quote from them and get an idea about relative popularity of the song); there are other sites that offer free download, some mentioned above.

• Is a particularly well-known song from a piece of musical theater, radio, film or television

As Indexovci are also a comic theater troup, they have incorporated this song in piece of theatar - that is what they do with all of their songs. No quote yet though - might be available from the indexovci group directly; we have their e-mail, so this is verifiable. also, there is a video of their play with the songs - sold here, cover shown and a synopsis, testifying about this:[45]

The synopsis: Snimak predstave u Banjaluci odrzane 2001 godine .Na ovoj kaseti cete cuti I sve ove pesme obrade -El kondor pada,Sta ce mi zivot bez tople vode,Narasli su dugovi,Kada pocnem drugi dnevnik ja,Madlenka,Ja sam ja I oni su oni,Mi smo mi,Donatori gde ste da ste,Govovi se da me vavas,Lepa li je Dano vlast u krugu dvojke,Taze tursija,Sanjala sam nocas da te nema,Zazmuri,Doslo je do krvi,Ne odlazim,Kad sam gladan,Igra ruski rulet srpska Jugoslavija,Zamislim zivot u kom enosis nove cipele,Prica o Bobi Vladackom,Kasno je za brzu prugu,Stranci u Peci

Translates: a recording of the play held in Banja Luka in 2001; you will get to hear their songs: El kondor pada (notice it was listed first), Sta ce mi zivot bez tople vode (what do I need life with no hot water), Narasli su dugovi (debts have grown)...(list of other songs performed during this musical play).

In short, it seems that there are quite a few criteria met, and some are completely documented at this point as well. So, it reiterates the notability claim; nothing to say of the larger war context. BabaRera 03:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. No need to set an example of this article, there's tens of thousands of articles without references which additionally no one cares about, so why not delete those instead of this one. I think no one doubts that the song exists, so would everybody please just calm down already, we lose nothing by keeping this around until it can be referenced better. Stick the appropriate tag on it though. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep - this is popular song among people of Serbia during 1999 NATO Bombing. Funny resistance those months is something what I will remember forever. This is legendary song for me. --Pockey 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and add a request for additional references as and when they can be produced. I know that this doesn't normally work as an argument on Wikipedia, but I've checked with a Serb friend (I know, I know!) and he confirms the song's existence and notability. For a non-English language song from a small nation with limited internet penetration to get the Google hits it does is reason enough. I have to say (personal observation again) that various supporters' behaviour on this page has not helped their case, but that doesn't alter my vote. Vizjim 09:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As Pockey --Jovanvb 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The listed criteria for the song notability are now discussed in detail on the article talk page too, as well as on this page. It is clear that according to the proposed guideline the song is notable, and that the claims on which this depends are now either fully referenced or can be verified by emailing radio stations like b92, the indexovci themselves etc. Numerous Serbian, and also Croatian, Slovenian wikipedians, and even some from abroad have testified on the main deletion page that this is indeed the case (i.e. confirmed the claims from which notability follows), and so, according to WP:AGF, it should be enough for AfD (means for verifying are available; all claims are verifiable in principle, by checking broadcast etc. with the stations and it is undue burden to require all the e-mail confirmations and non-online references, that these users claim to exist, in short time for the purpose of this AfD; verifiability should be matter of principle, not actual scanning of books and obtaining other proofs about that, but allownig enough information for anyone to check; besides, there are tags to be placed if notability has yet to be demonstrated, deletion is wrong - since, by WP:AGF a word that it can be done should do for the purposes of AfD - discarding the claims of all the people who heard about the song or are from relavant area, spreading few countries (that were even warring against each other) that listen to songs in Serbian, is really violating WP:AGF in my opinion. BabaRera 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, until somebody emails those places you list, you have no verifiable references. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I said, and I think you know it perfectly well. There are on-line references listed, some of them fully establish points for notability; but not all of the points are established by on-line references. Popularity of the song is not confirmed in a way you want it by an online reference (if you dont count google hits), but it is verifiable, since one can check with the station. Other points are (for instance, claim that the song was part of a play - there is a recording of a play being sold; then that the song is Index theatre major song; than that there was a music video; that the song was used in media campagn etc.). But you insist that the popularity is to be proven - while providing contact address for the radio stations (like www.freeb92.net) is, especially for the purpose of this AfD, quite enough - just as providing means of checking copyright status of a picture is enough. Copyright issues were always greater concern for wikipedia than notability of some articles. And why would there be tags for notability etc. if any article that did not present the proofs for notability (and some have much, much less indications and proofs of notability than this article now has) would be imediately deleted. BabaRera 17:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that only a few points are needed to judge song notable - one and it is on border of being notable, and three or more mean that song is notable, per the proposed guideline. This song satisfies more than enough points, and would not even depend on the popularity. So, it would be quite malicious not to take all this into account in judging notability of the song. BabaRera 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Notifiability and Verifiability do not have the same standards. Per WP:V, the content of an article must be verifiable: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources". Per WP:N, "a topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact". However, note that there is no requirement that the notability of a topic has to be verifiable in the sense of already been published by reliable and reputable sources. That's the standard we often use for both, but I think this is one of the few exceptions.

Here we have half a dozen Serbian editors giving first hand testimony that basically the entire country regularly heard the song in their bunkers; and we have a good number of links to the song in Google, considering the country and age of the song. Sure, we can't write that in the article - but per WP:AGF, and given the fact that no one is denying it, and not giving any argument against it, we can take that as evidence of popularity. I'd be much happier if someone found an "already published" reference for popularity. But if not, the already published references for verifiability, plus this unpublished evidence of notability, should be sufficient; because the standards for the two are not the same. AnonEMouse 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that we just don't have any verifiable sources for the song's notability. So, in my opinion the best way to resolve the issue for now is to merge the contents of this article into Indexovo radio pozorište. The article about that group, which has been shown to be notable, is a sad stub at this point and could use some content. Once verifiable sources are provided, the article can be created again. Let me again quote the first two sentences of the guideline, with my emphasis added: There is consensus that the vast majority of songs do not deserve an article specifically devoted to them. Most songs should redirect to another relevant article, such as on the album the song was originally released on, or the artist in question. Songs should only have an individual article if there is enough verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. Balcer 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

But there is plenty of verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. The only thing that isn't verifiable is notability. But there isn't any doubt of notability, given the testimony of the editors, and the many Google sites. Given that, I don't believe verifiable sources for notability are required. That's my whole point. Verifiable sources are required for all information in the article, and the article must be about a notable topic, but the notability merely needs to be true, not verifiable. AnonEMouse 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

But is that testimony entirely accurate? How can we be sure? For example, some editors claimed above that supposedly B92 radio played this song all during the war. However, that radio was actually closed down by the Milosevic regime on April 2, 1999 (see archived internet page), and only reopened in 2000 (according to information on B92). Could someone care to explain this discrepancy? (the F-117 was shot down on March 27) Balcer 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, B92 was taken over by government, not closed down. The old team formed Radio FreeB92 and regained the control of B92 only after Milosevic was deposited. I don't know when and how long the pro-government B92 broadcasted.

But that's slightly beside the point. All of the editors from the wider cultural area, from different countries and different political positions, people who are often in disagreement over minute details of articles about local affairs, says that this song was popular and notable. Yet you continue to doubt them and bring up small incosistencies in their acconts of events which occurred 7 years ago.

May I ask on what grounds? Zocky | picture popups 20:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple. On Wikipedia, you cannot source facts based on the testimony of anonymous editors. I find it puzzling that some contributors to this discussion are unable to understand this. My demonstration here simply served to illustrate how memories are imperfect, facts can get mixed up, emotions can get the upper hand, guesses might be made about facts which turn out to be wrong. This is why verifiable sources are essential. Don't take it personally.Balcer 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is not about sourcing facts in the article, it is about judging notability. And confirmation for some points on the guideline do exist even online (see the talk page), while other claims can be verified by checking what was broadcasted (regarding popularity, though major broadcasts are just part of popularity, as the whole phenomenon of cult movies etc. is a sort of underground popularity - how is that to be checked?)BabaRera 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record: the only user who mentioned b92 was me, as a suggestion how to check the claims of those who were listening the song in those times, simply because it was the first radio station to come to mind. I personally was not in Serbia at the time, and was suggesting how to check the claims of users who were. And journalists of b92 might still be able to say weather the song was played in Serbia and to what extent, but it seems that contacting other radio stations might be more relevant (someone who was in Serbia during the bombing can say which stations). That I suggested b92 does not change what they said at all. BabaRera 20:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, as far as I know, when a song in Serbia is popular, it will be broadcasted at most radio stations (if they play that type of music at all - some stations for instance do not play folk music etc.), so my guess is that any Belgrade radio station would do; and probably B92 has some of the evidence too. BabaRera 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a very specific statement you made: If it is broadcasting on the media, yes, it has been broadcasted a lot, for instance, on b92. So you asserted it has been broadcasted a lot on b92. That assertion is wrong, but it was allowed to stand. No Serbian editor corrected it, even though if they were in Serbia they must have known that B92 was taken off the air, as this was a very big deal at the time and even I remember it being mentioned in Western press. Like it or not, this demonstration of one inaccuracy in your facts puts a dent in the credibility of your other claims. In the light of this, I again insist that verifiable sources are essential, and we cannot just take the word of anonymous editors for notability, as shown here. Balcer 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it wrong? As I said, any popular song would be broadcasted at most stations, and that B92 was taken over does not change that. I still think that it was broadcasted there by the new station policy; however, others are in better position to say it. In efect, in that paragraph I was making an argument for verifying the claims about song being popular that were already made. The fact that such claims can be verified still stands. BabaRera 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide your definition of verifiable sources and also answer my question from above? Zocky | picture popups 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what my definition is? Use Wikipedia's definition, given in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please read that whole policy page very carefully. Balcer 21:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, your definition of verifiability seems to be verifiedness, not at all the same thing. All information in the article is verifiable: you can contact the authors, the publisher, the radio stations etc. Yet, you go on insisting on verified, not verifiable sources. Can you now please answer my question of what grounds do you doubt the truthfullness of a whole series of editors from the area? Zocky | picture popups 21:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is:

• Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
• Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
• The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Try to understand the last point especially. Balcer 21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop the bolding? We're all perfectly capable of reading here. Since you continue to confuse "source" with "mentioned in media", I'll let that one go. Can you now please finaly answer my other question? Zocky | picture popups 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt the truthfullness of the editors from the area. I think they are telling the truth. At the same time I want to see reputable sources and verifiable claims, as that is Wikipedia policy and this is how this encyclopedia is build. Clear? Balcer 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is policy for claims made in the article, not for claims about notability; and nevertheless, here it is asked that article be deleted if its popularity (newer mind other criteria which work even for songs that were not popular, let alone proved popular) is not proved. And just listing radio stations that played should be enough of a reference. BabaRera 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per J.s. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion page. Please explain your reasoning. Zocky | picture popups 20:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "per J.s." looks like a perfectly valid explanation for reasoning to me. Took me whole three seconds to figure out whom this editor was concurring with, which was pretty amazing considering how spammy this discussion is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, few songs are notable - was there a single release? The article says it was released on a compilation album. Article about that album might be good if the compilation in question meets notability criteria. If there was no single, I'd be terribly interested of hearing verifiable proof about the alleged popularity of the song, because otherwise this will be very far from WP:MUSIC/SONG's thresholds. Further, this thing is going out of process on various levels: Firstly, document the albums before songs and only then split songs to subarticles, and secondly, this gigantic rantfest here and RfC, combined with lack of notability evidence by the proponents, won't exactly keep people chilled about this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIW I'm now leaning on Merge - Verifiability aside, this doesn't need an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The notability of the song (a satirical song during the war, not ordinary music hit) lies in its sociological relevance - it was sort of a chief resistance song during the war. So, it is actually more notable than the compilation itself. Also, please see the criteria listed to judge songs and how this song fits into them on the talk page of this deletion page. BabaRera 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you please read the article before voting? There are no singles, there is no band, it's a theater troop which often performs songs and sometimes publishes them. Anyway, probably no single of any kind was released in Serbia since 1980s, especially not while the country was at war with NATO. This is not a popular commercial hit, it wasn't even available in stores when it came out. It was a political statement and is notable and became popular because of that. Nothing in the world to do with WP:MUSIC. Zocky | picture popups 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop with all these inaccurate guesses already? Here is one website illustrating the healthy state of the Serbian music industry www.b92.net, at least in the past few years. I would like to see some evidence that no records were produced in Serbia during the 1990s. Balcer 21:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, when El kondor pada was released, B92 did not exist. It was raided by the police on the night the war started, and it didn't come back to life till after the war. Most newspapers, except for Politika, were coming out irregularly, and usually had 4-5 pages (just to give you the perspective of media at the time). Second of all, Indexovo radio pozorište is not a pop band. They don't release records, but they do have some compilations. P.S. the only single from ex-Yu I remember during the 1990s was by Van Gogh, somewhere around 1997. It was not a commercial endevour though. --dcabrilo 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the first to come up with the claim that "that no records were produced in Serbia during the 1990s", you will have to find evidence yourself. "Produced records" are not "released singles". From the death of vynil singles until the age of cheap independent production of CDs, only albums were released in Yugoslavia and later Serbia. Zocky | picture popups 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I took singles to mean records. My mistake. My point was to suggest that maybe the Serbian music industry was not in such disarray in the 1990s as some people claim. For example, why is there such certainty that there were no music charts, so that this song could not be ranked? Just curious. Balcer 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dcabrilo, can you say what radio stations were active and played the song. It would then be possible to check popularity by e-mailing them and asking about the song broadcasts. BabaRera 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

BabaRera, absolutely. Balcaer ignores popularity is verifiable... But it's not easy to verify. Somebody in Serbia should contact radio stations and get confirmation. --dcabrilo 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here, Since we are discussing wwwolf vote, something he said in another vote for deletion. He voted delete here, but his comment could serve those who are for keep here [46]. Dcabrilo - could you say the names of the stations that were playing the song, that you remember clearly. That would be very helpful. BabaRera 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(taken from another vote):

• Comment Here's just something for people to chew: Should the verifiability criteria put as the question "can verifiable third-party sources be found?", or the question "is there a possibility that verifiable third-party sources can be found?" It's almost like the question on Original Research: "Are there sources?" vs. "Can the statements be sourced?" I'm personally always leaning on the latter of these interpretations: It's not OR if something can be sourced to some work, it's Verifiable if the primary source exists, and there's a possibility that some independent source will show up and verify the claims.
  These rules are in Wikipedia to stop crackpots from pushing their theories as undisputedly valid knowledge. The rules aren't meant to stop discussing cult fictional works - that's what notability criteria is for! What I'm seeing here is trying to delete a work by simply stacking charges: we're proposing the article's deletion as a matter of technicality. "You can't verify this." The way I see is this: Could a reputable game magazine cover this game? (I'm guessing someone might already have.) Could some notable blogger review this game, for example? (Probably, and may already have.) Could some researcher go and conduct a methodical study of EO's player base? Now, you can ask these questions, and answer is a definite "maybe". Ask similar sort of questions about some crackpot scientific theory, and you get a definite "hell no, not even probable". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(taken from another vote)

• • For the record, that was a statement I really regret making (as can be seen by anyone who takes a look at my user page), because I knew it would be twisted, and this AfD clearly shows it was. I'm NOT NOT NOT advocating complete lack of verifiable sources, just that if the subject has provided statistics, they can be considered verified (and this is what the verifiability criteria does concur with!). Further, this was a case where such thing was present and forward-looking: The game existed, it had statistics, and people could go there and research it further. I believe that particular principle was applicable in the AfD I used it in, because we were talking about a case where there was absolutely no reason not to believe the statistics put forth by the subject of the article. That AfD was about a net game, where this was pretty much clear-cut: The game publishes live statistics, we should believe them unless there's documented evidence to contrary. However, this AfD is a bit different: The article doesn't really provide any such evidence of popularity from the primary source, and the claims are vague. This is same as no sources at all, which is not fine with me. Also, this article deals with a past event; it's not something that can simply be verified by sending in the researchers and letting things observe the supposedly popular phenomenon. This article is about something that was. It needs stricter criteria. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Balcer. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED MY ARTICLE,THIS WAS JUST AN IDEA ,BUT I NEVER DREAMED THAT ARTICLE THAT I STARTED WILL GET SUCH A SUPPORT.I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT AFTER WE DEFENDED THIS ARTICLE,THERE IS NO TELLING WHAT WE CAN DO,SINCE JUSTICE HAVE BEEN DONE.THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT ONCE AGAIN,BORIS,BARARERA AND EVERYONE ELSE.

THOSE LIKE ZOCKY CAN TRY AND DEMONIZE SERBS,BUT THEY WILL NEVER MAKE ITDzoni 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be said, but this user, Dzoni is blocked indefinantly for being a sockpuppet of the communism vandal. Just for those who were wondering... DGX 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dzoni has been a disruptive user, and Zocky blocked him for the insults that he had thrown (on nationalist basis). However, he is Serbian (judging by his knowledge of the language, and other things) - was communism vandal Serbian? I find it curious - I will take a look who is the original communism vandal. To me, Dzoni seems to be a very bitter Serbian user, who has lost his house in Croatia and a nationalist, I dont know abut the other stuff. But this is not relevant for this particular discussion, as enough users from the area (Zocky, Dijxtra - Slovene and a Croat), and Serbian editors (dcabrilo, bolmagurski etc) have made the case. I dont think that Dzoni has helped this cause much (even if he started the article) because of his disruptive behaviour, and in fact it seems that this has probably played the role in the first hasty deletion (which went against the majority keep votes). But an article has its place irrespectively of who started it. BabaRera 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per many above. What happened to assuming good faith on this one? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as the claims made in the article are certainly sourced or can be sourced reliably. Information about the "notability" of a subject is an internal matter for us to discuss, and is not subject to the same verifiability standards, in part because "notability" cannot be defined. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In other words, if anything can be proven to exist, then we should have an article on it? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The notability of this article has been discussed extensively. Dont twist other people's words, please! The point of the coment was that WP:V applies to the verifiability of the claims made in the article, not to notability, that has WP:N as policy; how to prove notability is not even discussed - and an official policy on notability does not exist, while per the proposal notability has been explaind on the talk page. You ask verification of the claims on which notability is to be established - you are not even satisfied with verifiability (providing ways to verify by pointing to off-line resources); that is certainly an interpretation that many users have objected to, and this user is just another one. In short, WP:V refers to content on the article, and that what this comment is talking about BabaRera 02:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that it is the policy of Wikipedia to have articles only on songs that are notable, the very existence of a song article amounts to a claim that the song is notable. Hence, this notability must be shown with verifiable sources, in accordance with WP:V. Balcer 03:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont you think you are streching things here? There are reasons why there are guidelines (too many songs for instance) and this song is not the one to be eliminated in the first place. But besides, the notability has been established for some points with online references already, and verifiability is provided for the other claims (refering to band and the ststions); so even if you were right, much has been done (and even verifiability of the content does not have to be established in short time - per deletion policy, placing tags like {fact} is the right response, and listing for AfD is only a last resort). BabaRera 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We are still missing a key piece of the equation here. If you want to prove notability this way, you should write to the email address of the station in question, receive a response confirming the notability of the song (for example information on how often it has been played), and post it here. Then invite others to check if they doubt your verification. At this point you are even assuming that the radio station will answer emails, but what if they will not? Balcer 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are enough pieces even without verifying the popularity - there are more elements to notability of a song (per proposed guidelines) than just popilarity. And I disagree with you what verifiability means. Saying that a public broadcaster has broadcasted something is verifiable per se, as it is a public information. Saying that portugese (or polish) television has broadcasted some series or TV show in the 60s or 70s might also not have any on-line references, but people will not question good faith of those who remember this and enter such things into the article. Such information is verifiable since there are documents about it, as public information. Verifiability does not require what you claim, and that poit was already made to you. Also, as I said, even if you were right, since the popularity is not the only claim of this song to notability, and since notability does not even have an accepted policy, the common sense is to be applied here. You could maybe ask for verifiability of verifiability, and go as many steps upwards, but at some level you have to rely on common sense (we can determine something - that there are sources, but you ask to source the fact that there are sources; then you might as well ask to source the facy that we can source the fact that there are sources, and so ad infinum; in fact, for notability, we apply common sense directly, for facts in articles, we provide sources and apply common sense that they are sources, and even there we do not source the fact that they are sources). BabaRera 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I just checked again how many google hits there are for this song. I used google.com instead of other google servers (earlier on, someone used google.ca):

"el condor pada" = 252 hits

"el kondor pada" = 81 hits

This includes google hits on Wikipedia. Let's remove them:

"el condor pada" = 241 hits

"el kondor pada" = 77 hits

Searching on google.it yelds similar results.

Either the song is becoming more popular ;-) or the original searches a few days ago didn't get a reliable result at that time. --Lou Crazy 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the number of hits one sees appears to be dependent on one's geographical location. I am located in Canada and when I click your two last links, I get 67 and 23 links respectively. And no, my url does not show google.ca. But who knows, maybe my settings are off somehow. Anyway, I accept your numbers, as we should of course take the maximum. Still, 300 hits in total for a supposedly major song does not seem like much. How many hits does one get if one searches using Serbian alphabet? Balcer 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably not that many, there are two Serbian alphabets, the latin alphabet and the cyrilic azbuka. However, almost all of the Serbian web-sites use the latin alphabet, because it's more simple. So, writing Ел кондор пада probably wouldn't return any hits... --serbiana - talk 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notablility, unverified. Song lyrics are not proof of notability. I agree this the English Wikipedia and votes and comments should be in English.--John Lakonias 04:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the proof on the talk page?. What do you mean votes and comments should be in English - arent they? Or did you mean that references need to be in English - that is strictly false, since all policies allow non-English sources if there are no sources in English. BabaRera 04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Did everyone take a good look at Category:Song_stubs yet? I do hope, however, that nobody will decide to prove a point over this :) --dcabrilo 04:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW. I just found another reference. Once again, the reference does not talk about how many songs were sold (because they weren't, it's not a pop album, we went over it again and again), but [47] (it's slow to load from North America) talks about humor during nato bombing. It lists jokes, several emails which were circulating usenet at the time, jokes on the banners on protests, etc. Look for "мотив овог бомбардера нашао се и у песми Ја возим стелта 117-а Индексовог радио позоришта". The article talks only about one song, and that's our baby here :) The article goes on about bomber 117A, and dedicates that paragraph to saying that "motif of this bomber occured in song I 'drive' stealth 117A (most people heard it on the radio/TV, apparent ambiguity about the song name)", and goes on to retell the song, in similar manner as the article in question does. The article is well written, and shows that the song was important part of that humor (or cynicism some would say) on the Serbian part. --dcabrilo 05:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Great. Finally, we have the first source which gives some indication that the song might be notable. We could use a few more, given that this is just a private page and we know nothing about the credentials of the authors. Keep them coming. Balcer 05:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to keep them coming. The website is not "a private page". It's an academic site about Slavic ethnology, with a long list of authors from Slavic countries, easily accessible from the link dcabrilo provided above [48]. Dejan Ajdačić, the author of the text and the editor of the site has a rather long bibliography [49], including numerous books and articles in journals, including the Slavic and East European Folklore Association's journal [50]. Can we now please stop wasting everybody's time? Zocky | picture popups 08:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up the author's bibliography, it was not linked from the page given. I will let the community judge whether this one sentence mention in one article, the only direct mention we have been able to find after presumably extensive searches, is enough for evidence of notability. For me it is not, and I am sticking to my vote for merging the content into the article about the group which created the song. Balcer 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, it's not only one sentence. It's not mention, it's discussion. BTW. do you think that all songs from Category:Song_stubs should go? Because, according to the community, even songs with much, much, less significance have a place on Wikipedia. --dcabrilo 15:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all should go but some definitely should. But that is a subject for another discussion. In turn I have a question for you is: what do you have against moving the content of this article to the article Indexovo radio pozorište and leaving this article as redirect. Don't you find it odd that at this point the article about the one song of this band is longer than the article about the band itself? Why do we need to have 2 stub articles, when one would do fine at this point? Balcer 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not the only direct mention that was brought up in this discussion - [51] was provided before; also, criteria other than popularity were shown to be satisfied. BabaRera 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not count that one because it is from a no longer existing page, the credibility of which cannot, by definition, be easily verified. Anyway, if you want to keep precise count of how many references we have, please do so. It appears at this point we have 2 web hits of any kind which discuss or at least hint at the significance of this song in a coherent sentence. Please correct me if I am wrong and add more. Balcer 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work dcabrilo, finally we have sources, and hope is growing that the article won't be deleted. --serbiana - talk 05:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely notable. --estavisti 14:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't it clear by now that this song is notable, certainly more notable than many others under the songs stub? At this point, one editor seems to be demanding the impossible, largely to punish the creator of the entry for being a jerk. Let's not let personalities get in the way. Is this not about the time for some administrator to step in and render his/her considered judgment? Profnjm 16:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I must say my contribution to the discussion here was extensive and might not have been entirely objective (though I tried to be polite and not break any rules). Maybe I was ticked off at least a little at the first, atrociously bad version of this article, which was created by User:Dzoni, a ridiculous troll who has now been permanently banned. I will stop at this point and let the community make its decision. But I still hold my opinion that the best way to proceed here is to merge the content to the article about the band and leaving this as a redirect. That will not remove any information that has been entered so far, and will mean we will have one stub article instead of two (at this point). Plus, that will be in accord with the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines.Balcer 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For the nth time, it isn't a band, its a theatre troupe. - FrancisTyers 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How we got here and what we learned

Here's a review of the steps that brought us to this point:

1. A rather incivil newbie editor creates a bad article about a Serbian song at the wrong title.
2. It gets afd'd. Local editors uniformly say that the song is notable and that it should have an article. Despite minority opinion for delete, the article is deleted for lack of references, prompting a rather premature RFC.
3. The incivil editor recreates the bad article at another title, this time correct but misspelt.
4. It gets afd'd and then speedied as recreated material.
5. A group of established editors writes a new, proper stub about the song at its proper title.
6. It gets tagged for speedy deletion. The tag is removed by a yet uninvolved editor.
7. An old hand speedies the article twice and finally puts it on afd after it had been undeleted twice by different editors.
8. A series of editors from the wider cultural area consistently say that the song is notable.
9. The incivil editor is first blocked, then permabanned.
10. The old hand that afd'd the article accuses the editors who wrote the article of bad faith and, in user talk, refuses to back it up or take it back.
11. We establish that the song is one of the most important songs by probably the most important satiric radio and theater troop in Serbia and that it has a number of google hits and web references.
12. We go through a painful tit-for-tat repetitive argument about notability, verifiability, sourcing of facts, sourcing of sources, workings of google, state of Serbia in 1990s, etc.
13. We finally establish that the song is notable, by finding a discussion of it in an article by a prominent Serbian ethnologist, who happens to be the head of university library at the Belgrade University, by far the most important education institution in Serbia.

And here are some things we hopefully learned along the way:

• Topics should be judged on their own, not by the editor who first created an article about them.
• Shouting IN ALL CAPS and insulting people will make things harder for your side of the argument (and get you permabanned, of course).
• Pick your fight wisely. When a wide-ranging group of editors disagrees with your actions, it's good to check what's going on and who's doing what before engaging in knee-jerk reactions and personal attacks.
• When a long series of people who are likely to be familiar with a topic because of their education, experience, or location, consistently says that it's an important subject, it's likely that it is.
• If you're out of your depth on facts, no amount of bravado, rethorical devices, appeals to authority, nit-picking and reiteration will make your case better in the long run.

Here's hoping that next time we'll avoid some of the mistakes we made here. Zocky | picture popups 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tally

Since this has gotten messy, I think counting opinions will be useful. Yes, I understand this is not a vote, but this discussion is also unusually messy. As of the current time, I count Delete: 11 (including 1 for nom) Keep: 20 Merge: 3 Neutral/Keep: 1 Merge or Delete: 1 Keep or Merge: 1 AnonEMouse 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• One more vote for Keep. At the first AfD I voted for merging into a bigger article about Serbian reaction to the 1999 bombings but this article has developed to a degree when it can stand for itself. I haven't read the whole discussion but how many google hits are there if you enter cyrilic title? --Tone 21:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Plus another Keep as per badlydrawnjeff somewhere back up there - and I have taken the time to read the whole thing, which inter alia demonstrates - yet again - that an admin without the rudiments of courtesy is more trouble than he or she is worth.Staffelde 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is plain dumb if you ask me... I vote delete--Manwe 14:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So once again policy gets violated by voting. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

One can vote, but one can't be sure that the vote has any value. That's all. Profnjm 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete why are you Serbs people making touble? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That is an inappropriate comment, please rescind it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I think this article is totally appropriate on the Serbian-language wiki, but not on the English one. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How come? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Why would a notable song from some other culture be excluded? It is not what wikipedia policies say. English is a universal and most widespread language, and there are many people who might be interested in understanding other cultures. Your reasonong does not make sense to me. BabaRera 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, Stubbly head, this is one of the stupidest reasons I've heard so far. So, the English wikipedia is only for non-Serbia-related articles? That sounds a little unfair to me, if it's worth mentioning in one Wikipedia, is there a different standard on this one? This article is a millionth of the encyclopedia, having an article about a song that caused SO MUCH comotion when it was suggested to be deleted, proves its notability, as well as the sources and Google hits given on this very page. Whats there to talk about? Keep the song, end of story. --serbiana - talk 00:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I don't think that notability is a universal thing. I'm sure that there are many articles on en.wikipedia.org would not be seen as notable on sr.wikipedia.org, and removed without incident. A bunch of people bickering doesn't create notability. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why are there notability criteria that mention explicitly countries other than English-speaking? Do you want to remove German songs, or Jewish issues? Or is it specifically that you consider Serbs insignificant, despite all the criteria that were shown here to be satisfied? BabaRera 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I find that comment (stubblyhead) virtually incomprehensible. Nobody claimed a bunch of people bickering made the song notable. Straw man. The people are, actually, debating its merits. That was a gosh-darned dismissive comment. What do you have to say about the arguments for its notability? Anything of substance? Anything to work with? If it's just a bunch of bickerers, why would you say it belongs on Serbian Wikipedia? Ugh. Profnjm 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats the problem with democracy. You give them the right to vote, and they abuse it. The user has no idea what El kondor pada means, he didn't read the discussion, he knows nothing about what the hell we are even talking about, and yet, his vote is as valuable as the votes of people who have read the discussion, investigated the notability, and are on top of what we are discussing. Stubbly head, tell me what do you think about resistance movement songs and their impact on government officials? --serbiana - talk 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as I think this song *is* notable... although I haven't heard it yet. I don't see the point in deleting something that so many people — even people who have absolutely no relationship whatsoever to Serbia, like me — think of as valuable. That's all, thanks. —N-true 00:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --SasaStefanovic • 00:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And now, just for everyone who wants to hear the song, here we go, El kondor pada!!!! Enjoy --serbiana - talk 03:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen to El kondor pada!

After listening, I can only say that this song can have no appeal whatsoever to anyone who does not understand the Serbian language. No wonder it has been so hard to find any mention of it in English. Balcer 03:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, everyone has their own taste in music... :-) --serbiana - talk 04:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Taste should play no role in this discussion. Dcabrilo said that he didnt like it, and neither do I particularily like it, but that is irrelevant. What matters is that this song marked one period - Bombing of Serbia, and it is a notable song by a notable troup which deservs an article. BabaRera 04:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe, cool! :))) --Pockey 15:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --- It's funny, and I, as a Serb diaspora haven't heard it before, but find it funny and I agree that this song must have played a key role in keeping the hopes of people in Serbia during the bombings alive, and that made a lot of people rally together.C-c-c-c 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Funny" and an uninformed "must have" are not valid arguments for keeping. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • And valid arguments for deletion are what, you've never heard of it? Since when has world opinion been solely based on YOUR statements? If we should delete all "irrelevant" pages on Wikipedia, maybe we should get rid of your user page. I mean really, are you notable, are you famous, and superbly rich? Does anyone here really care about you? Do they really want to know whether you can speak a basic level of Spanish or whether you love/hate user boxes? No one cares, yet no one's petitioning to delete it.

• • So you know, don't comment you something that YOU are so uninformed about. God, such ignorant Americans.... Oh one tidbit, I was on the phone with my one my cousins in Novi Sad (oh, wait you don't even know where that is!) this morning, and I asked him about the song and he said that it is still very popular. Unless you want me to tap the phone next time, pay a "neutral" translator to translate it to English, send you the tape to prove my point, I suggest you take my word for it and try to better Wikipedia for all, by adding articles insteading of deleting them. The only people that are not voting for keep here are you, uninformed, pro-democracy fanatics and/or Albanian nationalists who have no idea what they are talking about and just want to see anything Serbian wiped off the map. C-c-c-c 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ouch. Zoe is just trying to do the best by Wikipedia as she can. Please keep WP:COOL, or read the "How we got here and what we learned" section just above, by Zocky. AnonEMouse 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My comments on this subject have absolutely nothing to do with the language that it's in or even the subject matter, for that matter. My sole concern is for whether or not an article whose only claim to notability is "I remember it, it was played all the time" and "it's funny", none of which satisfied WP:V. Now, please point to any guideline under which your reasons for voting keep are acceptable criteria, and I'll change my mind. However, I also suggest you read up on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And your cousin in Novi Sad (see, I know where it is, we even have an article about it) is not an expert on the popularity of songs in Serbia or anywhere else, is he? I do, however, find your comment about "pro-democracy fanatics" deeply disturbing. As a matter of fact, it just struck me: Why are you even voting, if you're not pro-democracy? We should just delete this now, since democracy is such a bad thing and anybody with authority can just overrule everybody else, huh?

User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Is it possible that Zoe hasn't read anything but the last few comments? Just when the pedants had finally agreed that the song was notable, we get this renewal of the resistance. C-C-C-C's argument was not the sum and substance of the discussion. Profnjm 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it more than likely that you haven't read anything but the last few comments, seeing as how I've been in the middle of this discussion since the beginning, and seeing as how I was the one who nominated it to begin with, as a recreation of two previously-deleted articles which were deleted then for being non-notable? 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I get all of you confused. Why haven't you been paying attention to the discussion that ensued from your nomination? Profnjm 20:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • And on another point: are you suddenly in favor of this being a vote? It seems that the earlier ruling was that some sort of consensus emerges in spite of the vote -- a sort of Rousseauean "general will." Now we are treated to this debate on the nature of democracy, with the Nominatrix arguing that voting is a good thing. Oy, I'm so confused. Profnjm 20:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing: this is a new article, not a recreation. Sheesh.Profnjm 20:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny, it looks a lot like Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song) and El Condor pada, to me. And what can you possibly mean by my not having paid attention? And I don't believe this is a vote, I'm just trying to understand C-c-c-c's position that democracy is evil, even as he/she casts a vote. You're intentionally trying to turn my words, but it won't happen, so you might as well give up. It's pretty obvious that it's you that don't have a clue what's going on in this discussion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it CCCC was talking about Soros gang of "pro-democracy" NGOs, not about real democracy...86.30.26.210

Nothing "pretty obvious" about any of this. The articles were different in structure, content, motivation of creator, intent. You know that, but you can't overcome your urge to pick at it. Just because I don't have constant edits in here as I dog the creator of the new article doesn't mean I haven't been following along closely. You've taken over Balcer's role as pedant-in-chief. Frankly, it's getting sadistic. These things become occasions for some hyper-motivated admin. to keep saying "but that's not notability," "that doesn't prove a thing." Don't you have something else to obstruct? Profnjm 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't be the one making the decision on this, a non-involved admin will do the final close, and it's pretty obvious that the decision will be no consensus, but I still haven't seen a single reference proving that the song was notable, only that people know it exists. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What don't you like about [52]? It seems to cite the song as notable in the context of humor during the NATO bombing, and be by a respectable academic. AnonEMouse 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I support democracy fully, so much, that I wish to vote in the Montenegrin referendum coming up, vote in the British Parliament, vote for Quebec and Alberta separistism, and vote for cheaper gas prices. But what? I can't? You mean to tell me I can't vote in the British Parliament? Why can't I vote in the Montenegro referendum, or for the Bloque Quebecois? What, shouldn't my opinion be important as the opinions of the CEO of Exxon Mobil or Shell? Oh right, because I'm not a citizen in any of those places, or a board member of any big oil companies. This same idea applies with you, you have nothing to with Serbia, you are welcome to comment and voice your opinion but not try to push your own ideas (and unfortunately they will probably be ignored anyways, but that's life). You believe that you have the God given right to vote on anything you wish to even if it has nothing to do with you whatsoever, that's the problem with AMERICAN democracy. Why else are Americans always bombing/invading countries?

They think they have the God given right to change whatever they want, and leave everything they don't want to touch alone (ie. Sudan), but attack places oil rich Iraq. Also when quoting, please quote an entire sentence and not just a word (ie. "funny") so not to change the meaning of what I have said. And what I did say was "... but find it funny and I agree that this song must have played a key role in keeping the hopes of people in Serbia during the bombings alive, and that made a lot of people rally together." There is the reason right there.

My cousin may not be an expert (then again, neither are you), but the point is that in Serbia it is a still a popular and relevant topic, and as my cousin was a teen in those years it would have very popular for people his age, and that is the point. What he says is much more credible than what you can say, or I, because he has always lived there, he's much more familiar with things over there than I, you, or most people here anyways, with regards to Serbia, because he is in Serbia. My parents spent about a $300 every month calling relatives in Serbia, for over two months, to make sure they were alive during the bombings, and kids had nothing else but this to keep their hopes up. Sorry for sounding arrogant and angry, but this is really frustrating as I'm only trying to make the same point as almost everyone here. C-c-c-c 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, guys, but can we get back to talking about the article instead of trading unrelated insults? It seems obvious to this outsider that:

• The "notability hasn't been verified" side will not and cannot not back down unless verification is provided, because at this point it would damage Wikipedia policy to do so.
• If any verification whatsoever were provided, the article would be allowed to live, since anything that was at all significant in an armed conflict/resistance clearly has much more long-term notability than thousands of forgettable ditties that do have Wikipedia pages.
• The "is notable because I say so" side has suggested some excellent ways to provide verification, by contacting the theater group, radio stations etc. They just don't seem to understand that the burden of doing so falls on themselves.

Thus, could somebody from the "is notable" side please go off to gather such verification, and in the mean time we all shut up and get on with our lives? Mglg 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The verification of facts and verification of notability is already provided above more than once. Please read the discussion before posting. Zocky | picture popups 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is this user's first edit outside his user page. Zocky | picture popups 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP keep keep keep--TheFEARgod 11:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems obvious that the song is notable and the article appears to be clear and concise.--Adrift* 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The afd page says that the debate should remain open for five days, when an admin will step in and state the consensus. So? It's time. 8 days and counting. Profnjm 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Mega Man skills and attacks

Alright, I know this one is going to be controversial due to the gaming subculture that is creating these articles all over the place who are going to come in defense on this article, but a debate really needs to be held about these kinds of articles before there are so many of them that it's impossible to get a consensus due to the sheer amount of them on Wikipedia (everyone citing "precedent"). "Nip it in the bud" so to speak. To put it simply, Wikipedia is not a video game guide. If I am mistaken, help me understand how this article does not violate this principle. For example: Ice slasher: "Fires a burst of freezing ice that immobilizes an enemy on contact, but does little damage." This is not encyclopedic. The fact that there are other similar articles does not ipso facto establish a precedent. It could just mean we have more deleting to do. That said and without further ado, debate away. Aplomado ^talk 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with above, let's set a precident about these "List of game items/skills/ect" here and now. --InShaneee 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: To clarify my above comments, I don't mean to generalize all gamers as putting this kind of stuff up there. The vast majority of them have created a lot of helpful articles without including a bunch of listcruft etc., so hats off to them. I'm a gamer myself so no offense. I'm generally referring to the gamers who turn Wikipedia into their own video game guide. Aplomado ^talk 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, slept on it. Looking at this article, I recall only constructing it as a addition to List of Mega Man weapons for the sake of inclusion as there was some talk of readers ignorant of the source subject not knowing the difference between gained attacks and consistent weaponry. If not for that, i would not have created this in the first place. Now I'm not sure about the nominator's reasoning of a "game guide", as this doesn't devulge any data pertaining to such a thing (anyone searching about for that wouldn't find it here), and if it were such, a deletion would have been executed long before now. That said, a transwiki to the Mega Man wiki or wikibooks seems quite reasonable. -Zero^Talk 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Zero is the creator of this article. Aplomado ^talk 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. As if my comment above of "I recall only constructing it" didn't already spell it out. -Zero^Talk 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

lol sorry dawg Aplomado ^talk 01:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but just let the moderator delete the page rather than blanking it before the discussion is over. Aplomado ^talk 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki of the article is complete. Links ammended appropriately, and everythings fine. I did a cut and paste, and hadn't looked to see I blanked the page. Only took me a few minutes too.-Zero^Talk 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, si senior. Aplomado ^talk 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with Megaman (video game) Yet another list--Nick Y. 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are far too many articles here on video games already, and if this game derves an article, it deserves only one article. --BrownHairedGirl 08:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gamecruft. Vizjim 16:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't speedy it, because there have been multiple editors. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. -- Caim 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maloofing

Neologism, 2 google hits (WP and MySpace). Prod'ed, tag removed by original contributor without editing or comment. Accurizer 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Whouk (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Maloof per nom -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete--Nick Y. 01:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -- Caim 05:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I actually started to userfy this thing, and then changed my mind. First of all, I think Doc glasgow's right--we have no obligation to host people's bios. Second, since this user obviously edited from an IP after making his one edit from his username (to create this article), the account should not be considered active, so what's the point of having content on the userpage. Third, since all of the userfy votes are tentative and paired with delete votes, and Doc's is an emphatic don't userfy, there's no real consensus to userfy anyway. QED!!! If any non-admin wants the text I'll fish it out for you. Chick Bowen 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Shimon sandler

Was speedied for CSD-A7 non-notability; contains mild assertion of notability so I changed that to PROD. DePRODded without comment. Marked again for speedy. DeSpeedied without comment. Marked again for speedy. Still doesn't quite qualify for speedy, so now I'm sending it here. Technical nomination - no opinion from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete- I say delete because the article looks like a vanity article to me. It was created by a user named Shimonsandler who has no other contributions, and then continually improved upon by one anon i.p (12.146.67.12) who also has no other contributions. Philip Gronowski 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy, then. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!

--Doc ^ask? 19:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy seems fair. PJM 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, or userfy. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy or delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not userfy (no other vote) I'm fed up with people calling userfy on nn bios. WHY? If it isn't worth an article, then just delete it. Userspace isn't myspace for bios. We don't host nn bios by the back door. If this was an estabilshed user, I'd allow some slack (a few personal details about him in user space might be useful), but he isn't. In any case, it appears the 'author' isn't using the account anymore, so giving him a userpage with a pretty bio would serve no purpose. Please stop voting userfy without good reason. --Doc ^ask? 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, likely default to merge and redirect to List of political epithets, but this requries further discussion. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Corporate fascism

• Title is inherently POV, so redirect is out of the question. any useful information contained within is certainly covered several times elsewhere Jdcooper 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom Jdcooper 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Vote change - merge to List of political epithets, per Mmx1, that was what i was looking for, thanks Jdcooper 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but the term needs definining as it is in common use. Suggest a NPOV re-write should be done. I don't know how to do it though. Punanimal 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite - Punanimal 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The content maybe is salvageable, with rewriting, but i suspect its already covered several times over within wikipedia. Its the title we can do nothing with. Jdcooper 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The title is a phrase in common use and it therefore needs to be defined. The name of any emotive subject will inherently imply a POV (I can think of others), but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to block out terms that are difficult to handle. Instead, Wikipedia serves to define and lay out the neutral point of view in relation to things that themselves may not be so neutral. In choosing to delete a definition, we would be expressing a view about that subject ourselves, in the same sense that silence can be viewed as a powerful form of communication. Better therefore to define it and then lay out the various views of it. Punanimal 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of political epithets --Mmx1 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 20:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, adding only the title and dicdef to List of political epithets. The content would be better covered elsewhere, under something like Globalization or Economics. Pseudomonas 21:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite I agree with much of what's said above, apart from the decision to delete. I also think it deserves its own definition rather than a merger, since it is a term that has many Google hits. The term is controversial in some sense but absolutely still needs to be defined, and linked to related ideas. We can't suppress controversial ideas, even if we don't like them. That's not the point of Wikipedia. Put it this way. Wikipedia defines Fascism. So why shouldn't it define Corporate Fascism? If you delete one, surely you have to delete the other. Wouldn't deleting a definition that one doesn't necessarily sympathise amount to, well, something akin to fascism?
  • The difference is that Fascism is the correct name. Corporate fascism is a derogatory term. By all means we should document that the term is used, but that's too dic-def to have an article to itself, and would be better in List of political epithets (with a redirect there from this title). At present there's actually a discussion of the political and economic philosophy there, which would be like having a discussion of British history and culture filed under Limey (or something more offensive). - Pseudomonas 23:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know who/where/how/why, but this page has now become a redirect to Corporatism. No other opinion. GRBerry 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Since the article is available now, more comments to follow below once I form an opinion. GRBerry 16:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I get tired of these articles where a few media writers put the same two or three words together, usually a hyperbole and inherently POV, and then someone puts it into Wiki as a central concept. The article is at least slick and written in the style of NPOV, but there reallys isn't any defining concept. Cf. constitutional theocracy, also on the delete list, which is a comprehesible term in political science. Apollo 11:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• The best solution to me seems to be to include the term in List of political epithets as suggested above, but delete this article and redirect to Corporatism. (This is an awkward outcome, but I'm not aware of any policy that it contradicts.) Google scholar and google book give enough references that I conclude this is a real term, and at least one of them is from the 1930s so it is not a neologism. However, the term appears to be used primarily as an epithet rather than with a substantive meaning. In the cases where it has a substantive meaning, the corporatism article already covers that meaning adequately. GRBerry 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, would it not be rather POV to redirect this title to Corporatism? Like redirecting Handwringing liberal liar to Michael Moore or Warmongering monkey to George W Bush? Both of these are real terms, i have heard both used, but it would be POV to include them anywhere other than at the political epithets list, in my opinion. Jdcooper 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Corporatism already has a well written level three section entitled "Corporatism and Fascism" - that is why I thought the redirect there was appropriate. I'd redirect to the section even, if that worked. GRBerry 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unref bag of garbage text. Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: although fascism is by definition a merging of the state and large corporations, the expression "corporate fascism" is used to re-emphasize this fact, which is very much necessary because the corporate media and government have both made a significant effort to erase from recorded history the fact that fascism is based largely on corporate power. panem 16:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Political screed, now full of unverifiable speculation. -Will Beback 22:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. More like screeching political POV material that would be insurmountably difficult to make neutral. ForbiddenWord 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that one of the referenced sources is the article "GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM IS OUT OF THE CLOSET!!!!", which goes to show something. ForbiddenWord 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Including it in the list of political epithets seems to be the right idea. The article comes off (intentionally or not) as a sneeky way to push a certain POV. I'd reconsider my vote if there was a rewrite that centered on the origins of the term along with the definition and popular usage... I just don't buy the Proponent vs. Opponent angle thats there now.--Adrift* 16:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Minazo

WP:NN and vulgar — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, but funny. Wikipedia is not censored, though a more formal tone would be much better, of course. — AKADriver ☎ 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not for censorship, but when the terms are thrown around for no reason, it is ridiculous. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or BJAODN -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --BillC 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Hilarious, but no. Exploding Boy 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Taking into account that he is not a reccuring character, I've redirected to Asterix and the Golden Sickle, where he is already mentioned. It is misspelled but it is not a farfetched misspelling. And redirects are cheap. --Ezeu 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mettalurgix

This is an extremely minor character in the Asterix series, he exists as a plot device & visual gag in one minor story only and is never mentioned again, all the information really needed (if any is) is included on Obelix' page (their distant relationship being the ONLY thing that makes him at ALL noteworthy); also his name (page name) is misspelled (should be "Metallurgix"); finally, though not a reason to delete but rather a reason to not worry about deletion, no pages link to it Invisifan 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Recurring characters in Asterix. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He's not even a recurring character; why merge it there? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete There are less notable fictional characters in wikipedia (given the notablity of the asterix series and the notable use of cleverly funny names, like "getafix" and "*" asterix) but this one certainly doesn't need his own page. --Nick Y. 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Getcrunk. Nothing to suggest that this character needs an article of his own. --BrownHairedGirl 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • He is already mentioned in the Obelix article as a distant relative & in the appropriate book description -- he is not a recurring character in any sense -- in fact he's never mentioned again so unless we add a minor 1-shot but maybe interesting character category I don't think he should be merged.--Invisifan 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

EZTakes Movie Downloads

Reads like a sales pitch. Company meets neither WP:WEB nor WP:CORP. This is clearly an ad, not an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not free advertising space. Reyk _YO! 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete spam --Nick Y. 00:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The company was written up in:

Mass High Tech - http://www.bizjournals.com/masshightech/stories/2006/04/24/newscolumn2.html

Video Business - http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6324452.html and http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA627692.html?text=eztakes

Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112975784661973611.html?mod=2_1189_2

PC World - http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,120343,pg,5,00.asp

Tom's Hardware - http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/06/08/commercial_video_downloads_next_big_thing_for_the_internet/index.html

FPS - http://www.fpsmagazine.com/blogarchive/2005_11_01_archive.shtml

CNET - http://news.com.com/From+oddity+to+commodity/2010-1041_3-5605033.html

Digital World - http://www.digital-world.com/

It might be worth it to spend a moment looking at the company's site -http://www.eztakes.com

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Si Brown

Non-notable individual. A slight claim to notability is made (a pub entertainer), so AfD and not speedy. Seems to have been written by its subject, so possible userfy. BillC 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, maybe userfy -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity piece --Nick Y. 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles on development in Zimbabwe

NOTE: Article has been Moved to Zimbabwe News

Another note: Article is identical in content to Article on Mutambara, which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article on Mutambara

One person's essay - violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. It could almost be speedied as an attack article. BigDT 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: After I added this AFD, the original editor moved it to Zimbabwe News. Do I need to open a second AFD or will this apply to that as well? BigDT 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Wouldn't be the first time a page under AfD got moved. The note at the top of the page should make it clear. Fan1967 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: essay -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay. But writer is newbie with niche knowledge, so will encourage him to write something more encyclopedic. JackyR 00:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both Essays. Scranchuse 04:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Article is also duplicated at Article on Mutambara. Humansdorpie 09:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, essay, unencyclopedic. — mark ✎ 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 09:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Angr (t • c) 07:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aldux 13:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 14:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Borealocentrism

This term is a non-notable Neologism. Google has two hits. BigDT 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete You need a few hundred hits at least to make it to neologism, this is protologism. Fan1967 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be protologism, if I'd actually invented it... --MacRusgail 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually it's someone else's protologism; based on Google, someone named Webster G. Tarpley, in the August 9, 1993, issue of "The New Federalist", or maybe the book you cite had it first. Neologism would be the next stage, but it clearly never made it there, and it's had 13 years to try. Fan1967 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Neologism means "new word", which it clearly isn't. Protologism implies that it's never had public circulation, which it has done, to a limited extent.

• Delete non-notable Neologism--Nick Y. 00:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I am the article writer, and this is certainly NOT a neologism. I have no reason to invent a word for something I don't really sympathise with. It appeared, albeit humourously in "The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook" (Beard & Cerf) published over TWELVE years ago (therefore not new), and "borealocentrism" has been used within po-mo circles for as long. It is no more ridiculoous than the reversed map idea (which is ANOTHER wikipedia article on the same subject area) or Afrocentrism. I would suggest you look this up at the library, in the books, rather than on google. --MacRusgail 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - neologism doesn't necessarilly mean that you invented it. But if it is an English referenced nowhere on Google, including Google Scholar Search, then I question its notability. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms says this: "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles." I would think that would apply here. It may be a real word, but it hasn't reached a point where it is ready for WP.

• • • "Neologism" (in the form of English most people speak), means a new word. This word isn't new. The notability's an issue, but the "neologism" issue is a nonsense, for the reason I've just stated. --MacRusgail 18:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC) p.s. Google search notes "australocentric" which appears to be used in opposition to borealoentric.
      • Neologism doesn't just mean something invented last week. English is hundreds of years old. This word is 12-13. That makes it a new word in the context of the English language. There are words that new which have passed beyond neologism stage because they've entered common usage (e.g. "blog"). This one hasn't. Fan1967 19:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes it does "neo" comes from the Greek for "new" and "logos" is the Greek for word. The notability is the issue here... it certainly isn't "neo logos".--MacRusgail 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Doesn't really matter, since the article totally fails on that count, too. Fan1967 02:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
            • The notability is in question, but to claim it is "neo" or "proto" is nonsense. --MacRusgail 15:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
              • To claim it is an established English word is nonsense. Therefore, even after 12 years, it must still be regarded as a neologism. Fan1967 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                • I didn't say it was necessarily an established word, just not a neologism. --MacRusgail 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neologism, at best. Delete or merge or whatever. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Julie Rodriguez

Unverifiable, possible hoax. (User:Mangojuice's reason.) No one on Oye Mi Canto is named Julie Rodriguez or Stephanie Leonidas, and neither is someone by either name in the movie Washington Heights. Delete as hoax. Finishing off afd listing: zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zafiroblue; sorry I didn't finish the AfD promptly, but got called away. Could not verify "Julie Rodriguez" as related to Stephanie Leonidas in any way, but tried. Credits seem wrong in article. Mangojuice^talk 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per juice and juice. TheProject 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to prostitute--Ezeu 13:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC).

Lot lizard

Contested PROD, slang definition for a prostitute that works truck stops. I think a delete and redirect to Prostitute would be a good idea. Brian G. Crawford 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to prostitute -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to prostitute and redirect.--Nick Y. 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - just insert a sentence or two into prostitute and then redirect Lot Lizard to prostitute. - Richardcavell 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Theory of one divided by zero

I prodded this page which appears to be about an entirely unnotable theory. (no Google hits, no references). The author objected, so I've done him the favour of moving the debate here where it can get wider exposure. See also User talk:Bossk2 DJ Clayworth 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not for something dreamed up in school today ... delete BigDT 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That statement can possibly be disproven
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete This Article This article is a gift of knowledge given graciously by it's creator to the free beings of humanity. Furthermore, it is correct, and it is the first theory ever to describe the mathematical properties of everything, which is a real number. Therefore this theory is seminal and unprecedented and deleting it would be a great injustice. The article may not be found noted anywhere because it is entirely original and unique and has been realized for the first known time in history, by the author himself. That is why it is imperative that the article remain for the sake of historical documentation and also for the free enlightenment of everyone who cares to know about the number everything. Deleting this article would be a shame to the free evolution of knowledge and an impediment to mankind's destiny of understanding the universe. Respectfully Bossk2 21:32, 8 May 2006
• Delete this horror - This is an obvious prank. Beltz 21:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You are wong, this is not a prank. Saying this is a prank appears to be ignorant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossk2 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as Original Research, regardless of its quality or validity. Fan1967 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per fan1967 (I may I add that I stil think it is a joke). Lundse 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, meaningless and admittedly OR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • perhaps only meaningless to somebody who does not understand it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.2.106 (talk • contribs)

    Recognition that a proposition is nonsense is not the same as incomprehension. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete posthaste. Unfortunately it's not a prank. I'm afraid the author really thinks this is meaningful. Violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Lambiam^Talk 23:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It possibly is a prank, but if not, then it's total rubbish. - Richardcavell 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a high school level take on a mathematical concept of which the author obviously has no real understanding - furthermore it is more spiritualism than mathematics; it might work here after he's started a successful cult, but not now--Invisifan 23:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please try to avoid personal attacks, thanks. Fagstein 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete—To be honest, I stopped reading after the introduction, but it seems like the direction of the article is nonsense. As a comment on the "theory" itself, "everything" can never be a real number because that's not the way the definition works. Ardric47 04:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • admittedly the article was written somewhat poorly but I believe it's been revised. I wonder, if everything can not be a real number, then perhaps you can tell us how the definition works.
• Greetings, and thank you all for your concern and interest in this article. The article has been revised for readability so I encourage all of you to re-read it. Also, be sure you look at the image of the number circle (http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/sect/?action=view&current=circle_of_everything.jpg) because otherwise you will not be able to grasp the theory. Also I may note that the article has nothing to do with spirituality. This confusion was probably due to the inclusion of the word absolution which links to a Roman Catholic entry. This word was removed as that is not what it was supposed to refer to. Also the author wishes me to make an article about the number circle, because it is probable that the number circle will be accepted and will eventually replace the number line in textbooks. I also wish to note that this is not original "research." It is, however, an original realization that has been made by the author, which can and has been made by other people as well (they are now listed in the beginning of the article). Again, I encourage everyone to re-read the article as it has been improved and hopefully you will find it more compelling.
  • The changes were mostly minor, and the article still isn't really about anything of consequence... Ardric47 04:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The changes make the article much more understandable. The article is about 1/0 which has been ignored by mathemeticians (sort of swept under the rug) and which deserves more attention and investigation. 129.138.2.196 05:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
    • I don't know how much this needs to be argued, but 1/0 has not been ignored. I learned about it in class in high school. 1/0 is in general "undefined", but there are various circumstances that "look like" 1/0 that resolve to infinity (often), or sometimes 0, or 1, or something else. It depends on the context. Ardric47 05:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but in it's pure form 1/0 is greater in absolute value than either negative or positive infinity. Also when you say it resolves to 0 or 1 you may be referring to 0/0 which is not the same thing. 1/0 is the same thing as 2/0 but it is different than 0/0. Did you look at the image of the number circle? http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/sect/circle_of_everything.jpg Bossk2 05:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
        • Yes, I saw it. It's a nice picture, but not very useful for anything. And are we dealing with sockpuppets, or are there multiple people involved in supporting this? Ardric47 05:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm glad you asked. Yes, this theory was also essentially realized by Arceliar and Edward Solomon. See this page http://owl.infosys.utas.edu.au/mathemagicians_circle/table22.html. Also, other supporters are on their way. Ummm, the number circle is useful for understanding the fact that the number line is really a number circle. Quite important if you ask me.
• Delete... This is an obvious joke that makes no sense to the average person (and so to me qualifies as {{nonsense}}.) Grandmasterka 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because you can not understand the theory does not mean it should be deleted. Really the only people who have any validity critiquing this theory is mathemeticians. They will probably approve of it once they see what the author has realized.129.138.2.196 05:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
    • Ok, I'm close enough to being a mathematician to say that it should be deleted. Ardric47 07:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree, because you did not even know that 1/0 is a different thing than 0/0
    • Comment My degree is Math (though I wouldn't say I'm a mathematician per se) and I see what hes's saying -- it's a lot like the filler we published in the Math faculty student newspaper back in the day as a joke -- there are whole obscure branches of math dating back centuries in this field and mathematically this is simplistic rubbish, and very reminiscent of the ancient Greek philosophy schools that were also part spiritual (and gave us such lasting concepts as the 4 elements: earth, air, fire & water) -- he's just a couple of millennia too late
      • Mr. Walstad's degree is in Physics and Environmental Engineering and he knows what he is talking about. I am not sure what obscure branches of math you are referring to (perhaps your reference is obscure as well) but Brahmagupta was the only mathemetician to ever address the issue of one divided by zero seriously Bossk2 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
• Comment—There are two related articles, Lee Field Walstad and Walstad's Paradox. Ardric47 07:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment An obvious and unfortunate oversight. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm close enough to being a mathematician to think this is complete bollocks. --Bduke 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Badly written hoax or merely deranged kookery. -- GWO
• Strong Delete as orginal research WP:OR. I am in no position to verify its academic soundness, but the author of the article seals the case when he/she writes above "The article may not be found noted anywhere because it is entirely original and unique". --BrownHairedGirl 08:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you all again for your interest in this potentially ground breaking theory. I am the spokesperson and I wish to point out that the co-author of this theory tested in the top %99 for math on the ACT, and he is currently gaining his degree in Physics and Environmental Engineering at New Mexico Tech and is in high standing, and high esteem with the professors who think his theory is very fascinating and holds much promise. If you do not believe me you can email Dr. Lisa Young (pHd) who knows Lee and who teaches Astrophysics at his college. Her email is [email protected] but if you must e-mail her please do not bother her in a rude way. Also as the spokesperson I would like to say that this is not original research, it is merely a wonderful and true realization which the author has made and which anybody can see for themselves. Therefore it does not need to only be published in a scientific journal, it needs to be available for free to everyone regardless of anything. Also this article on wikipedia is important for historical documentation because Mr. Walstad is the first person in history to have publicly announced these realizations in such a way. 1/0 has not been covered by mathemeticians accept for Brahmagupta who is respectfully listed in the article. 1/0 is the most important concept ever which has been ignored by people for centuries and which holds the key to all understanding. Therefore I implore the community not to delete this article and instead to think about what it is saying with a little bit more respect please. You may be amazed when you realize that it is theoretically correct.Bossk2 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2

So why not get your work published somewhere else? Wikipedia is NOT for original research, however briliant that research is. Please take a few minutes to read WP:OR. --BrownHairedGirl 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the question Brown Haired Girl. I think I may have adressed your question in the new introduction for the article129.138.2.196 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2

• Comment The article was just edited again. I added a reference and also a list of related topics

• Comment I just want to let everybody know that I am not a sockpuppet. I am in no way trying to hide the fact that I am Lee Walstad. The reason why I say I am only a spokesperson for the author of this theory is because I did not invent the theory of everything; everything is the author of the theory of everything. I am merely a realizer. And also I want to remind everyone to assume good faith, as that is your official policy. Sincerely, Bossk2 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
• Delete - ...regardless of the number of new edits. It should be noted is the only votes not to delete so far have come from the author (sorry--realizer) of the article. No original research --Lostart 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I respectfully object because all the people who have nominated for deletion are only those who do not understand the theory and this is not grounds for deletion. Furthermore the theory is not original research, it is only an inherent realization which anybody can make for themselves and which is the sole property of 1/0 itself. Therefore it does not qualify as original research. Respectfully, Bossk2 20:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
• Comment. I see the new "reference" is pretty well a copy of the article to an e-mail list on the theory of everything. It has so far prompted one reply - "My calculator has the correct answer to the 1/0 problem; It says ERROR. Attempting to assign meaning to nonsense will only create more confusion.". I think that sums it up. bossk2, you asseretion that this is not original research does not make sense. It is OR. When there is a decent peer reviewed paper in a mathematical journal, come back and try again. --Bduke 22:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it seems all too often people respond negatively when they do not understand something. Apparently everyone thinks they have the authority to say this theory is wrong, just because they do not understand it, yet I find it funny that nobody realizes they have the authority to realize for themselves that it may be right. "Official" Peer reviewers will likely have the same problem and that is why this is a very big problem which only we have the power to effect. This is not original research because it involved no research, merely intuition, and common knowledge about the world around us, and that is a gift that everybody has. SO it is your responsibility to not follow a blind consensus and to think for yourself. Don't expect to surf the web and find the answer, the answer is in your own mind and in your ability to understand this article. Sincerely, 129.138.44.62 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
    • I understand it all too well. The theory is incorrect. You do not understand mathematics. "Common knowledge about the world around us" is not good enough to do good mathematics. Also using intuition is not good enough, but it is "Original research" even if it is bad research. It is not a matter for Wikipedia if you can not get peer reviewers to accept your paper in an academic mathematics journal. --Bduke 00:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your well based concern sir. However I think you are not truly considering what the article is saying and you are jumping to conclusions and not backing up your critique with any sort of concrete argument other than "this is false." Recall that I made a %99 on my ACT for math so I think I have a pretty darn good handle on it. What did you make on your ACT?
• Comment—There is no "Lee Walstad" or similar name at the NMT Physics department website (the undergraduates are listed after the grad students). Ardric47 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate you researching this. I only took up the additional major of physics this semester and I never actually went through the process of acquiring a new advisor, so that is why I am not listed on the physics department homepage (a small technicality I think). Nevertheless, I have been studying physics for quite sometime and that is what I am enrolled in this semester. You should see me listed if you go to the environmental engineering department page. If you wish I can provide a scanned copy of my registration which shows that I am taking almost strictly physics courses this semester, even though I am not officially listed yet in the physics department. Also if you wish to e-mail Dr. Young who's e-mail I've listed above she will verify that I am indeed a student of physics at New Mexico Tech. She was my Astrophysics teacher last semester and she has been very encouraging of me and my theory. Just e-mail her if you really want, but be sure to be polite. Thank you for your interest and attention to this issue, 129.138.44.62 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
  • Well I just went to the environmental engineering department homepage and they do not list their students :( However, you can still verify that I go to New Mexico Tech by going to this page where I am listed as the treasurer of the caving club http://infohost.nmt.edu/~nmtcaver/aboutus.php; Also you can send me e-mail at [email protected] thanks 129.138.44.62 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
• BJAODN? Melchoir 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a gift of something...though 'knowledge' isn't the word I'd use. --InShaneee 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I truly appreciate everybody's deep concern for whether this article is worthy of inclusion in the wikipedia which is definitely an awesome resource that I respect very highly. However, I am a little confused as to why people are having so much difficulty grasping the concept that 1/0 is the number everything. It seems quite plain to me, but perhaps it is still a bit difficult to wrap your mind around. I can understand that. Please give it time and these things will come to you. I have just received e-mail from Arceliar, the other one who has realized the same thing as I have (so you can see this is not original research, it has been realized by others besides me, but I am the one who has taken it upon himself to serve as spokesperson and bring the word to the people, so that you all can take part in this fascinating new realization about the theory of everything, 1/0). I think his comments are very intriguing and can shed light on this debate, and I will post them (provided I have Arceliar's permission) when I get back from a trip to the Gila Wilderness which my Dad has invited me on. Also when I come back in 5 days I will finish the article and show you all how it is possible to send something faster than the speed of light. Hopefully you will find this information valuable, and hopefully this debate will remain open until after that time. In good faith, 129.138.2.196 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
  • Adding an even more extraordinary claim to a "theory" that is already climbing on the crackpot index (although I'm grateful for the lack of blatant attacks) will probably not help you. Perhaps this is some sort of experiment to test what can "get through" in Wikipedia. Has anyone politely e-mailed Dr. Young? Ardric47 02:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not feed the trolls - It is now obvious that he is just looking to make us waste time responding to him. Beltz 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, good point. I can't say that I've noticed this happen on AfD before, though (has it?). Can this be deleted now per trends or WP:SNOW or something? Ardric47 03:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Please do not become apprehensive and lose your good faith, as I have come here in good faith, I swear it. I appreciate you for bolding the claim above. In good faith, when I come back, you will see that I will show you how to send something faster than the speed of light. You owe it to yourself to receive this information. Feel free to e-mail Dr. Young in the meantime and she will confirm that I have discussed with her my theory and that she encouraged me to go on and get a pHD because otherwise nobody would believe me (as is becoming evident by this discussion). Make sure however if you e-mail her that you are very polite and respectful because I do not want her to be mad at me for any reason. Sincerely, 129.138.2.196 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
• Delete Unimportant, maybe a prank. Pvazz 03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to reiterate that this is not a prank. All interested persons please refrain from claiming this is a prank because I have already sworn to you by my good faith that this is not a prank. Sincerely, 129.138.2.196 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
• Comment His email address has been verified. He is not a troll and does believe in this "theorem". Not that it changes the AfD in anyway but it does put things into perspective. -- 127.*.*.1 04:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. joturner 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR and WP:CRANK Georgewilliamherbert 04:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Speaking as a mathematician, I feel confident in stating that this article is ill-considered claptrap, rubbish and nonsense. They laughed at Benjamin Franklin, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown -- GWO
  • you feel confident eh? But are you confident? It sounds like there could be some doubt there, and that's coming from a mathemetician.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.2.106 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Come back after you have had a peer-reviewed paper in a conference or journal. Mrjeff 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just because some other people share the view presented in the article doesn't stop it from being original research, for which Wikipedia has no place. Regarding the content, what is true is not new, and what is new is not true. The author is invited to take a look at real projective line and realize that some of his ideas (regarding the number circle, etc.) are already known. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The above wikipedian notes that the content in the article is already supported by articles contained on wikipedia. He then states that the other findings in the article are false, but he gives no reason why this must be so. This may appear to be an automatic response of his, because he is afraid of new knowledge, unless of course he can give sound reasoning why the premises in the disputed article must be false.
• Keep This article is doing no harm. I think it is at least valuable enough to keep on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.2.106 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Likely sockpuppet for "bossk2". Fagstein 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as original research, or BJAODN. The validity of the theory is entirely irrelevant to AfD. The question is whether it is notable, verifiable information based on reliable sources. It is not, and hence must be deleted. Fagstein 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Spatula. I mean, strong delete. The author is capable of answering everything except the call to original research. Since the article contains no references or any kind of backup outside the author's own writing, it should be deleted. The author appears to think that something that is obvious cannot be original research. 86.136.82.105 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And I will extend that comment to note that the author should buy or get some webspace, and use that. If you really reckon that this is an omfgawesome article, then host it yourself, and word-of-mouth shall do the trick, right? 86.136.82.105 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article takes a LONG time to come to the point, and it appears to be this: in at least some contexts one may take 1/0 to be a sort of point at infinity that is approached by going in either of the two directions on the real line. This is convenient in projective geometry, in complex analysis, and sometimes in trigonometry. That has long been well known among mathematicians. It is explained in various other articles on Wikipedia. Those other articles are clearly written; this one is not. This article's assertion that this fact follows from, or perhaps was predicted by, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, is idiotic nonsense. This article also contains vast numbers of words that say nothing, including a long preface that leaves the reading with no idea of what the article will turn out to be about. Michael Hardy 20:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete $\infty$ times. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you know $\infty$+1 = 1/0? And 1/0 + 1 = -$\infty$? Fagstein 00:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Michael Hardy. —Ruud 21:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BALLS--Deville (Talk) 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ross Clydesdale

Only assertion of notability is as a casting director. Not a director -- a casting director. TheProject 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: nn bio -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lundse 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Nick Y. 00:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmc international

Non-notable, possible advertisement, possible fraud. All searches on "HMC international" lead to other companies. Searches on "HMC International" suit leads to pages about how a company of the same name was sued and closed for investment fraud. This article's company also provides several investment and financial services. Finally, the author's own user page is a link to this article, denoting some sort of personal purpose publicity. I suggest that until someone proves this organization's notability and credibility, that the article be deleted. Beltz 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - No citations, bordering on advertising.--Nick Y. 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Company has a web-page under www.hmc-international.de and the firm was never sued and closed for investment fraud. The article is an overview of the company no commercial activities are involved here, proved because even no web-link was summited.

• Delete still non notable... It needs to cite references that prove it's notability. Beltz 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Beltz. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just like the properly capitalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMC International (Closed; verdict = delete). -- Scientizzle 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not correct to delete the article HMC International. The company does excist and the article is a overview about their activities. If this article will be deleted hundereds of other should be deleted as well, for example pwc (pricewaterhouse)!!! If someone wants to delete this article it should be stated clearly which part of the article should be changed because all policies and guidline have been fullfilled.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Try RFC for this content dispute. --Ezeu 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

mass-to-charge ratio

The mass-to-charge ratio article is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature and should be deleted based on No original research standards. Those portions that are not primary research should be merged with the mass spectrum article. The article arose from m/z misconception (deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M/z misconception) and in edits of the mass spectrometry page (see Talk:Mass_spectrometry#Could_the_m.2Fq_vandal_please_stop). Mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-10 mass-to-charge ratio resulted in a POV fork between mass-to-charge ratio and mass spectrum. The part of mass-to-charge ratio that did not relate to mass spectrometry was supposed to go in mass-to-charge ratio and the mass spectrometry part was supposed to go in the mass spectrum article. Unfortunately, all but one sentence of the mass-to-charge ratio article relates to mass spectrometry. The remainder either duplicates existing information in the mass spectrometry entry or constitutes original research that is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature (it is referenced five times in the mass spectrometry article and the article's novel proposal to replace the accepted m/z with the new m/q notation makes this Wikipedia entry the top Google hit for 'm/q "mass spectrometer"). This notation is in conflict with the definitions that exist in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g. American Society for Mass Spectrometry [53] and IUPAC [54] - for an simplified overview see Ken Busch's Spectroscopy Magazine article: [55]), books (e.g. McLafferty ISBN 0935702253, Dass ISBN 0471330531, Siuzdak ISBN0126474710, Sparkman ISBN 0966081323, Grayson ISBN 0941901319, etc.) and on-line glossaries (e.g. The Little Encyclopedia of Mass Spectrometry [56], Pharmaceutical Mass spectrometry glossary [57], Base Peak Mass Spectrometry Glossary of Terms [58], Spectroscopy Magazine Glossary [59], Shimadzu Mass Spectrometry Glossary [60]). The POV and accuracy of the article have been repeatedly flagged and the author has each time removed these flags. The article makes many valid points and contains some novel suggestions on how to improve the existing nomenclature. However, advocating this non-standard point of view in a Wikipedia entry is counterproductive and will only serve to cloud the issue and make consensus building within the mass spectrometry community more difficult.

--Kmurray 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kmurray is not telling the truth

He is telling the story from the perspective of a small part of the scientific community which has established its own nomenclature which is not used by the rest of the scientific community, nor is it compatible with the international standards issued about exactly this topics, the ISO 31. Here are the facts:

0) The article expresses the standard view given by ISO 31 whereas Kmurray's version is non-standard.

1) mass-to-charge ratio is a quantity that is used by a wide field of sciences, not only the mass spectrometry part. Therefore mass spectrometrists should stop hijacking this term on Wikipedia

2) even within the mass spectrometry community many people realize that the IUPAC definitions are boguous, incoherrent and not in line with ISO 31 and therefore should be abandoned.

3) Kmurray as the chairman of the IUPAC group [61] that should prepare a revised set of definitions for the IUPAC. Unfortunately he is not qualified for this job. He does not understand the basics of metrology, he continuously mixes up quantities with units, he does not know the ISO 31 document whith which his work should comply.

4) In order to cover up his dismal track record he tries to hijack and delete the mass-to-charge ratio page, because it includes definitions that are according to the wider and more basic ISO 31 standards instead of the boguous, incoherent and outdated Kmurray standards.

5) Since Kmurray is running out of arguments he is now trying to have this page deleted. He is trying to censure the internet from facts he doesn't like.

6) Everyone willing to invest the (unfortunately huge amount of) time to read the relevant documents documents will see that the page is correct and should not be deleted.

7) The reason why he wants to delete this page is because he thinks the definition 1 Th == 1 u/e is not in line with what Cooks and Rockwood wrote in their article. They wrote: 1 Th = 1 u/atomic charge. e is the internationally accepted symbol for the elementary charge which is equivalent to the atomic charge unit. Now, you be the judge.

8) Conclusion: he is looking for a straw-man reason to delete the article. The real reason is that he does not want to comply to the international standards to which the article complies.

9) Kmurray is advocating his own boguous terminology, against the internationally accepted standards of ISO 31. Please check yourself:

relevant documents:

• ISO 31-0 introductory part of international standard ISO 31 on quantities and units. This is the document with which all scientific communities should comply, and to which Kmurray's IUPAC unfortunately does not comply.
• BIPM SI brochure
• Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry (IUPAC green book). This excellent ducument explains nomenclaure to be used by chemsists. Unfortunately Kmurray's group is not complying to this document.
• Chapter 12: Mass Spectrometry in the IUPAC orange book is supposed to define nomenclature for mass spectrometry. Unfortunately it is not in line with the more basic documents above. Unfortunately, some terms are ill defined and confusing. Kmurray is heading the group that should improve this document. Instead, he decides to delete articles on Wikipedia.
• Mass
• Charge
• Mass spectrometry and m/z
• Cooks, R. G. and A. L. Rockwood (1991). "The 'Thomson'. A suggested unit for mass spectroscopists." Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 5(2): 93.
• NIST on units and manuscript check list
• Physics Today's instructions on quantities and units
• International Vocabulary of Basic Terms in Metrology (Second edition 1993: ISBN 92-67-01075-1); a guide whith contributions of the following organizations: IUPAP, IUPAC, ISO, OIML, IEC, IFCC.
• IUPAP Red Book SUNAMCO 87-1 "Symbols, Units, Nomenclature and Fundamental Constants in Physics" (unfortunately does not have an online version).
• Symbols Units and Nomenclature in Physics IUPAP-25 IUPAP-25, E.R. Cohen & P. Giacomo, Physics 146A (1987) 1-68.
• AIP style manual

Please note the POV push above

Please realize the author of the unsigned argument is Kehrli. Please check his user page it will tell you everything you need to know. He is an advocate and makes some good points but he is an advocate nonetheless. The contents of his rant have nothing to do with if the article should be deleted. They have to do with an argument to change an accepted notation system (that happens to be old, antiquated, in desparate need of improvement and largely incompatible with ISO 31) to something new and better. However this change has not happened yet. Someday it will and then we will write an article about it. As Kehrli points out the nomination for deletion was made by the head of the relevant IUPAC commitee. Whatever IUPAC says is standard no matter how we may disagree. --Nick Y. 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nick, my nomenclature is in line with IUPAC green book, whereas yours is not. Kehrli

Please note the POV push above

1. Please realize the author of the above POV is advocating a minority view of a small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [62] over the well established ISO 31 standard.
2. Please note that the nomenclature of this small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [63] is only made for mass spectrometry of analytical chemists, not for the the rest of the scientific community that uses mass-to-charge ratios.
3. Please note that the opinion of this small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [64] does not even comply with the more important IUPAC green book of the same organization.
4. Please note that the opinion of this small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [65] does also not comply with the more fundamental and important IUPAP red book.
5. Please note that I agreed with Nick that even though his nomenclature is restricted to mass spectrometry only, both standards should be represented. - Now he infamously breaks this agreement and voted to delete the article presenting the nomenclature according to the ISO 31 standard, the IUPAC green book and the IUPAP red book.

Kehrli

voting

• Delete Agreed 100%. For further evidence readers and observers may be interested in the orginal research and POV posted on Kehrli's main page which is nearly identical to the previously mentioned m/z misconception page that was deleted for original research and POV. It is also similar but not identical to the state of the mass-to-charge ratio page being considered for deletion about two months ago. This page is no longer as blatantly POV and original research however it is nonetheless, no matter how subtle. That the accuracy is disputed, there is POV and original research would be bonus reasons for quick deletion. However the point that it is redundant except for one sentence should be sufficient. This is a candidate for deletion not quick deletion. It is not spam or a hoax just redundant.

--Nick Y. 21:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nick, the reason why there is much redundancy is that you stole my content and copied it to the mass spectrum page. Therefore, please remove all discussions about mass-to-charge ratio from the mass spectra article and make references to the mass-to-charge ratio article instead. Kehrli 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nick, in the mean time there are many more differences since I worked a lot on the mass-to-charge ratio page. Your statement that there is complete redundance except for one scentence is no longer true. Kehrli 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - is there actually an inherent problem with the article/topic itself of is the purpose of the AFD listing just to win a content dispute? Looking at the talk page, it looks to me like there has been a month-long argument and this AFD could be inferred to be just a content dispute. BigDT 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - There was a content dispute which resulted in the article being partially (the mass spectrometry part) merged into mass spectrum with this article being the article for the majority of scientific fields (physics etc.). Yes, the accuracy and POV of this article remains in question, however the main point of the AFD is redundancy.--Nick Y. 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no question about the accuracy and POV of this article. It represents the nomenclature as given by the internationallly accepted ISO 31 standards, whereas Nick and Kmurray are pushing for a minority opinion only shared by some people (not all) in the mass spectrometry community. Kehrli 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• • In that case, I would say Weak Delete, though personally, I would kinda like to hear from someone on the other side of the content dispute before it gets deleted.

I have just added some comments from the other side. Kehrli 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Verify if it is scientifically correct. It does not really look original research. Might be useful (because much shorter), than the long mass spectrum article. It is a related concept. Original research means to introduce new theories, not to remap existing knowledge, or to spell a formula/calculation method. See Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Mass-to-charge_ratio - looks very disputed, not the 1st time. Deletion vote overly long and difficult to understand for non-science people.
  • Weak keep if scientifically correct, looks formula spelling, not OR. User:Akidd_dublin 9 may 2006

• strong keep: and delete mass spectra instead. Most of the content of mass spectra was copied from the mass-to-charge ratio article. And mass spectra is essentialy redundant to mass spectrometry. Kehrli 12:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

comment most of mass-to-charge ratio was copied from mass spectrometry and some of it was written by me.--Nick Y. 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I am completely appalled that scientists can not reach agreement here. There is no real big deal. We, and I speak as a scientist here, deal with differences in units and so on all the time. When I publish in the Journal of Chemical Physics, I hate having to use kcal/mol rather than the SI kJ/mol, but I do not make a big deal of it. Come on, stop grand-standing. Write it in a NPOV way - some people use this expression and these units and some people use this expression and these units. You should not be fighting like this. If deleting this article stops this childish fighting, it might be the best outcome. --Bduke 12:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also compelled that some scientists want to delete the ISO 31 compatible nomenclature just in order to replace it with a version that is outdated and boguous. I agree that there is space for different units. There was an agreement until Kmurray put this AFD: ISO 31 compliant version is on mass-to-charge ratio and the non-compliant version is on mass spectra. Therefore we need to keep the article. Otherwise I will have to start revising the mass spectra article in order to make it ISO 31 compliant. Kehrli 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point. kcal/mol is outdated. We still use them. Wikipedia is not the place to debate which units are correct. We follow what people use. Wikipedia is certainly not the place to argue that some units are boguous. Stop it. I am not just getting at you. The other side is just as bad. Just learn and accept what Wikipedia is about. There is no need to think that you "have to start revising" anything. --Bduke 12:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bduke, you miss the point. kcal/mol may still be used and has its place on Wikipedia, but kJ/mol should not be deleted, because (i) some people use kJ/mol, (ii) kJ/mol is the ISO 31 compliant unit. Therefore wee need both. And you are now voting for just keeping kcal/mol. Kehrli 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kherli does not get your point. I have tried to explain this to him. I abandoned the article because he does not get this point. As a scientist unfamilar with this particular area I should infom you that your analogy is totally correct. What is represented on this page is not a standard notation. Please take a look at Kehrli's user page to understand his argument for change to this new system to make it more in line with other standards. The AfD is based on redundancy. The fact that it is advocacy of a new unit system is just a bonus.--Nick Y. 16:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nick, I am not advocating a new unit system, I am defenting what is the ISO 31 standard which is the most important standard in this field. You are advocating a minority view to replace the majority standard. That is what is happening here. Kehrli 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge accurate parts. Fork of mass spectrum. Probably the best thing to do would be to merge both into mass spectrometry, and start over. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. After further consideration of this mess, I am convinced that Nick Y. is correct when he states that on Wikipedia we do not debate standards but accept, for now, what IUPAC states. The argument on both sides has been far to strident. Delete this and start over without argueing about standards. --Bduke 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bduke, nobody is arguing about standards. It is just about which standard to use, e.g if both standards should be represented or just one. There are two standards in place, the wider ISO 31 and the very narrow (mass spectromeytry only) IUPAC yellow book standard, which is not in line with the ISO 31 standard. You are now voting for the deletion of the widely accepted terms that comply with the ISO 31 standard and instead want to keep the page that advocates the narrow standard that is only used by mass spectrometrists and is not used by the rest of the scientific community. My point is: IUPAC has established a non-compliant standard, which is ok, but we still need to keep the wider ISO 31 standard and therefore we should not delete the article. Kehrli 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - having read all of the stuff above, I'm forced to conclude that the AFD is being used as a ploy in a content dispute. Take it to arbitration. AFD is not the place to settle the content dispute. I don't know who's right and who's wrong. IUPAP or IUPUI ... whatever ... AFD is not the place to settle this.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

SynthCity.net

As a new webzine, this obviously fails WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a web directory or a place to advertise new websites.
Deprodded (by an IP address, without any attempt to explain why it should be kept, of course), so it's over to AfD. — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. A grand total of one post in the entire forum, and that was by the webmaster --BillC 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a spamvertisement whos website is so new it doesn't even have an Alexa ranking yet. --Hetar 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Lakhim 23:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per BillC's research, this may be one of the least notable website articles yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete First posts were simply for spamming Wikipedia with a NN vanity website.--Madchester 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Electrobix

This is a term used only by the Emin society, I see no reason it should not be merged with that entry. The other pages listed below are the same - only the last one has interesting info, IMHO. To boost, they are of course all POV'ed towards the Emins (too much work to start if consensus is to merge). Unless this is a really big "society" I do not see why we should have pages on their every idea...

Complete list:

• Electrobix
• Gemrod
• Emin coding
• Coding (emin)
• Alpha_Curio_Bet

Lundse 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete --Nick Y. 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though I'd like to note that there's a Scissor Sisters song by this title, but not about this subject. It's also not a major song, as it wasn't a single and wasn't even on their album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or merge if you must) Ewlyahoocom 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ^ask? 23:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Black Diamond series

Simply a list of certain videotapes that are no longer available in these editions. Not a very notable list. IrishGuy 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to have a collectability value seperate from other releases. I get thousands of Google hits for "Black Diamond" +Disney. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete or Merge with disney collectible videotapes??? - not notable and unverifiable with no citations. Maybe it could be improved???--Nick Y. 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm tempted to say that these tapes really are classics. - Richardcavell 00:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Walt Disney Home Entertainment. Just a name for one of their video lines; not notable. tregoweth 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy.

Eli Poulin

non notable and vanity. The main author of the article is Elipoulin. A Vanity prod was placed on the 7th and removed without comment by Elipoulin on the 8th. That pretty much sums it up. IrishGuy 21:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

All I am trying to do is edit my music bio. Please and thank you, Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elipoulin (talk • contribs)

Not everyone in the world gets an entry in Wikipedia. That is the point. This is vanity. It belongs on your user page, not in an article. IrishGuy 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What can I post about my music then? Im not streching the truth by any means. I am very careful about what I say, what can I put? Please dont delete this, Im for real! This isnt vanity, this is how I started out and what I am currently doing for music.

Is is vanity. You are writing about yourself. It belongs on your user page, not as an article. IrishGuy 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How am I able to edit my user page? I am pretty green, I would appreciate your help. How do other bands get on here and they arent falling under the catagory of vanity? Like U2 or REM?

U2 and REM didn't write their own articles. Additionally, their fame, record sales, etc. have allowed them to meet the notability and verifiability standards of Wikipedia. As for your user page, when you log in you will see a toolbar on the top right of the screen. Click on your username and then edit that page. If you have any questions/problems, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Please don't take any of this personally. It isn't meant as an attack on you. IrishGuy 23:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy. (To edit your userpage, just log in and click your name up the top of the screen.) Stifle (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 23:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Weenis

Hoax/neologism. Previously deleted as hoax; this article is not an exact duplication of the original content, but has expanded on the same basic premise. Kafziel 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Brian G. Crawford 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why is that a bad thing? There are plenty of accepted neologisms on this site. Including the article on neologism...the word neologism being a neologism itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.108.144 (talk • contribs)

Um, no there aren't, and no it isn't. Kafziel 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The word began as a neologism. If you read the article it includes many neologisms which have articles on wikipedia including gay and blog. I also reference http://folk.uio.no/iroggen/Root_knowledge.html which I gleaned from that same neologism wiki article.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "neologism" is more than 200 years old. Neither "gay" nor "blog" were neologisms when their articles were created on Wikipedia. "Weenis" didn't begin as a neologism - it is a neologism. Kafziel 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - neologism, wikipedia is not for stuff you made up in school one day. - Richardcavell 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"don't delete:::Wow. The wiki-elitism of this discussion just keeps increasing. Oh I'm sorry...wiki-elitism...that would be neologism. The word "weenis" has been around for many years now and was not simply coined by me after sticking gum to the underside of a desk. While it is a neologism, it still has the potential to become more. It is comparitively young as compared to others and I feel that you high-and-mighty weilders of the delete function are acting a bit unfairly. This article is not vandalism, it's an early sign of a future term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.108.144 (talk • contribs)

• Comment wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Fluit 01:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete There is a large difference between what were once neologisms that have become widely accepted words and neologisms. We should err on the side of rejecting neologisms that are on the edge of becoming widely accepted parts of the english language. If we miss the cutting edge, oh well, big loss.--Nick Y. 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oh noes! Another claim of Wiki-elitism by... who are you again? Oh well, Delete. Danny Lilithborne 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doubtful it even belongs on Uncyclopedia. Fluit 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Fine. I concede. Thank you for the creatively worded criticism. I have signed up and no longer remain a nameless IP address.

PS- do these endless deletion arguments and rule-spouting remind anyone else of Stoppardian absurdism? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern playing question games... Devisch 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment The hell? I think I liked you better as an anon. Jeez... (sticks a great big smiley somewhere so people know I'm being humorous :/) Danny Lilithborne 02:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism Beno1000 12:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment When this article is deleted, I think the accompanying photos should be as well. They serve no other purpose. Kafziel 23:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 22:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cock block

Slang definition. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus, and there has been no significant improvement since. This has been transwikied to Wiktionary. There's nothing in this article beyond stating what cock blocking is, regardless of the number of sentences there are. WP:WINAD. Brian G. Crawford 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no encyclopaedia article here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. To address the inevitable "It's got 90,000 Google hits", ghey has 693,000, and deletion review is currently endorsing the deletion of that one by a wide margin. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Same as before, viable term. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nobody has tried to improve it since last September. If someone wants to make an encyclopedic, researched, version of it, they can always do so at another time. Just because it's a word doesn't mean that it needs an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) .
• Keep - though I'd prefer that the article be renamed as something else such as Human competition for sexual attention and written in a more scientific way, with the term 'cock block' a listed synonym. - Richardcavell 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki while its a valid slang term... it doesnt deserve an article here... move to wiktionary. whoops Delete as has already been transwiki'd  ALKIVAR™ 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Read the nomination, it has already been transfered to Wiktionary. Delete as a dicdef. --Hetar 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, already transwikied. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the term is viable and notable Yuckfoo 01:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The term is notable. Yes, WP:WINAD, but the article is identified as a stub and stubs (at minimum) must provide definitions (and rightly so). -- backburner001 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now -- could use encyclopedic definition and more fleshing out, though --nothingxs 03:32, 12 May 2006 (EST)
• Keep

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

See before you die

Spam. Kafziel 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Spam--Nick Y. 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement. - Richardcavell 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - information about a website like many other websites and companies that define their core business (Answers.com for example). This can not be considered as advertisement. - yuval 04:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are notability standards. Kafziel 04:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Check the list at Category:Websites, what is the difference between this page and most of the pages under this category? I must agree with Yuval. You can edit it to meet Wiki standards but not to delete it. - Boaz 06:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't edit the article to make your little website more notable. Administrators, please note the contributions of the above editor here, which are only to the article in question and this AfD. Kafziel 13:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is not trying to sell any thing through this, so it's OK with me. If we will AfD all articles about commercial things we will end up to be free encyclopedia that cover very small portion of our world. Just make sure the article is stick to facts and not advertise any service. --128.135.161.69 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think no one can see your history of contributions (or lack thereof)? Please do not use sockpuppet IP addresses to try to influence the AfD process. Kafziel 16:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. If kept, de-link the external links. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As I understand your concern about the advertisement and the external links I edited the article. I hope the current version will be good enough to stay - Boaz 23:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Still spam. Not only was it written as an advertisement, it also links to a commercial website. It does not meet any of the criteria specified in the notability guidelines mentioned by Stifle, so there's no need for it to have an article at all. Kafziel 23:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank is off the scale, looks like vanispamcruftisement. From the site's About page: "We are now in version - Beta 0.4 of this site, covering 58 places in 19 countries". Says it all, really. Just zis Guy you know? 18:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. --W.marsh 04:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 07:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sinking feeling

At best, a dicdef, at worst, nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete' - borders on a hoax/joke article given the last paragraph. - Richardcavell 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• "Delete" - clearly a joke

• Delete--Nick Y. 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Unverifiable - it has had long enough to show otherwise. None of the keep votes appeared to overcome this objection (few actually tried) -Doc ^ask? 22:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Longest streets in London

A map does not publish lengths, so analysing it to find them is OR in my view (but debatable), as it depends on the map chosen and the method of measuring. Further analysis to create an ordered list is more clear OR, though. Since the last Afd when references were requested, very few have found since, but the article occaisionly gets reverted as "trivially verifiable", where the main reference is the word "(map)" - not a WP:RS to me! Given the nature of the article, and the problems above, I can not see how it can be expanded without much original reasearch, so am putting it up for deletion. MartinRe 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Previous Afd, (Feb 2, 2006) which was closed as 'no consensus' can be seen here.

• Delete (As nominator, if it wasn't clear :) MartinRe 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR and according to comments by User:ikkyu2 on his userpage. Brian G. Crawford 22:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per previous no consensus AFD Jcuk 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Previous lack of consensus is not a permanent reason to keep an article. It's just a least-damage default course for admins to use in closing AfD's until the WP community gets evidence of meeting standards or consensus of not meeting standards. Barno 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR --Nick Y. 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, there does seem to be a Crown Copyright problem on UK map data. So until a reliable source either publishes a list of all London street lengths (from which sorting longest streets isn't research) or publishes an article "Longest Streets in London" that WP can cite, we apparently can't use it under WP:NOR, a core policy. Weak delete pending a sufficient source, including a definition of either "in the City of London" or "in the London metropolitan area" (using some government standard similar to the US Census Bureau's Core Based Statistical Area). Barno 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Refers to Greater London obviously, which is what London normally means. Scranchuse 04:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - sources can be links to driving directions or the like. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 18:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The driving directions given as one source simply give a distance between two arbitary points, the source does not claim, and hence we have no way of verifying, that the two points chosen are the beginning and end of Western Avenue, as claimed. MartinRe 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, if we wanted to make this textbook original research. The street numbers on those sites are usually pretty whack anyway, Google Maps and Mapquest list my house (and just about any house in my city) as being 0.1 to 1.0 miles away from the actual house (if you look at the satellite map on Google this is easilly confirmed). And that's the whole problem with OR... Wikipedia isn't a very good place to do it. --W.marsh 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Barno. Additionally, three streets? Pretty weak list. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article should be expanded and improved. As it stands, the article relies on no measuring of maps (although one reference is an enquiry to a mapping web site), and only uses source-based research (as encouraged by WP:NOR). All entries are properly referenced to reliable sources but I agree that "map" would be an unsuitable reference. No Crown Copyright information is involved but, in any case, infringement of copyright involves reproduction, not use. Ikkyu2's view, cited above, "...a truly garbage article that satisfies WP policy, can't be deleted, and is useless..." provides no reason for deletion. I have added Harrow Road to demonstrate how the article can be developed. Roads, and London, hold little interest for me but the article is at least potentially encyclopedic and currently infringes no policies. However, even I would not propose it for Featured Article status! Thincat 12:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this has had every opportunity to show that it can grow to a verifiable and useful article, and that hasn't happened. If someone wants to measure the streets and publish their findings somewhere, great, then we should be able to write a good article. But it seems like no one but AfD voters is actually interested in this topic... so anything that's proposed as a solution sounds like original research. The article can always be recreated if the verifiability problem is actually solved. --W.marsh 13:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep could be an interesting article.  Grue  10:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Interesting? Sure. Whether it is verifable or even possible to be so is the problem, methinks! MartinRe 11:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Are we looking at the same version of the article? Try clearing your cache. All entries are actually referenced to reliable sources and so are demonstrated to be verifiable. Above you criticised the lack of explicit reference to the end-points of Western Avenue ("we have no way of verifying, that the two points chosen are the beginning and end of Western Avenue, as claimed") and concluded that the information cannot be verified. A further click in Multimap verifies each end-point but if you really require more references these can be provided by referencing a reputable map or encyclopedia article, gazetteer, etc. If you want to challenge the sufficiency of references, please raise the matter in Talk:Longest streets in London rather than seek to have the article deleted. Thincat 11:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Of the roads with lengths, two have sources (time out). Your addition has sources, and would be a useful addition to an the road article. For Western avenue, you cannot say "Multimap says A, and map says B, therefore A+B=C", as that is an example of WP:NOR#Example_of_a_new_synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. The sufficiency of the references was challenged three months ago (by myself included) on the appropiate talk page, and I think three months is a more than reasonable time to wait for sources to be found, and if they haven't been found after three months, chances are they can't be found, which is why I nominated it here. MartinRe 12:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply taken to User_talk:MartinRe#Western_Avenue. Thincat 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Original Research, non-encyclopedic material, Wikipedia is not an atlas and there are crown copyright problems. Whether the article could be interesting or not is neither here nor there.... 10:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. AndyZ 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

List of look-alike porn stars

Tagged for AfD by an anon. I'm finishing the process. Looks like original research and wishful thinking. Maybe these women look similar to someone with beer goggles on, but not me. Brian G. Crawford 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. (I was the one who originally {{prod}} tagged this.) This list is hardly notable and it isn't information that couldn't be added to the pages of the porn stars themselves. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete original research. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If you want to call it "research." —Larry V (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR. youngamerican (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR. Scranchuse 04:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is very close to {{nocontext}}. Look-alike by whose standard?
• Delete. completely subjective "original research"--Outlander 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable; original "research". ElTchanggo 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, speedyable liscruft. Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Chappelle's Show. --Ezeu 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Buck Nasty

Unimportant fictional character. The Player Hater's Ball is already covered in Chappelle's Show. Brian G. Crawford 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Chappelle's Show is a cultural phenomenon. I don't see any reason not to have Buck Nasty. We have Oliver Twist in here, don't we? - Richardcavell 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The novel, yes, but not a separate page for the charater. Brian G. Crawford 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Chappelle's Show. Minor character from a minor sketch. As per guideline #2 at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) it can be done without asking. Kafziel 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Chappelle's Show.--Nick Y. 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Chappelle's Show. I could see The Playa' Haters getting an article, as it is a well known, recurring sketch from a popular show, but Buck Nasty is not notable enough. --Joelmills 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Cheap Redirect to Chappelle's Show. youngamerican (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Chappelle's Show. --Ted87 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Magda Sales

Unverifiable. Can't find on IMDB. The wikilink to the director links to a billiards player. Creator has history of creating unverifiable articles -- see his talk page. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The author has many many simialr articles. Do we need to go through a separate AFD for each, or can we combine them? e.g. Ah! Ewan. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unless the author provides a citation. unverifiable.--Nick Y. 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a complete mess. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alexandru Herman

text has no relevance, and it was created as a personal CV; the text does not indicate any office this "politician" held, and only points out to a minor position at a local newspaper of minor circulation. it is self-advertising Dahn 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - unless some higher office of note is added and referenced. --Nick Y. 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nick. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 22:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Spatula Day

Hoax/non-notable. Less than 150 google hits, many of which are mirrors of this article. Can't be verified outside original research. Kafziel 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - wikipedia is not for things we made up ourselves. - Richardcavell 23:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - At best this is a moderately widespread joke, but probably just a hoax. In any case we should err on the side of deleteion--Nick Y. 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep I don't see what harm this does, if it has at least some following. Schrodingers catsup 09:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Duel

While the article was flagged for merging, I've run over the article and find that there is nothing in the article that can be merged into the article Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith either because the information is already there or is POV and cannot be cited by sources. The Filmaker 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith --Nick Y. 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. EVula 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Wookieepedian 15:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is completely useless. Spongesquid 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 22:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Dev Empire

nn website, 71 unique Google hits, no alexa ranking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is apparent that the article is being converted from the website article to an anime article. Your reasoning for its deletion as a website article is justified, however that is already being worked on. Thanks. Despain 23:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The f.i.d.s

Originally tagged for speedy deletion, the reason given was that it was a copy of the user's userpage. This is not criteria for speedy deletion: it is quite acceptable to write an article in user space first before transferring it across to main space. Question is, is this band really all that notable? Francs2000 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Amazon.co.uk gives no results. I reckon it fails WP:MUSIC comfortably. Coul dbe speedied under A7. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Not certain how non-notable they are. Looks like they released a 7" but perhaps on their own?--Nick Y. 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There's no real assertion of notability. I don't think the article should be speedied, but I do think it should be eliminated. -- Kicking222 18:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Kuzaar 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Mile Road System (Detroit). -Doc ^ask? 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

7 mile rd Detroit

Notability; lots of POV, Original research. User left a message on my talk page complaining that I speedied his articles, so listing here for transparency. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Redirect' per SPUI (below) The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, lacking references as well as uninteresting. We could each write an article about our local streets and the emotions it produces. No statisitcs etc. just "I'm badass! yeah".--Nick Y. 23:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: user has now been blocked (by someone else) for posting "garbage articles". The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We already have an article for 8 Mile Road which is much more significant. OSU80 00:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gah, did I actually read through that turgid nonsense? RGTraynor 01:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Moral Support, but Delete. The contributor - Z180 - seems to be going through a lot of trouble to add detailed articles on Detroit and even endured a block for vandalism. (So much for WP:AGF I guess.) But I digress. Z180, please don't be discouraged. As they are, your articles are not suitable for an encyclopedia, but you would be welcome to write a sourced article about Detroit or contribute to the existing Detroit article. BigDT 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mile Road System (Detroit). --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 18:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redircet per SPUI.--Isotope23 13:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Eastside Chedda Boyz

Notability/verifiability; lots of POV, Original research. User left a message on my talk page complaining that I speedied his articles, so listing here for transparency. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Note: the speedy tag was removed. Author has been blocked for adding "garbage articles".

• Delete - Does not meet standards including POV "They are some of the best rappers from Detroit." Might be saved by a rewrite to a factual encyclopedic entry about a group with a discography etc.--Nick Y. 23:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete OSU80 03:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not suitable for encyclopedia -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and while this is not a recreation, I sweear I've AfD'd/prodded 2 Chedda Boyz articles in the last 6 months. Should be page protected this time if it gets deleted.--Isotope23 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly because of non-verifiability. --Several Times 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists of farms in Oppland

I have nominated the following four articles for deletion:

• List of farms in Etnedal
• List of farms in Gjøvik
• List of farms in Lesja
• List of farms in Gausdal

as they appear to be an indiscriminate collection of information (which Wikipedia is not) and possibly including copies of primary sources. Stifle (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Does not include copies of primary sources—a quick review of the link in articles will reveal this to the reviewer. Williamborg 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, all are mere indiscriminate collections of information. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep—useful gazetteer data for historical and genealogical research Williamborg 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic OSU80 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep—As far as I know, listing farms in Norway is somewhat analogous to listing villages in England: they have significant historical importance and have given some their surnames (again like villages in England). Ardric47 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Retain It might have some interest for some, and we have plenty of space. Although i really think that it's just a list and not very useful. NorwegianMarcus 05:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per the ideology of Inclusionism. __meco 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all are simple collections of lists of information that is neither informative nor encyclopediac. Even Inclusionism seems aimed at knowledge rather than a mass of information. Peripitus 08:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Kurtber 10:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless listcruft. --Eivind^t@c 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, transwiki to Wikisource. Wikipedia is not a repository for original data. Dr Zak 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The lists are public information in Norway. It is not copyvio in any sense. The numbers in front of the names are gardsnumber which is a term used in norway to uniquely identify a farm within a local area. In addition to gardsumber there are bruksnummer in use. Those numbers refers to smaller areas or farms within a larger area. The lists are not temporal in nature as the numbering has been in place for a very long time. The numbering are also in use on detail maps, whats known as økonomisk kartverk. Such lists has a direct analogy in lists of road numbers in an area.

The lists are useful for those who writes articles about local history as it is easy to check if the farm has been given a description or not. In Norway it is very common to have the farms described in collective works about a municipality. Where I come from we have Gardssoge for Sør-Aurdal (Farm history of Sør-Aurdal) and similar books are available for most of the municipalities.

Norwegian farms are very often very old. It is not uncommon that farms are noted in historic sources like Snorre. Still, it is not wise to describe every farm in Wikipedia. There are also the situation where people wants to use a description of an old farm as a reason for writing genealogical articles about their own family. This could create a lot of unwanted vanity articles, yet this isn't a very good argument for deletion of those lists.

It seems like the Norwegians casting votes are familiar with this as most of them votes for keep.

— John Erling Blad (no) 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource might be a more suitable home for entries like these. What I'm saying isn't that this is useless, just that this isn't the best place for it. Dr Zak 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed. I would be quite happy with a transwiki to Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – In my view these lists are not so much collections of information as collections of invitations to write articles about the farms listed. (Articles with information about a farm's history, political importance, etc., can hardly be called vanity, although articles about the families who lived on the farm may be.)
  I am pretty sure that the parallel articles in the Norwegian wikipedias will be kept (and expanded). If the lists get deleted from English Wikipedia, maybe a link to the Norwegian articles can still be kept?
  --Verdlanco\^talk 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – One man's unencyclopedic listcruft is another man's useful information. We're watching the evolution of the enclopedia in real time. Anything that generates this much interest must have some merit. UmptanumRedux 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the respective municipalities. These are not simply lists of farms, even though that is what "gård" means in Norwegian. The list is of "gårdsnummer" which is a subdivision of the municipality and such lists may be useful in describing the location of where people live. Even at places where there is no farming any longer, the "gårdsnummer" remain. I don't think these lists are deserving of a separate article, but they are relevant when it comes to coverage of the municipalities' geography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — UmptanmunRedux sums up my viewpoints nicely. — Pladask 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not a database. I can imagene that in future, when the tools to maintain WP will be better such information may considered. Not so today. Pavel Vozenilek 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees the lovely (and useful) irony of the comment, “WP is not a database.”? If it is anything, Wikipedia is MOST CERTAINLY a database... The Wiki software is a server-side script, with the content stored on a server in a relational database. That’s precisely what makes Wikipedia so useful and powerful…

This insight is most instructive… Folks are hung up thinking about Wikipedia as if it were a classical encyclopedia… It is most certainly NOT a classical encyclopedia… once we agree on that we can think about what it actually is!

Our basis for deciding what should be allowed as a list is bizarre. We tell the reader what a list in not (Wikipedia is not). Decision processes based on negativity are always weak and open to debate.

It is time for a logical and systematic statement of what warrants being placed on a list. Here are my quick thoughts on a systematic set to rules for a list based on the characteristics of an encyclopedia:

• … “comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge” …“an encyclopedia treats each subject in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject”… Since the use of the encyclopedia is research, the primary purpose of a list is to facilitate research. THEREFORE A LIST may cover any branch of knowledge, but must be arguably relevant (i.e., useful for some form of research):
• “General encyclopedias often contain … as well as embedded dictionaries and gazetteers”… a gazetteer is a “geographical dictionary, an important reference for information about places and place-names”… THEREFORE A LIST may cover gazetteer information if it provides important reference information about places and place-names. (Note: this does raise a question whether we shouldn’t create a sister Wiki project… a Wikigazetter.)
• “Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.” THEREFORE A LIST should convey important accumulated knowledge for an identifiable subject domain.
• … “systematic method of organization is essential to making an encyclopedia usable as a work of reference.” THEREFORE A LIST should logically enter into the Wiki list structure as a head set or subset… the proposor of a new list has the responsibility for proposing a logical structure under which a list falls in the current scheme of lists.
• “As modern multimedia and the information age have evolved, they have had an ever-increasing effect on the collection, verification, summation, and presentation of information of all kinds.”… THEREFORE A LIST may be proposed if it is a logical collection or summation of information… the logic must be clear to the casual reader.

We need to get beyond… well I think so… well I don’t think so… well, I still think so… well I still don’t think so… Anyone have comments/thoughts on my thoughts on how to set up systematic criteria so our discussion is more rational? UmptanumRedux 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Added a discussion on criteria to the What Wikipedia is not talk page.UmptanumRedux 17:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — I agree with UmptanmunRedux and seconds what agtfjott wrote. Noorse 12:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 12:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Modisti

Article has been created five times and deleted four times (one time blank, one time db-bio, and twice recreating deleted content) [66]. If I remember correctly, the previous content came directly from the Web site. This time the article was created with different text which appears to be original. Since it's obvious that the deletion is contested by the creator (User:Modisti) and I don't believe it meets WP:WEB, I'm bringing the article here for discussion. A search for modisti.com [67] returns 81 unique hits, and I can't find substantial references to the site which aren't essentially copies of content from their site. And finally, there is no substantial notability asserted in the article. ScottW 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: In the event that this article is deleted, please consider protecting the page. ScottW 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete if it is, in fact, substantially the same as a previously deleted article, otherwise Delete BigDT 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion, the current article is different enough from the previously deleted material to avoid speedy deletion under G4. ScottW 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Gyre 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but let the AFD run its course. Content is sufficiently different from previous content for G4 not to apply. But if it's deleted this time, I do recommend putting the {{deletedpage}} tag on and protecting it from re-creation. Angr (t • c) 08:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the earth. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanispamcruftisement and randomcrapcruft. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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