Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 16 November 18 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete - 'til all are one! Proto::type 10:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers timeline[edit]

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

I understand the editor's intent to serve the Transformers universes page, but frankly the complexity of the franchise, as well as the immortality of the characters, renders a timeline null. For the most part it would look like an ugly piece of fancruft. Wiki-newbie 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Trust me, Transformers continuity is an absoulte mess and Wikipedia isn't the place to untangle that with original research. Also, WP:NOT a plot summary. Interrobamf 20:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my own nom. Oh, and it's not a mess, just a multiverse. Wiki-newbie 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Marvel UK and Marvel US continuity situation would disagree with that. =) Interrobamf 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE The transformer's multiverse is indeed very tangled. That's why the collective power of Wikipedia is the best solution to creating something close to seamless. ----aevanloon
    • Except that they aren't meant to be meshed together in the first place, and any attempts to mash them together into one single timeline is pure original research. Interrobamf 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NOR -- Whpq 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm inclined to keep this because it is undoubtably something that fans will be interested in and this isn't so detailed as to become cumbersome nor is it so detailed that it is part of the the mess Interrobamf references. As for original research... the article doesn't reference a theory or method of solution; an oriignal idea; define a new term; presumes new defintions of pre-existing terms; introduce a argument w/o source; introduces an analysis/synthesis/or neologism. Thus, I don't see how it fits that criteria. The person did document it (although I'd move the reference explanations to the bottom.) Also, this issue will become more relevant with the announcement of the new Transformer movie next year.Balloonman 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Based on fans below, will revise to DeleteBalloonman 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a fan. I'm not interested in something that essentially amounts to fanfiction. It doesn't seem like a mess because, so far, it has only taken information from one continuity. When it includes the other ten continuities or so, it'll be ugly, especially to fans who are aware of the differences. It's original research because it cobbles together different continuities into one, which isn't indicated by anything. Interrobamf 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy I am a fan, and this is worse than pointless -- it's flat out wrong in several plces. It tries to reconstruct several different timelines that don't really fit together, and the new TF movie will not draw on much of this at all. The collective power of Wikipedia wouldn't be focused on this...the best that could be done is to see what happens if it gets expanded. Or work on it in userspace. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft, original research, belongs on a fansite. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know where this belongs? On a Wiki that's dedicated solely to Transformers... although since it still pretty much counts as OR, it would probably get deleted from there as well. DS 16:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. ReverendG 05:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Transformers. Yankee Rajput 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates WP:OR - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::type 10:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformations imposed by the Soviet Union in Romanian Education after the WW II[edit]

Transformations imposed by the Soviet Union in Romanian Education after the WW II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This reads (to me at least) like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Admittedly it's been improved a bit since I first made that comment to the article's creator, but I don't feel that it's entirely salvageable. The title, for example, is quite POV ("Imposed"), and the introduction reads like a term paper. More than likely, this is an important subject, although in its present form it's not a good way of covering it. It also may be that there are other articles which already cover the same ground in a more neutral manner, but I'm not sure of that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) **Comment if an admin gets the chance to fix this one up, the Talk page has been moved to a separate location, which is odd to say the least. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - but overhaul - This is indeed a very important issue. As nom stated, the title is POV, & needs to be changed to a neutral word (for example; stench, smell, aroma...). Other than that, I feel that the article can be rewritten, although it may take a while. It needs to be wikified too. With a bit of tender care, it should become a good article. I would have had no hesitation to delte the article had it been unreferenced, but as it is, it has a number of citations. So because the article only needs to be rewritten, i cast my vote as a keep. Maybe send it to a wikiproject that specializes in the topic, or get someone interested in the subject to work on it. If no progress is made, or it's too big a task, send it back here for a second look... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article repeats itself multiple times, and it needs a lot of work to get it up to an acceptable level of quality. I do not mean to be harsh. This is just an honest assessment. Also, the article has its good points. As for a title, I suggest "Romanian education following/after World War Two" or "Romanian education in the communist era". -- Kjkolb 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-write. This article has a lot of information but is written in a poor encyclopaedic manner. Atlantis Hawk 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand the impulse to overhaul this article, but really this reads like a "C" paper someone wrote for school and then pasted to the internet. It is very tendentious throughout, with the author making many assertions without much reflection, let alone evidence or sourcing: "Consequently, Romania is today in the stage of development considered by experts as post-communism capitalism. So is the education. The government tries to keep up with European Union goals, and education is parts of its effort to realize a definitive departure from the communist style." If these types of conclusions are to be drawn, there needs to be more thought given to them. While I could imagine an encyclopedia article focusing on the Romanian educational system (and indeed I have no doubt that the Romanian educational system under the Communists was deficient and used for propaganda purposes, as this author asserts), I think in doing so we are well-advised to start from scratch, with a new title but also entirely new content. Thus I vote delete. Allon Fambrizzi 08:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Delete—the whole thing is a POV mess, right down to the title. Absolutely yes to an article on reforms in the Romanian education system following World War II, but let's have it on a clean slate rather than have any of this junk lingering around. Everyking 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and recommend the creation of a new article with a new title, as per Everyking. -- The Anome 09:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Everyking and The Anome, this is a worthy topic for an article. However, the current title is too unwieldy and sounds like something that would be OR. Furthermore, the article is a mess now, a blank slate with a more concise title is in order. --The Way 11:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a place for POV term papers. Eusebeus 11:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title was changed as suggested here

DorianS1 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is not the place for essays, even if they are of a slightly higher standard than the "Oh-new-idea-I-thought-up-over-bangers-n-mash-at-lunch" dreck that usually makes an appearance at AFD. Moreschi 12:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The history of education in Romania under Communist rule is a worthy subject. The article is referenced, verifiable, and informative. It wants editing, not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A potentially useful article could be made out of this, but at the moment it's too much like an essay. Inline citations might help (though they certainly aren't necessary to save this article from deletion). You also need to put a few more dates in. The scope of the article needs defining properly. The title should be something like "Communist education policy in Romania (1946-1989)" (or whatever the correct dates are). Then you'd need sections on "Education policy in the Stalinist era" and "Education under Ceausescu", for example, to show the differences in policy between those two periods. Finally, you could have a section on "Legacy in post-Communist Romania" or whatever to show the continuing effects today. I'm not sure words like "impose" are POV in this context; after all, we're talking about characters like Stalin, Gheorghiu-Dej and Ceausescu, who weren't the world's greatest consensus-seekers to put it mildly. --Folantin 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be an essay and seems to be original research. If anything is salvageable, merge it into Education in Romania. Agent 86 17:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation under another title and in a different style of writing. The article as-is reads like a term paper and is unsalvageable. —Psychonaut 18:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a hope that somebody might make a useful brief article (or part of another article) on the topic, possibly using some of this as raw material.--Orange Mike 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like nothing more than someones essay Caf3623 00:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, since the article was nominated, someone has moved it to a far more appropriate name, stripped it down to about half its original size, rewritten large chunks, and added references and citations. It's still a bit iffy, but starting to show some promise. Xtifr tälk 02:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite - This article has a lot of potential. I agree that it reads like a term paper but that's just an argument for people to get in there and work on improving it. --Richard 05:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the revised version. Worthy topic. The content could be improved substantially, but it's a start. Stammer 09:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Substantially is putting it mildly, and "term paper" is generous (failing term paper, maybe). It may be long, but there is virtually no real information in there. Everyking 10:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Everyking. This is unsalvageable. Pavel Vozenilek 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unmanagable title, narrow topic, relevant info should be merged to relevant articles. ReverendG 05:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is certainly not a narrow topic. It affected the lives of around 23 million people. I would move for keep pending revision. --Folantin 09:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for reading my article. I believe this is not a 'POV'. Stalinism could hardly be viewed as 'neutral'. It was not good or bad; it was only bad and it should be mentioned real facts. It is not an eassy. There were too many historical parts,and I agree with this point but I thought it was required to explain why so many things changed so fast. I changed the title and could be improved it again. I still wait for suggestions. Any changes to transform it into a real wiki are very wellcommed. I could use these parts in "History of education in Romania" or "Education in Romania". But it could stand also as an independent article because this topic is something different from the rest. And it is important not only for Romania but for any East-European country or for those who want to know sad facts of communism.

DorianS1 16:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dorian, while I heartily concur with you that Stalinism was by no means a good thing, that doesn't mean that an article can blatantly be anti-Stalinism. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must remain objective and utilize value-free language. The article does have some POV problems, though I don't think they are too substantial. I still think the article should be renamed to something along the lines of Education in Soviet Romania." --The Way 20:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things. First, just because Stalinism is a bad thing, it doesn't mean any article making the point "Stalinism is a bad thing" is okay. Despite whatever laudable moral purpose you may have in writing the article, it still is conclusory and not backed by any apparent research into the subject. Indeed, the article is still a series of general conclusions about the subject instead of anything providing actual information. Second, the article makes claims about things other than Stalinism, including Romania today. So your conclusions may be true, but you need to back them up. Allon Fambrizzi 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Comments In other words, read this section about NPOV on Wikipedia [1] ("Let the facts speak for themselves").--Folantin 10:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete, strongly. Every single paragraph is almost 80% strongly POV. There continue to be phrases like In Romania the socialist regime tried using education chiefly as a main way to justify it. They tried to instil passion only for manual labour and discourage intellectual pursuits., which are not backed by inline citations, and are frankly disputable as billy-o. Two of the minimal references discuss the Republic of Moldova, not to Romania, as the essay purports to discuss. One of the remainder is a study of Roma education in particular, not relevant to the article as a whole. In addition, there's a link to the Library of Congress site and the Church. This is someone's college essay. If a freshman handed it in to me, it would be given a C. The only thing saving it from a C- is that there arent that many spelling mistakes. Hornplease 09:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to allow for further [massive] rewriting (mainly to cite sources and alter to adhere to NPOV). Worthy topic, and despite the problems that are mentioned it seems salvageable. Suggest revisiting this article in 2-4 weeks if sufficient progress hasn't been made. Markovich292 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Ratnam[edit]

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

Conflict of interest. Page is created by the person it's about (also sole contributor) --Lijnema 00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Heck, I could be a "radio personality" if I knew how to hotwire up my stereo & talk into a microphone! Delete... Spawn Man 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Spawn Man! I read about you, and hey maybe you should hotwire up your stereo mate! After going thru more than 11 years on radio it's nice to see someone try to take to the mic just like that bro. :) Cheers!This unsigned section was created by Jeremyratnam.

Huh? 1) Where did you read about me? 2) The second sentence doesn't manke sense... My brain hurts... Spawn Man 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I get it now! Thanks for complimenting me. I'll vote to keep your article now... Spawn Man 02:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jamiejulian tried to vote on this issue but this user's text isn't showing up. I tried to reformat to remove inadvertent html. No dice, doesn't seem to show up. Darkspots 03:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - There was a hidden text tag (dunno if there's some more formal name for it) that was causing anything entered below it to be hidden. Since the text associated with the tag was to the effect of "this is a joke" I removed it so votes would show up. Otto4711 03:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious conflict of interest, also not notable. Otto4711 03:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Should give other people a chance. After all, we are only human. Play nice!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiejulian (talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 November 2006 Otto4711 03:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Per the article, Jamie Julian is the subject's wife. For whatever that's worth. Is voting to keep your husband's COI article itself a COI? Otto4711 03:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it's no different than the normal standard of not giving as much weight to an obvious meatpuppet's vote on an AFD. Wavy G 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, now the fact that the subjects wife posted a comment asking us to play nice...I say Delete (and I was playing nice! ) Missvain 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenn radio person. Edison 04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment He is regionally known, it seems, from googling his name. But he's more of a staple on peoples blogs discussing him passing out Shakira CDs then anything else. He also seems to just be an "online dj" now which isn't very impressive IMHO. Blah Missvain 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable subject and conflict of vanity...err, I mean, interest. Wavy G 04:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Big problems with WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:COI. SubSeven 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 06:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn, (love the everything test)SkierRMH 08:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noted above, fails WP:BIO, etc etc... Eusebeus 11:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment response to Missvain - bro/sis I am NOT an on-line DJ, RAT RADIO was kicked-off recently as a project of pod-casting right after i left the world of radio [power 98FM] (11 and a half years.) I am currently taking a break from radio and may get back in a year's time. All these comments on 'deleting' have made me see the light on the phrase "don't ever judge a book by it's cover". *sigh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremyratnam (talk • contribs) .
Jeremy, I hope you do see the problems with the article, and that it isn't something you should take too personal. --Lijnema 14:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's nothing personal. People are on wiki doing this all day we are just making things a little less-full so we can stock up on information that people need. We know you've had success with your radio career, and sorry you lost your job over a podcast, however, we catagorize it by notability, and unfortunatly, you are just not notable enough for Wikipedia (and it's nothing personal, it's just the standards of Wiki!) Missvain 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thnx Missvain. Sufficent explaination unlike Spawn Man's. I will get to deleting the article. Cheers!
  • Gee thanks Ratnam. Your free to dlete your article... Spawn Man 04:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one asked you bro! Missvain and the others are by far more rationale than YOU are. You should just dlete yourself for starters...
  • I didn't say you asked me.The word is rational, not rationale. Also, I cannot delete myself. That would result in an out of body experience... Just winding you up... ;) Spawn Man 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm down guys, please. Lets keep things civil. --Lijnema 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Semi-Royal Shakespeare Company[edit]

The Semi-Royal Shakespeare Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject gets about 12 Google results and appears to be a high school troupe. Fails WP:ORG. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable school organisation.--Anthony.bradbury 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is notable. It is a fully functioning theater company (even if it is affiliated with a school), and should be kept in Wikipedia. It could use more sources though... Diez2 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not substantially different than the drama clubs found in just about every school in the country and around the world. The article does make a claim of notability in being the longest-running Shakespeare troupe in the US--unfortunately that isn't true. Montford Park Players are older, as are others, I'm sure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'm not sure if it meets notablity, but I think it would better to delete... Spawn Man 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Swpb talk contribs 00:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Starblind. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Completely non-notable.UberCryxic 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2 plays a year? Atlantis Hawk 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non, NN drama club & starblind's research.SkierRMH 08:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks notability, per Andrew Lenahan
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim to notability (Starblind points out the untruth of the "oldest" claim, and as for the idea that setting Shakespeare in the modern era is somehow original or unusual, well...) — Haeleth Talk 13:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Hmm, strangely appropriate. Though even as a performing act, it doesn't assert notability. James086 Talk | Contribs 15:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- Consider the words of Andrew Lenahan since he is a native wikipedian.In addition to that he is a writer. He may be an expert in the concerned subject.So I'm backing his opinion. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan; however, I would hate to see the article deleted based on the draft WP:ORG guideline, which I believe to be quite deficient and ought not be relied upon in its current state. Agent 86 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability. ---J.S (t|c) 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks notability --Orange Mike 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ReverendG 05:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 20:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete A7/WP:SNOW. Chick Bowen 04:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QP (graffiti artist)[edit]

QP (graffiti artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was tagged for notability on October 30. Although some edits have occured since then, the article quickly dissolves into nonsense. I move for this page to be deleted. Diez2 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete No claim to notability, no real information (the author doesn't seem to even know QP's gender. Mostly nonsense such as "Steve made a change for all in the city of Tokyo.STM has all so know as( beat up crew ) later in the 1995 artist like Belx2 joind the crew and and be came one of mad crews." Mad indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
  • Speedy delete - WTF? Which graffiti artist is notable?? Spawn Man 00:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Jean-Michel Basquiat is notable, but this guy isn't close. So delete. JChap2007 00:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is Keith Haring :) Missvain 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - deleted by User:Rama's Arrow per CSD A7 (notability). --- RockMFR 04:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narutomadness[edit]

Narutomadness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • This is so not notable. Delete. --SonicChao 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be speedied You could add db-web to the article. Diez2 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you could only speedly delete only with an article that was a day or two old. --SonicChao 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per the article: "Current Members:59". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Per nom & the rest... Spawn Man 00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete this ludicrous nonsense. Even if the subject were notable (which it emphatically is not), the contents of the article was complete bollocks. Here I am unusually well qualified to judge because I live in reading and I regularly use the Basingstoke Road. It does not mention the infamous "Whitley Whiff", or Cotswold, or Makro, or Reg Vardy, but even if it did it would still be headed for the bitbucket because there are no non-trivial secondary sources, and that is because the subject itself is entirely trivial. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basingstoke Road[edit]

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

This article has been tagged with importance since March 8. Only 1 major edit has come since then, but it still does not make the article notable. I move to delete this article. Diez2 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not even sure the town it's in is notable!!! Delete this horrible little article... Spawn Man 00:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Towns are noteable almost by default. ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but Reading is awfully dull. Trust me, I live there. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, nothing links to the road. Pointless, pointless article.--aviper2k7 02:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aviper2k7. Darkspots 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This must mean every other street in the world is notable. Missvain 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we're going to include every sreet found on yahoo-maps!SkierRMH 08:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, pointless article Amists talk • contribs 10:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable road. Atlantis Hawk 11:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, my street has a fish&chips shop, does that make it worthy of a wikipedia article? Delete per above. James086 Talk | Contribs 15:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable street. ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough information or references to keep the article, as well as the issue of non-notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN roadcruft. Fails WP:NOT a damned mapsco. Good catch, Diez2. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (then redirect to Pegboy) Proto::type 10:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Damore[edit]

Larry Damore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has been tagged with importance since May 17. No major edits have come since then (only wikifying) and the article itself is not notable. I move to delete this page. Diez2 00:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not much in the way of reliable sources that mention him on his own, I added the only one I could find quickly. Normally I'd say "redirect to his (more famous than him) band but hard to make a redirect since there are two possible targets. Still, he appears to satisfy the fairly stringent guidelines for the inclusion of musicians in that he "was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." - 152.91.9.144 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on the fact that there are two possible targets for a redirect. Delete the line about how he's hinting at releasing more albums (the coy devil!) and tag it with every applicable stub tag in hopes that a subject matter expert will expand it. Otto4711 03:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete and Merge Per A1 - Pegboy is a fairly well known punk band from years ago, however this page is not needed. Missvain 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't have a horse in this race, but a couple of comments on that suggestion: Delete and merge is problematic with regards to GFDL and is only done in dire cases. Further, if this page were merged, a redirect stops someone from re-creating this if they put the guy's name in and find there is no article. Finally, I'm not sure how the "A1" speedy deletion criterion applies. It says, "Very short articles providing little or no context." This article has plenty of that.
    152.91.9.144 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern regarding my statement. I reread it a second ago and I agree that it sounds a little funny. Basically: Merge it perhaps with a Pegboy article and then redirect it so no one tries this again :) Thanks for the tip :D - Missvain 05:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I am unclear what it is that could be merged here? Two sentences which contain no WP:V information that is not at Pegboy. Just kill it. Eusebeus 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only evidence of notability presented is a 27 word mention that he "may be" making an album in a website which claims 8,000 to 10,000 readers in the Chicago area. Not "multiple independent" coverage. Edison 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He "may" fail WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Why mess up Pegboy by merging this in?
  • Delete non-notable. ReverendG 05:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable enough LazyDaisy 19:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - don't merge PTIuv777 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN/ WMMartin 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erivan Haub[edit]

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

This article has been tagged with importance since January 30. It started out as non-notable, and it still is non-notable. I move to delete this page. Diez2 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep head of a large company for two decades, and a place on the Forbes world's richest list. Multi-billionaires are almost always notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rough we-write from German Wikipedia completed, but still needs a ton of work. - 152.91.9.144 01:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Don't know enough on the topic to cast my vote either way... Spawn Man 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
pats Spawn Man on back in consolation Bwithh 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, what your saying Spawn Man is "editcount+1"? ---J.S (t|c) 20:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very wealthy persons inherently encyclopedically notable Bwithh 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others †he Bread 04:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Anyone know if he's avaliable...? I can use a sugar daddy... Missvain 04:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of Forbes' richest people? Notable enough for you? Wavy G 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, its true. Enough money can buy you an article on the Wikipedia. --The Way 11:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per everyone, an owner of a notable company, and very rich. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article sounds like it was translated by Babelfish. Edison 16:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sounds like a notable fellow... even if the article is malformed. ---J.S (t|c) 20:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep- Highly notable. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I actually knew his name (as the owner of the A&P chain) independent of this article, which I must have read in published sources.  --LambiamTalk 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with the view that wealth is inherently notable. Notability arises from actions, not accidents of birth. He was born into the business (he was put on the board at the age of 20, which doesn't suggest he worked his way up the hard way), and has simply lived with it. If he has done something notable let's hear about it, but on the basis of this entry he has done nothing that another businessman wouldn't also have done. I also fail to understand how he can have been awarded the DSC in 2004: no military career is noted. With this in mind, I vote to Delete. I also suggest we extend the voting on this one, and actively seek broader input; I feel the larger question of whether wealth alone is notable is worth broader debate, and this looks like a good test case. WMMartin 17:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1/g10, hoax and attack page. NawlinWiki 02:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errrden[edit]

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

Hoax article. The "species" described within it is actually a "hothead" person. Two Google hits in German. Gray Porpoise 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete attack page on some guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete blatant hoax, possible attack. —Nate Scheffey 01:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax article, patent nonsense... this is a attack page, so speedy deletion is necessary. --SunStar Net 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This article definitely meets the criteria of db-attack. Diez2 01:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::type 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington services[edit]

Washington services (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Service station; no claim to notability given. --Nehwyn 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - This (and many other articles about UK MSAs) appears to have been added primarily as the vehicle for an external link to a website maintained by the article's author. MarkSG 19:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't disagree that seems to be the motive of the original author and since they have done it before many of those articles have gone on to be expanded into worthwhile articles. There is much more to do on the others. Regan123 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just any run of the mill service station, definitely fails WP:LOCAL. --Terence Ong (C | R) 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been discussed on several occassions. See the most recent discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services. Service stations are notable, multi million pound businesses. The article is a stub which needs expanding. If these are to be deleted then every small railway station should also be deleted.Regan123 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, keep to the article in question (WP:INN). If you consider this service station notable because of its business activity, can you provide any evidence of WP:CORP notability? --Nehwyn 07:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INN is not policy though it is, of course, a consideration. In fact if WP:INN was a ploicy then a large chunk of railway stations would become candidates. I think other discussions are relevant as a consensus was formed on as as notable (nor not dependent on your point of view) - if this didn't apply then, again, the stations would be up for a cull. A quick google search has resulted in this. There is no doubt more to be found - I have not seen a reference to an earlier installation of microwaves at a UK motorway services - something that makes it notable. Regan123 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference you provide states the cafe of the station used to be more or less Space 1999-themed for a while. Good for Wikitravel, maybe, but hardly a proof of encyclopaedic notability per se. Other AfD discussions indeed serve to establish a consensus - bot on whether to delete or keep the article(s) being nominated in those cases. They are not inclusion criteria or notability guidelines, which still exist as separate entities. An article proposed for deletion must be evaluated on its own merits, and must establish its own notability. This page is not for discussing the concept of notability for a whole category - it is about one specific article and whether it has sufficient proof of notability to avoid deletion or WP:LOCAL-style merging.
  • This is the phrase I am referring to: the fully automated microwave kitchen service which was unique when built - this gives it notability within the UK service stations. Regan123 09:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source you mentioned never states it was unique, or the first of its kind, not even on a national level. Have you any proof it was the first of its kind in the UK, or is it something you have inferred yourself? --Nehwyn 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is about the early motorway cafes - it mentions nowhere else about this. Also there is no mention of microwave installations at another source. This is not original research and it relys on sources. As before I believe this is a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regan123 (talk • contribs)
  • Again, the source you mention does not contain the claim you make above. It describes the automated microwave in Washington services, but the fact that it does not describe others does not equal to a statement that there existed no others. If you have a source that contains the statement that that installment was the first of its kind, even just in the UK, please feel free to bring it to notice here. --Nehwyn 11:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more quick google searches (and I am at work!) show this which whilst a personal recollection (and obvously not referanceable) shows there is some merit in the statement. Also according to this it is the first service station in the North East and on the A1(M) based on the fact that all the others are in the North West or South of Manchester. Finally has the original author been notified or was a cleanup tag added as in my question below? Regan123 13:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first of the two new links you mention is, as you correctly note, someone's post on a newsgroup, and thus satisfies neither WP:RS nor WP:V, so it cannot be used as a Wikipedia source; even if it were, it states they did have microwaves back in the day, true, but never states they were the first to do so on a national level. The second link states indeed that Washington is the oldest service station on that particular road, but that's hardly a claim to notability (every motorway sooner or later has a first station built). The oldest service station in the country, that's probably a claim to notability, but that is not the case here. --Nehwyn 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it not a claim to notability? Would the first pub in an area not be notable for that? Would the first road in area not be notable? There are motorways that have no station and will probably never will do, so it is not "inevitable". There is one potential and one definite notability for this article now.Regan123 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They hadn't been, so I have now added the appropriate message.Regan123 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with everything Regan says, plus the fact that they are stubs, we have not yet had time to expand them (there's lots of 20th Century history to chronical), and they form a part of the 20th/21st Century which in all likelihood will not be with us forever. Already some have been rebuilt, there have been fires, shootings, prostitution, asylum scandals, others have won awards for design or food quality. South Mimms, which is one that has been marked (again) for deletion has had a TV documentary shown about it, and books written which reference it. My feeling is that these service areas, as unpleasant as many of them are, have their own stories to tell, and one day when we're long forgotton about probably will be wiped from existance altogehter, making this the perfect place to detail their histories. C2r 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, keep to comments regarding the article in question (WP:INN), not others! Is there any evidence that anything of the sort you mention has ever occurred in the service area in question? --Nehwyn 07:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had time at this moment to defend each of the service areas individually, then I'd be writing individual articals about them to try and stop their deletion. However, I don't see the point in keeping 66% of the articles and trashing the other 33%, therefore my comments are relevant to this article as well as I was using South Mimms as an example of how others can also be significant and relevant - just because at the moment I don't have these details to hand doesn't mean they don't exist. C2r 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't know about the others, but if you want to defend this one, you have to write about this one. This is an individual deletion debate, not a category deletion or a mass deletion. The fact that other articles might be notable has no bearing on whether this one is. Please, stick to the article being discussed. --Nehwyn 08:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your assessment of the situation. As far as I see it, a motion to delete all of them was attempted, and failed, so now you're attempting to pick them off one by one - several of the same type of item have been nominated for deletion at the same time, which surely consitutes a group deletion? C2r 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was never discussed in an AfD, mass or otherwise. This is its first nomination, and it is an individual one: it is this article being discussed in this page, and not others or a whole category. Please, keep to the article in question! --Nehwyn 19:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Dmcdevit·t 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:LOCAL and really doesn't list almost any facts to make it notable. Diez2 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it certantly takes time to grow most articles beyond stub status, any stub worth keeping has enough context to show there is notability. In this case, none is offered. Simply existing does not make something notable. Resolute 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I thought it was America's Washington! Then I find out that it's some little known place in England! Delete! Spawn Man 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Very ordinary gas station motorway stop. Edison 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 04:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge all the individual services articles into their respective motorway articles (in this case, the A1(M) motorway) or transwiki to Wikitravel. What's next, an individual article each Illinois Tollway oasis, or every taco stand on Mexican autopistas (there's some good ones, too, like around Toluca... barbecue rabbit, yum!)??? Having each petrol station have its own article is silly and indicates a bit of warped perspective as to what constitutes notability, IMHO. BTW, George Washington's family was from Sulgrave, rather than Washington, Tyne and Wear, although there may be a tenuous link otherwise. So a connection with George doesn't exist for purposes of establishgment of notability ;-) Tubezone 04:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and delete is not a valid "vote" as it violates the GFDL. JYolkowski // talk 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability claimed for this service station. JIP | Talk 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Motorway services in the UK are very notable as they are used by maybe a million+ people each year. This isn't just a petrol service station on a minor road or in a town, this is a motorway service station which are of massive use and necessity to the millions of drivers who use the UK motorway network each day. Also these services, as they are on the A1(M) are most likely one of the busiest on the network. There are also two hotels at the services which can be added to the article if people think it's too stubbish. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, so it's a big honkin petrol station. Again, we don't have such stub articles for service areas on any number of very busy highways you want to name, like the Illinois Tollway, Indiana Toll Road, or Ontario 401. Sometimes there's lists of service areas (such as in the ON-401). I think your interest in documenting all these motorway details is blurring your perspective a bit. If this trend follows through to its logical conclusion, we're going to wind up with hundreds or thousands of NN stub articles like this. I think this trend should be nipped in the bud now before it really gets silly. JMHO. Tubezone 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wish people would stop nominating these without any apparent knowledge of their significance within British culture. Motorway service stations are not ordinary service areas. Their names are very well-known to British people all over the country - they are not just local institutions. There was even a programme about them on the BBC the other night. Such areas may not be notable within America, but they most certainly are in Britain. Comments like "very ordinary gas station" just show that many people have no actual idea what they're commenting on. -- Necrothesp 09:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, what? Please don't make overblown claims like that. The vast majority of service stations are not notable, even in Britain. I can name... uh... maybe a grand total of one service station, and that's only because I personally stop off there regularly. I certainly can not think of a single "nationally famous" service station or a single service station that is not completely and utterly purely of local interest. — Haeleth Talk 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see, you can't name them so they're obviously not notable. Right. That settles it then...Haeleth can only name one service station so obviously they're not notable. A pretty daft argument really, wouldn't you say? I can name at least a dozen off the top of my head, and I'm not a particularly frequent traveller. So who's making the "overblown claims"? -- Necrothesp 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have already requested a keep as above but I would refer everyone to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services where notability in general has been discussed. There are notability elements on the web they just haven't been added in yet. Regan123 10:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...their significance within British culture. Motorway service stations are not ordinary service areas." Really? Your POV is not a reason to keep. What about the cultural significance of public toilets (maybe every one should get an article) or an article for every UK roadside carwash? Fails proposed WP:LOCAL, I'm feeling Weak delete on this. Amists talk • contribs 10:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I don't think that quote was by me on here. Anyway WP:LOCAL is to quote not set in stone and should be treated with common sense. I would say there is some cultural significance and corporate notability here. The issue is that the original author added them as link pages which is wrong, but the next question is should we delete stubs simply because they are poor quality at the moment? If that was the case then there would be a mass cull on Wikipedia.Regan123 11:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Your POV is not a reason to keep". Absolutely true, but it may shock you to learn that neither is yours. And quoting deletion criteria which do not apply, as Ben says, does not make your POV any less of a POV. -- Necrothesp 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe WP:LOCAL can possible apply here anyway, Motorway Services aren't just petrol stations used by local people, they are more commonly used by non-locals, people passing through on long trips. As a result they are know by people up and down the country, not just local people who may not actually use them at all. The Motorway Services on the UK network aren't like the ones you tend to find elsewhere, these are usually large complexes with hotels, restaurants, shops and many other facilities designed to assist and aid motorists on long journeys up and down the nations network. They are very much a part of UK life and are used by millions of people every day. We're not talking a little petrol station in a town used by a couple hundred locals every week, and we're not suggesting making articles about each of them. Many of them are household names, many documentaries have been made about then, even entire series based around the everyday activities of them. Why should articles like Hotel Canberra which is a hotel used by no more than a couple hundred people a day be more notable than something used by thousands, maybe tens of thousands. Ben W Bell talk 11:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I remember seeing a whole truckload of this stuff, so there's plenty of deletable material once this afd goes through. Most of them are very similar to this article. I was tempted to prod these articles when I encountered them being created on RC patrol a week ago. MER-C 10:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its absolutely non-notable and unencyclopedic. Service stations are virtually non-notable as a category, though I could see the possibility that there may exceptions to this. This, however, is not one of those exceptions. --The Way 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable per above: these obviously fail WP:CORP which is the applicable guideline. The argument advanced above that a service station has "significance within British culture" does a great injustice to British culture, no matter how much one feels it has declined. I would support bringing back many of the other individual articles to AfD; a mass nomination was tricky, but on a one by one basis many of these culturally mammoth institutions could be extirpated. Eusebeus 11:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP is not the only applicable guideline and I am not sure what you mean regarding "a great injustice to British culture". Culture isn't just art surely? And there still remains a notability question that has never been answered. See above. Regan123 11:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Culture may not be limited to art, but it isn't a service station. Tens of millions of people see the signs for the turnoff to Heathrow airport. Does that mean prominent road signs are encyclopedic? I personally find the logic advanced above for notability completely fallacious. Eusebeus 13:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't agree that you can compare a service station to a road sign. Here is another comparison: 200,000 people a year use Anerley railway station. That is likely to be reached in a week at many UK service stations. Why is one more notable than another? Why is one deemed appropriate for an article and the other not? Why does two strips of concrete and an out house open around 4 hours a day become encyclopedic and a place used by millions every year not? What is so notable about the railway station that allows it to stay on here and yet a service station is deemed to be so unnotable that it must be deleted? And on culture, yes these are part of the cultural history of the UK, for better or for worse. I personally spend as little time as possible at service stations, but they were once gleaming symbols of modernity in transportation (I know it is hard to believe). Regan123 14:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, but Heathrow Airport is. I think you should try comparing like with like. We're talking about the thing the sign points to, not the sign itself. -- Necrothesp 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply not notable. Sorry. Even if it did have the first microwave oven in Europe or whatever this supposed claim of notability is, it still is not a viable subject for an encyclopedia article. — Haeleth Talk 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen nothing in the guidelines that would not allow this to be notable. Please see my point above. Thanks. Regan123 14:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The keepers are correct (up to a point) in that we shouldn't be comparing these to gas stations: they're more similar to a rest stop or truck stop. But they're still not something we can have individual articles on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I don't think this kind of article belongs, I have no real background in this, so I can only go from policy. That being said, applying notability when some people here voting are comparing these to SERVICE STATIONS (which they clearly are not) can only generate at best a weak delete. The better guideline would be WP:LOCAL than WP:CORP, I think. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lack verification to establish its importance or notability.-- danntm T C 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless we want articles on Joe's Esso or something. If anything is worth salvaging (probably not), it could be incorporated into A1 road. Kirjtc2 19:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service stations are not necessariyl linked to individual roads, however, some are on multiple - therefore by putting ones like this into the road article (which would be the A1), and ones like south mimms which aren't on an individual road (it's on three), it becomes confusing as to where the articles might be found. Furthermore, this article and articles like these aren't like Joes Esso on the relief road... they're actually created at the time the special orders are passed for the motorway or afterwards as they're specified by the government - you can't just come along and build one anywhere. It's also interesting that Railway Stations and airports are deemed to be automatically notable while motorway service areas are not, which seems to be a very perculiar (political?) ruling - could someone direct me to the page where this was discussed and deemed to be the case, as I'm sure the same reasoning could apply to motorway service areas as applies to railway stations.... As far as I'm aware there's absolutely nothing of significance about either (for example) Bayford or Crews Hill stations that could not be included on the 'locality' page about the villages.... whereas Motorway Service areas exist independently of location (they may be near none, and those that are near towns or village have nothing in common with the town/village, so probably don't belong on the pages for the town or village), and as stated previously I don't think they really belong on the motorway pages either; the A1 page, for instance would become incredibly crowded with information about the motorway sections, the historical sections, the different routes as the road has evolved over time.... Having said that, I've got better things to do with my time than argue over the deletion of stubs, as they're fairly easy to put back again once sufficient information on them is found (o; C2r 20:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I see a lot of argument that services are notable as a big part of British culture. I don't know if that is true or not. But what makes this particular service stand apart? Where are the independently published articles about it? For me, it simply fails WP:V -- Whpq 21:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge This is not a vote to delete - we need to find a solution. Merge to what? Perhaps I'll need to create the solution. This article needs improving, since those who have never been to it can't get a sense of it from the article. These are multi-business landmarks on the motorway network. Not gas stations. The comparison with rail stations is close. But does each still need their own article? I think better to create one big article describing these in general, with a list of them perhaps as a sub article. There are not that many of this size in Britain - I think one article or two might work. Or perhaps one artcle for each major motor way. We need a place to work this out, not to argue about deleting.Obina 22:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about each major motorway just having a list, like, say List of service areas on the A1 and A1 (M). No doubt these are areas with multiple business generating multi-millions of pounds, but so are shopping centres and many US tollway service areas, and not all them are notable, either. The argument that railway stations each get their own article doesn't hold water, not all railway stations do get their own article, and not all should get their own article, however, (a) there's already been a precedent set in the case of RR stations, and (b) Generally, there's only one railway station in each town or neighborhood, and they're often a transportation hub, rather than a stopoff. Many railway stations are historically or architecurally significant, few service stations or service areas are. (Some railfans have their own bent perspective on the importance of railway minituae as well)
    The problem with that solution is you'll end up with articles that are just the same. The reason being that motorway services are actually not that common and the vast majority of motorways only have 1 MSA on them. The M2, M20, M27 (I think) only have one on their entire length, even the M25 only has two Motorway Services (I think. It could be three but I'm not sure). Some motorways don't have any. So you'd end up moving them to articles with different titles but end up with the same information in them and the same arguments. However maybe there is a solution that involves combining them together in some form, and redirecting from the individual names, I just can't think of the best way to do that. Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the WP articles, between Moto, Welcome Break and RoadChef, there's seventy-three MSA's in the UK. For a country that's not much bigger than my state (Illinois), that's a lot of MSA's! Why not stick a list of MSA's under the individual operator articles? They're all basically stubs with plenty of room for a list. Just an idea. Tubezone 08:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen plenty of comments about the cultural significance of MSA's in the UK, but I still haven't seen much said about why they'd would be more culturally more significant than the same kinds of facilities in other countries. Tubezone 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since the people wanting to keep are predominantly British, that's not really a useful question. As a Briton, I don't know whether articles on service stations in other countries are worth keeping or not, which is why I wouldn't express an uninformed opinion on them in an AfD basing their worth on the perceived worth of similar (but probably not identical) facilities in my own country (comments like "it's just a big gas station" just go to show that many people commenting here don't actually know much about the subject at hand). Why should we be comparing them with service stations elsewhere? That's not the issue at all; the issue is their significance in their own milieu, not somebody else's. -- Necrothesp 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the British Wikipedia, so how this all fits in the overall WP context does count, at least IMHO. I'm still a little puzzled as to why these are considered notable in their own milieu. It's not like Britain isn't loaded to the gills with notable places and structures (it is). Also, if someone later decides to put up similar articles in other countries, they're going to point to this kind of article out as an example to justify it. Whatever, I've said my tuppence worth, I'll shut up now. Tubezone 08:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're completely misinterpreting what I said. I can't compare British service stations to American service stations because I have no knowledge of American service stations. All I can do is give my opinion as to the significance of British service stations in British culture, not how they compare to vaguely related institutions in other countries. To ask me (or anyone else) to compare them to something I/we know nothing about is ridiculous. But I do know how significant they are to many people in Britain, and how well-known many of them are. A lot of people here seem to be comparing them to ordinary "gas stations" or diners, and that's not what they are. Coincidentally, here's an article about them that featured on the BBC News website today, which highlights a particular service station. Are there articles about American service stations on national American news? And anyway, of course subjects' significance in their own milieu counts; American state representatives have absolutely no impact on or interest to most people outside the USA, or even their own state, for instance, but they still all have their own articles, as justified by WP:BIO. -- Necrothesp 17:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there really needs to be a substantive discussion on an overall policy on inclusion of waysides, MSA's, tollway oases and roadside whatnot, as there is on railway stations, see: User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. I would note in the tollway oasis article, one of the first things that's said about them is that they're similar to British MSA's, which is the impression I also had when I visited an MSA. The first line of the BBC article is Motorway service stations have become a byword for bad food at top prices, a charge that was levelled in the past at tollway oases, too. (Now they have McDonalds, which is some improvement) Yes, some gas stations, truck stops and so forth get media mentions in the USA if they're notable, eg: Dixie Truckers Home. BTW, many state legislators in the US don't have articles, and IMHO, few deserve one, either, despite WP:BIO. British peers automatically get in, too. Lastly, at this point, Motorway service area redirects to "Rest area", which really isn't the right place for an article on MSA's, if you ask me. Tubezone 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether state legislators deserve articles or not is not actually the point - under WP:BIO they are allowed to have them, no questions asked. British peers, incidentally, are national legislators. British service stations have McDonalds/KFC/Burger Kings too - it's no improvement! -- Necrothesp 02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if these service stations are culturally significant in the UK (as their supporters argue they are, despite the lack of solid references), that still doesn't make this particular service station notable. Delete (and create Cultural significance of motorway service stations in the United Kingdom if you think it's notable and you can reference it). Demiurge 13:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There seems to be some consensus growing to fix - it seems to me a consensus to move away from 73 articles. We need to together find a great solution. What if we create 3 articles - one each for the main suppliers - and perhaps one on the cultural impact. This particular page can become a redirect (not delete). Two extra comments. Look what was on the BBC today NEWS. As this source shows, this is a government issue to fix - imagine if Nancy P was speaking on interstate rest areas. And forget the comparison with Illinois area. The UK is 1/4 the population of the USA.Obina 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to United Kingdom motorway service areas I would say that motorway services are probably as notable as the numerious railways station articles (say Jordanhill railway station). However for the most part they are not that interesting. Theres a lot which could be said about them as a class, which would be distinct from US varients. --Salix alba (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There used to be a UK MSA article, but it got merged into the general Rest Area article. It might be worth considering a demerge and reinstating the UK specific article. MarkSG 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But why? I still don't see how they're any different from the service areas on Highway 401 or the New Jersey Turnpike. Kirjtc2 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I only said it "might be" worth considering - I'm not making a definite argument in favour of doing it yet. But it's a suggestion which might be suitable as a compromise here, as it gives a place for all the information in these stubs to find a natural home without having to delete it altogether.
          • Having said that, I think there are good reasons for demerging it from Rest Area. For a start, an MSA is a very specific type of Rest Area, which operates under specific government guidelines and regulations. It's not just a big gas station on a major road - it's part of the UK motorway infrastructure. The current Rest Area article is somewhat misleading, in that it implies that MSAs are what Brits call facilities that elsewhere would be called a Rest Area, when in fact they are more specific than that. It's a bit like having an article on roads which suggests that "Interstate" is what Americans call roads that elsewhere are called "major roads" - sure, an I-road is a major road, but it's more than just being major that makes it significant. An MSA is a subset of rest areas, rather than just being the British name for them. And, as far as I'm aware, the UK concept of a motorway service area is unique - one of the things that makes them controversial in the UK is because they are regulated in a way that equivalent facilites elsewhere, such as the US and mainland Europe, are not. So, taken as a group, they would satisfy the Wikipedia requirements for notability even if an individual site would not. MarkSG 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all of them are worthy of article. I do not know about Washington, but I am not convinced that WP:LOCAL would necessarily apply. Firstly because some of these are enormous franchises granted by the government, and their existence can be verified on every UK road map. These are often much more than service stations, sometimes incorporating shops, restaurants (sometimes with starbucks, mcdonalds) and motels. They may belong to chains such as Granada, but whole motorway service network of motorway services are not under single ownership. We are now seeing a proliferation of articles on shopping malls, where we already see very passionate debates about their notability or otherwise, MSA may well fall into this category should we perhaps draw up a guideline called "WP:MALL" to cover these? ;-) As most of these articles are pretty much stubs, they could be merged and populated if people think worthwhile. Per above debate, it may be useful to have these as sections in the relevant motorway, or include them as part of the relevant franchisee, with a navigational page List of United Kingdom motorway service areas. I would like to see a MERGE, probably to the relevant motorway Ohconfucius 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Serves us right for letting the schools groupies get away with it. WMMartin 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, WP:V. No assertion of either with any reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Proto::type 10:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Blizzard of Odd[edit]

    The Blizzard of Odd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article has been tagged with importance since May 17. This article has no verification to it, and little notability to it. Also, not many major edits to the article have been made. Delete. Diez2 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. The IMDB doesn't really have any information, and all sorts of non-notable things get in there anyway. The rest of the external links are the thing's website. Sources? -Amarkov blahedits 01:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep TV series with a fairly notable star. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - Not an extremely huge hit show, but has links to official site for verification & has fairly notable star as per Starblind. Spawn Man 02:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I figure one must be Irish/English/etc to really delete/keep this article. I've never heard of any of them or any of it! So there! I would like to see these Irish B-movies however :) Missvain 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, not the most famous TV show ever but meets the multiple non-trivial external references standard:
    By the way, I'm not sure of the etiquette here, but would it be viewed as canvassing if I were to post on WP:IWNB about this AfD? Demiurge 13:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: A massively under-rated tv show that's come back for series 5 this october, why on earth would anyone want to delete it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.174.7 (talk • contribs)
    • Definitly Keep: The Blizzard of Odd offered a look into the 'Nether Regions' of modern television with humourous input and............oh who am I kidding? Ask any Irish person, The Blizzard of Odd was a great show and should not have been considered for deletion. I think the article should be expanded and enlarged. What about all those American shows that have been off the air for centuries, and we still hear about them. Irish TV will rise again, just you wait!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.190.95.66 (talk • contribs)
    • Keep It has run for 5 series. Ian Cheese 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A sufficiently long-running show on a national station, with a notable host. --Kwekubo 19:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Proto::type 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WXYK[edit]

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

    NN WP:CORP radio station, no notations of notability, also possibly an advertisment due to the nature of the article SkierRMH 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete This is just a local radio station. It has no claim to notability and it definitely fails WP:LOCAL. Diez2 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and clean up this article. There are lots of articles about local radio stations; this one is no different. NTXweather 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - As per nom. Spawn Man 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I cleaned it up a little bit so it didn't seem like an advertisement. It was probably copied and pasted off somewhere so I copy-edited it. Notibility shouldn't be an issue, many local stations have articles.--aviper2k7 02:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, and I didn't think WP:LOCAL was a criterion an article could "fail", I thought it was to indicate articles that may be notable but of local interest. --Canley 02:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Canley; thanks to aviper2k7 for cleaning up. Wavy G 07:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, consensus is that all licensed full-power radio stations are notable. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KRES. Kirjtc2 12:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. There is no consensus, despite what some inclusionists like to claim, and WP:INN. There is nothing that distinguishes this station from umpteen other ultra-minor ultra-local stations in the USA, let alone worldwide: it does not require or deserve a place in an international encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 13:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep practice has been to keep A-Class FM stations (which this is, I checked the FCC website), and the inclusion of some station history helps it squeak by WP:LOCAL.-- danntm T C 14:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as this is part of Template:Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula Radio. I’m sure the other US area market templates have local stations like this one. Do we need to delete all the others as well? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepBalloonman 21:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as notability patterns have been set for radio and TV properties like this one. Maybe get the WikiProject to improve it? It has no infobox at all. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails WP:CORP, no third-party coverage. Sandstein 06:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Article modified, added Infobox and some info from Radio-Locator --RoninBKETC 09:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. First of all, the information in the article is not verified by sources independent of WXYK. Heck, it doesn't even seem to be verified by (the non-independent) WXYK website, which is the only non-trivial reference listed in the article. So I looked on Lexis-Nexis, and surprise surprise, there is no coverage of WXYK, like most radio stations. So we have a clear failure of WP:CORP like the nominator said. Now, in response to all the keep voters above who cite "precedent" or claim that "notability patterns have been set": please note that precedent is not an argument for automatically keeping or deleting anything. If there have been good arguments made in past AfD's that apply to this AfD, then make those arguments. Simply citing the results of past AfD's is not convincing. Next, in response to the keep argument "Do we need to delete all the other [local radio stations] as well?": Yes. Those that have no reliable independent sources that establish notability (i.e. most of them) should be deleted. Finally, in response to the claim that there is "consensus" that "all licensed full-power radio stations are notable": this is not true (witness the delete voters here). Consensus about this radio station will be established in this AfD. Consensus in past AfD's has nothing to do with consensus in this one. Pan Dan 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep licensed stations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy deleted by Rama's arrow. -Amarkov blahedits 05:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Harold Schwartz[edit]

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

    This was tagged with importance on December 9, 2005. No major edits have occured since then. This fails WP:STUB and should definitely be deleted. Diez2 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Fails other rules too... Spawn Man 02:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete fails A1 Missvain 04:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Northern Beaches Christian School[edit]

    NN School, in accord with WP:SCHOOL SkierRMH 01:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Should be speedied This definitely meets the criteria of db-spam. Diez2 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is the spam? JROBBO 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The school talks about who it caters to and somewhat about its layout and principal. Diez2 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete fails WP:SCHOOL (which is only a proposal, but still it's clear there's no notability here). As per Diez2, it also qualifies under WP:CSD G11. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand Database comes up with 10 hits for this school. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A whole ten!? Must be really important! Spawn Man 02:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stop bashing people who don't agree with you. These multiple deletions have got beyond a joke. JROBBO 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see any bashing, merely a mildly sarcastic rejoinder. Now, if the person can show that the database has any articles demonstrating notability that would be useful. Mentions by themselves aren't very helpful. JoshuaZ 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Gonzales - Why don't you go home? Delete speedily... Spawn Man 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per everyone above. -- Kicking222 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The lessons are interesting, exciting." - this is good for the students, but not for establishing notability. Yet another example of schoolcruft. Delete Lankiveil 03:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • What, you base your entire argument on two lines that were probably put there by vandals? Why is it non-notable? JROBBO 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - to Terrey Hills as per WP:LOCAL. The school is notable in Sydney (a fact probably unknown to those people who don't live there), but I'm not going to win any arguments among the deletionists that go round looking for schools based on a proposal that few people support. I found more articles on Factiva on top of what CapitalistRoadster found too. These debates are ridiculous and prone to abuse by people who can't be bothered doing some research and being civil about these things. JROBBO 04:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stop name-calling and start making proper arguments. If you've done the research, as you say, then you can cite sources to demonstrate that the primary WP:SCHOOL criterion (which is actually supported by most people, not few) is satisfied. Cited sources will demonstrate conclusively that the nomination is wrong and make a strong argument for keeping. Continue to be uncivil to other editors, on the other hand, and you will be only continuing to add to the bad debate yourself. If you so dislike it, you shouldn't be perpetuating it as you are doing. Concentrate upon finding and citing sources instead. Uncle G 10:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, no trolls, but what about the above comments by Spawn Man? That's not fair... I have found some sources but I don't have time to add them to the article at present. What about some time to do this? JROBBO 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • They clearly indicated that Spawn Man is not doing the research that is necessary for participating in AFD. The correct response to them is not, as you did, to talk about "bashing" but to point out that counting search engine hits is not research. Research involves actually reading what the search engine turns up.

            AFD discussions last for at least 5 days. Although if you've found sources, it should be a matter of a mere couple of minutes to cite them. All that the primary WP:SCHOOL criterion requires is citations, so that editors can confirm that the published works exist, and read them to determine the depth of material that they contain (i.e. that they are non-trivial and not simply directory entries). Uncle G 13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete has been tagged per G11, A7 Missvain 04:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. MER-C 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't really see how this is G11, but unless it asserts notability per WP:School it has to go - Delete. Amists talk • contribs 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Where's the notability? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and this article contains no information outside of what one would expect to find in a directory of local schools. No notability, no article, please. Let's try to keep this encyclopedia encyclopedic. — Haeleth Talk 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't find any sources that are not the school itself, its parent body, simple directories, or this article. -Amarkov blahedits 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable; fails WP:SCHOOL. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not meet a single one of the criteria in WP:SCHOOLS3, which, IMHO, is a very reasonable proposed policy. Denni talk 18:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or DeleteBalloonman 22:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - to Terrey Hills Aurelius One 22:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not even meet WP:SCHOOLS or any draft of WP:SCHOOLS3. It does not have any notable alumni or staff. It does not have any clubs or teams that have performed at a notable level(the closest I can find is some students who finished third in a science contest [4] [5]). There is nothing to make this school notable. JoshuaZ 20:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The school's 2005 report is [6] here if anyone wants to look through it and see if they can find some claim of notability. I was unable to find any but only spent about 5 minutes skimming it. JoshuaZ 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to Terrey Hills, New South Wales. There is no valid reason to delete this information. Voting to delete useful information that can be relocated elsewhere is entirely in conflict with Wikipedia'a purposes. Deletionism is destruction!Alansohn 07:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want an article on Everything on the Planet Earth, I suggest you hie yourself off to Everything2 where no contribution, no matter how bad, is refused (unless you want to create an article on Everything2 itself - go figure). Wikipedia, fortunately or unfortunately depending on which side of the deletion/inclusion debate you sit, has some principles. I have no issue with your suggestion to merge/redirect, but to call deletionists bad names is only to demonstrate your own intransegence. Denni talk 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and note it's existance on Terrey Hills. Fails to pass either WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 02:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge if it can. Audiobooks 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as above. wikipediatrix 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untroubled by content → delete. Ben Aveling 07:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Schoolcruft. WMMartin 17:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was "speedy close" via #REDIRECT [[0.999...]]. - 152.91.9.144 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1 = .9 Repeating[edit]

    Contested prod originally raised by User:Bibliomaniac15: "There is already an article on this at 0.999...". Erik Swanson 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, duh. I would say redirect except nobody is ever going to type the title in. Why would you contest the prod? -Amarkov blahedits 01:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

    The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 02:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Godol Hador (blog)[edit]

    The previous nomination had a dissapointing dearth of meaningful debate. The only assertation of notability was a link to a Google search. A naïf search yeilds zero GNews hits and circa 200 unique ghits. A more focused search of "godol hador" blog -"blogspot.com" yields only 71 ghits. Of course, even one hit would be enough if it were from a reliable third party so that we could satisfy the bedrock requirements of verification and freedom from bias, before we even begin to venture into notability. Unless sources are provided, this must be deleted.
    152.91.9.144 01:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note:This nomination was copied from Talk:Godol Hador (blog), due to an IP who can't make a page. You should really get an account. -Amarkov blahedits 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable blog. Always reminds me of that Sonic commercial where the guy says he's going to write about the milkshake on his blog for all his readers, and the girl comments on how his only reader is his mother. Missvain 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as NN. No second party source and it's a blogspot.com blog. Screams non-notable. ---J.S (t|c) 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- wait,wait -- ZERO Gnews hits? Make that a foamy strong delete with salt on top. Non notable blog. Could be anybody, thus also fails WP:V. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable blog, and no verifiable sources provided. --SunStar Net 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable in the least. riana_dzasta 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable, nobody cares. Moreschi 16:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammad Kaykobad[edit]

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

    This article has been tagged with importance since September 16, 2005. Since then, not many major edits have occured. Of the ones that have, none of them give the article a claim to notability. I move to delete this page. Diez2 01:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete: Can't find any source for the sole assertion of notability, that he co-operated with Muhammad Zafar Iqbal to get Bangladesh to participate in the International Mathematical Olympiad for the first time. Google gives only two twenty six (all wikipedia) hits for that. Also for others to consider, his list of publications; not qualified enough in mathematics to judge whether those are important contributions. cab 03:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: Note that, his name is variously spelled as Kaikobad, Kaykobad etc. Here are some links for your convenience
    Speaking of hard-working men, four years ago two renowned University Professors and an enthusiastic reporter started an effort to get more students interested in the "boring" subject of math. It was called "Neuron-ey Anuronon", a math puzzle column different from the more conventional ones. They never disclosed the answers, and all those who could solve a certain number of the problems were given certificates. Slowly, they began arranging real contests. In time, the two professors, Dr Kaykobad and Dr Zafar Iqbal, applied to the International Math Olympiad (IMO) for membership.
    There are plenty other references, I'll add some more soon. Thanks. --Ragib 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Ragib. Are you intending to add the references to the article? If not, let me know on the page's talk page and I'll edit it. --Charlene 12:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Ragib's logic is good. IMO (Olympiad, not "In My Opinion") contestants arent generally notable, but this is a special case, due to the fact that they are organizing such things in Bangladesh, which may be taken to be part of a larger intellectual awakening there in the mold of Dr. Yunus and the like.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, good catch Ragib. Just make sure those refs get to the article. Xtifr tälk 05:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald Schmuck[edit]

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

    This article has been previously nominated with a result of no concensus.

    He simply fails WP:BIO despite the misleadingly good appearance of the article. There is also a WP:COI from the author. To quote JGardner's comment on the article's talk page:

    Thank you, please vote below -- ßottesiηi (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is a notable bio about the military life of a former general during the Korean War. This absolutely meets WP:BIO. Diez2 01:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment According to this[10], the subject held a rank lower than that of Colonel during the Korean War. As a battalion commander, he probably held the lesser rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Bwithh 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Which part of WP:BIO does it "absolutely" meet? JGardner 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, the question of notability is there to ensure that we have enough reliable sources to write a good article about the guy. There's an article about him linked, and he's obviously done things worth writing about. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Notability is not a means to an end; it is the end. If the subject is not notable per the criterion listed in WP:BIO it does not belong on wikipedia. The article you mention only discusses Gen. Schmuck in passing, which does not meet WP:BIO's criterion of "being the subject of multiple, independent publications". JGardner 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your description of notability is absolutely incorrect. Notability is a guideline that serves as a means to the end of fulfilling our policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V that define our goal of creating an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is the goal; notability is only a means to that end. There are three articles linked. Two are directly about him and the third mentions him in passing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that if this person cannot be established as singularly notable, there's no reason to have the article. A line has to be drawn somewhere of what people are to be included in an encyclopedia, as wikipedia is not a repository of biographies. None of the references in the article establish notability. The USMC bio is not independent of the subject, neither is the article from the website of Arlington National Cemetary where he's buried. The article you mentioned is independent but does not feature Schmuck anymore than it does the Colonel, Lt Col, Captain, Lieutenant or NCO also discussed in the article. JGardner 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What you don't mention is that the previous nom, by yourself, just closed three days ago, with 7-3 in favor of keeping, counting the nominator, nor do you link it. AS for the specious arguments for deletion, god forbid we have thousands of articles about people--if there is enough good verifiable information to write a decent article, why not? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPEEDY KEEP The present nominator was in the minority in the very, very recent AfD discussion, and IMO seemed to be expressing somewhat of a bias against military people in general during that discussion. I think when the numbers reflected 7-3 the Admin made a mistake by calling it "no consensus." Consensus does not mean that everything must be unanimous. Donald Schmuck is notable. Regardless of the way that the Admin marked the closing remarks of the AfD, there was a consensus to keep. This new nomination makes it really, really hard to assume good faith. OfficeGirl 02:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a problem with the closure of the previous afd, take it to WP:DRV. I don't see anything wrong with the no consensus close myself.Bwithh 03:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Article text appears to be a copyright violation WP:COPYVIO. See this copyrighted newspaper site and this copyrighted memorial site Bwithh 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The text is similar, but it seems to have been rewritten. It's borderline plagiarism, though I'm not sure if it's stepped out of the bounds of the law. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a second look, I bascially agree with Night Gyr's perspective on this point - though I would say that its more of a merge of text from two or three sources than a rewrite as such Bwithh 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Procedural Keep with Total Rewrite advised On the one hand, I don't see any solid claim of encyclopedic notability (as per nom) in the article. It's certainly possible that one or several can be made, but the article simply doesn't do it. I would tend towards Delete in such a case, unless substantive claims can be made and proved. On the other hand, Night Gyr is right to say that it is too soon to renominate the article after the first afd (Bottesini, please wait a couple of months or so). (However, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and should avoid the appearance of plagiarism - the article should be rewritten to avoid sounding like the obituary an bios it is derived from). Bwithh 03:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per other keeps †he Bread 04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep though it needs a rewrite to make his notability clear. James086 Talk | Contribs 05:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete but I might change my mind if those who are arguing Keep so emphatically would actually make an argument for why this career military man is notable. I disagree with the idea that "the question of notability is there to ensure that we have enough reliable sources to write a good article about the guy" -- besides the fact that this argument is a blatant ploy to avoid the issue, the question of notability has always been a stand-alone requirement as opposed to a function of the sourcing requirement (after all, it is relatively easy to source an article about a non-notable subject-- not everyone mentioned in judicial records and newspaper articles deserves an encyclopedia article). Allon Fambrizzi 08:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    • Delete I find the arguments raised above in the nomination by JGardner compelling: brigadier general is not on its own grounds for notability per WP:BIO; neither is leading a brigade in the Korean War. Suggesting this be kept without making reference to those arguments is lazy. The nominator has laid forth perfectly legitimate reasons to remove this on grounds that the subject fails WP:BIO. It is fine to disagree, but the subject is clearly borderline. Voting to keep based on some kind of perceived procedural violation is simply ridiculous. Eusebeus 11:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete But, again, very willing to change my mind if someone, anyone can provide evidence that this person satisfies a criterion listed in WP:BIO. Other than Night Gyr, not one person commenting here has made any argument for the notability of this person; they've simply asserted notability, brought up red herrings about other articles, or attacked the nominator. JGardner 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A general star and half a dozen medals isn't notable? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have nothing against the military at all, but no, being a one star general does not satisfy notability requirements. There are over 800 generals serving actively right now. All of my relatives that served in WWII brought home half a dozen medals each, which is not an insignificant achievement by any stretch, but it does not assert notability. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are over 800 professional athletes playing actively right now. Does the fact that there are a lot of them mean that we shouldn't have an article about them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is it your serious contention that anyone who has ever attained the rank of brigadier general is automatically notable? For what reason? Aside from the fact that you've now just opened the door for the multiple thousands of living and dead US one stars and higher, not to mention the tens of thousands of brigadier and higher equivalents from other major world militaries, current and past; I must ask, why stop there? Why not include every Colonel? How about every Lt. Colonel? Major? We can continue to go down the military hierarchy, but the point is that whatever rank you draw the line is wholly arbitrary. The sole factor it should come to as to whether a person of whatever title or rank should be included in an encyclopedia is: has this person been established as a singularly notable figure? If that can't be established, why on earth should an encyclopedia care about him? JGardner 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep — the Navy Cross and two Silver Stars is enough to make him notable. — ERcheck (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per OfficeGirl's comments, renomination within a week of the closing of the last AFD borders on WP:POINT. — ERcheck (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I feel nothing but sympathy for all of those that are saying keep just on the sentiment of this man's impeccable military service record. Yet, sentiment is not notability. The Navy Cross is the second highest US military medal awarded and is the equivalent of the Air Force Cross, and the Distinguished Service Cross of the Army. A career making highlight for any military member -- yet, not exceedingly rare. Here are the numbers for each award: Navy Cross 6,920, Distinguished Service Cross 13,449, Air Force Cross 191. All of those men and women are no doubt courageous, but certainly not all of them are notable. An impressive military record is not, by itself, notability anymore than an impressive career at a major corporation is, by itself, notability. Show me evidence that this man had a singular impact on the military or on history at-large that is somewhat widely recognized and I would be all for keeping this article. As it is, however, Schmuck is just coming off as one of the many thousands of highly decorated military officers who have also remained historically anonymous. And also as it is, the article (originally created by User:FrankSchmuck), looks like little more than a memorial to a relative. Please, prove me wrong; if this person is so notable where's the independent sources confirming it? JGardner 05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. Perhaps speedily as a WP:POINT violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to The Naked Gun. Proto::type 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Enrico Pallazzo[edit]

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

    Poorly written article about a minor character in The Naked Gun, fails Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction) Thunderbunny 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete (side note - having an IMDB profile is not an immediate conferrance of notability). Proto::type 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Barney Larrick[edit]

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

    This article has been tagged with importance since July 17. This article is not notable because the illegal event that he did was not notable. I move to delete this page. Diez2 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. I'd say merge into Taken for a Ride, the movie he was interviewed in, but the article doesn't exist. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I'd like to see the article kept; he does have an IMDB profile, and the name is quite notable among the transit community (if that's what you call it?), but it doesn't really return that many Google hits. Interesting story nonetheless. Wavy G 08:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete for the same baic reasons WavyG mentions, the notablity is in a small community, doen't really pass the WP:BIOSkierRMH 08:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:BIO, ghits, everyone that ever said a line on a film or tv show is on imdb, doesnt confer notability. Amists talk • contribs 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable. Moreschi 12:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, not notable. James086 Talk | Contribs 15:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable, being on TV once is not 2 non-trivial sources.Obina 22:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep He does have an IMDB profile. LazyDaisy 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable enough PTIuv777 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete G11 (vandalism) by Andrew Lenahan aka Starblind. ColourBurst 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ferret Love Page[edit]

    Ferret Love Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Vandalism Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still not entirely sure I'm going about this process the right way. If a page is almost certainly nonsense, vandalism, or the like, is nominating it through the articles for deletion the right path? Since I'm going through the Dead End Pages list for items clearly in this camp, I want to make sure I'm doing it correctly. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy deleted by Rama's Arrow. -Amarkov blahedits 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Takaboost[edit]

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

    Product is not notable; article contains unverifiable claims and copyvio text copied from [11]. Dr.frog 02:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete-Google only gives 34 results for "Takaboost". Not notable-K37 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per A7 I like how the only source is "the last known link of takaboost" lol. Missvain 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy deleted – Gurch 04:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Emily Brandt[edit]

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

    Not a person of note or interest. Also vandalized The Office (tv show) page. Dere33 03:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete. Article fails, utterly, to assert the notability of the subject. Darkspots 03:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete, I'm sure you could have speedied this to be honest. --Canley 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete I tagged it per A7. Isn't it romantic...her little boyfriend probably built a Wiki page for her! :P Missvain 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy deleted by Rama's arrow. -Amarkov blahedits 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thamari.com[edit]

    Thamari.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    nn website Oppeds 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete per A7 "Hello visitors, welcome to thamari.com, site just started we are updating frequently to keep it content full. Please enjoy your stay. Thank You." -- Missvain 04:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy deleted by Rama's arrow. -Amarkov blahedits 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    COKeM International Ltd.[edit]

    COKeM International Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    nn company Oppeds 03:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete per A7 again Missvain 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete a7. NawlinWiki 03:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Michelle Zakarian[edit]

    contested speedy - clearly should be speedy- 2 lines about high school girlfriends SkierRMH 03:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete. Chick Bowen 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nanni[edit]

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

    non-notable, clearly vanity Merosonox 04:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete. I do not see why this should not be speedied as db-bio. ---Charles 04:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedily deleted as a {{db-repost}} of speedily deleted material. (aeropagitica) 05:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seaworthy Dreams[edit]

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

    You'd have to try hard to be less notable than this publication. Recreated after speedy delete. Tubezone 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete bleck, who cares. A7 Missvain 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. I've removed some uncited or unencyclopedic material. Chick Bowen 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Penders[edit]

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

    Notable or not? Was recreated within 1/2 hour of a speedy delete. Tubezone 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete A7 Still no assertion of notability stated. ColourBurst 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Author of the subject of the page Sonic the Hedgehog (comics). And no, that keep is not conditional upon improvement, as decisions should be made on whether or not it can be improved. -Amarkov blahedits 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Make a stub and catagorize it. Sonic the Hedgehog is silly but notable! Missvain 04:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (comics). If all that can be said about him is "well, he worked on the comic book," then he doesn't get an article. --humblefool® 06:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or Redirect Sonic the Hedgehog (comics)SkierRMH 08:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious A7 Amists talk • contribs 10:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Although clearly the current article doesn't do a lot to show notability, he definitely is. The Sonic comic is both long-running and popular, but he's done quite a lot of other work as well, including the Star Trek and ST:TNG comics, and plenty of other work for just about every major publisher including Marvel, DC, Archie, Disney, and Image. He's also a regular speaker at cons and such, including the really big ones like the San Diego Comic Con, the biggest one in the world. Strong keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No references are provided to show he is notable except for work on the comic. So mention him in the article about the comic, or come up with multiple independent sources to cite which discuss him and his work. A Wikipedia article is not a valid source for notability. Edison 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. LexisNexis brings up zero results on this name over the last two years. NewsBank shows exactly one article about Ken Penders: Matthew Smith. Back to the drawing board, The Buffalo News, February 11, 1997. The article is a local puff piece and the author, Matthew Smith, was in high school at the time (according to the article). Newsbank brought up another article in which Mark Lenard says that he worked with Ken Penders. shotwell 00:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and others. ReverendG 05:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep As of now, the article had improved a lot with added information, despite being just a stub. Hope(N Forever) 17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment But where did all that information come from? The official site? The editor's brain? A newspaper article? Where? ColourBurst 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep as per Hope PTIuv777 08:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of video games published by Nintendo[edit]

    List of video games published by Nintendo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This is an unmaintainable list, and an indiscriminate collection of information. Anything it conveys or could ever hope to convey is better handled by Category:Nintendo games and its parents/children, or by the articles themselves (e.g. Animal Forest later being on the GameCube). The page hasn't reached critical mass, but it is absolutely inevitable. GarrettTalk 04:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete already served by a cat. ColourBurst 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. GarrettTalk 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, useless as a list. Let's see how many people claim that categories are never redundant with lists. -Amarkov blahedits 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Converting into a category will lose data, for instance the date the game was released, and for what platform it was released for. The game output of one single company is not untrackable; I'm not convinced this is unmaintainable. There's plenty of manpower on WP that can make timely updates on video games. hateless 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that data's not in the articles themselves, Wikipedia's in worse shape than we thought. Delete. --humblefool® 06:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (I knew someone would make this counter argument.) The difference between this list and having the data in every article is that you dont need to access 200+ articles to get the same kind of information. hateless 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per master and Amar - Missvain 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Inc Ruic 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. First off, this isn't just a combination of List of NES games, etc. These are games actually published by Nintendo themselves, and the list isn't likely to grow threefold overnight as some seem to speculate. Also, I find the argument stating that it's already in categories to be invalid -- a lot of these games simply do not even have their own articles, and the information would not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia if not for this article. --Czj 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a given that redlinks will be lost when this or any other article is removed. This argument could be applied to any article (even one comprised entirely of redlinks) so I don't think it's a valid argument for keeping. GarrettTalk 07:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It discriminates quite nicely. See, if it isn't published by Nintendo, it doesn't go in the list. Everyking 09:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Sorts the games in a different manner than the categories (bu year and by console). Not unmaintainable since there the number of games is reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not unmaintainable, not indiscriminate. Weak Keep per Czj - Amists talk • contribs 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as it's already been said the genre of items that can go in here are quite narrow. Only games that nintendo has actually published can go in here. Given that Nintendo themselves publish (I think) abouit 10-20 games per year at the most it's not likely that this is going to become unusable. Not to mention the games are uite nicely partitioned by year so it is useful for research if needed, or just browsing Nintendo's history BigHairRef | Talk 10:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I hate listcruft and think most lists fall under this category. However, this is not listcruft but is rather an example of an appropriate type of list. Clear and narrow guidelines and a good way of categorizing games. --The Way 11:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong keep The best kind of list has narrow scope, includes information (such as chronology) that can't be conveyed by categories, and can include red links for articles that don't (yet) exist. This is exactly such a list. — brighterorange (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per argument by User:The Way.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep umaintainable? Couldn't we just look up Nintendo's website for new releases? Indiscriminate? How is having an article listing only the games by one particular company indiscriminate? Nominator's assertions about the article are simply wrong. Cynical 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per BigHairRef. TJ Spyke 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep per hateless. --- RockMFR 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really strong keep This is the sort of thing someone might look up. This sort of list is verifiable. This list conveys information not in the category. A blindingly obvious keep. i kan reed 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP this is a HUGE part of gamin history, we cant delete it Chuck61007 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep it's maintainable as it is only one company. Only using categories would get rid of useful and important data such as release dates and platforms. Lists usually suck, but not this one. Voretustalk 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's easily maintainable, and provides more info on one page than a catagory could. Perhaps make tables showing even more detail? Perhaps include Developers? Month of release? Length of Development? Chief Game designers?Help plz 22:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Of interest to any number of individuals. ReverendG 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep • s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • November 19, 2006.
    • Keep and trim down to only most significant titles. Noclip 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply trimming it would remove perfectly valid content. A complete list is just what someone would want on this page. i kan reed 07:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A long list article is not grounds for deletion, nor is this unmaintainable or indiscriminate. Nintendo is a major publisher of video games, even before they had their own consoles, they were making games. We should have articles on most of their video games, so why not this list which organizes how their games were released? This isn't red-headed stepchildren people! FrozenPurpleCube 15:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete already served by a cat. Chopper Dave 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - need is NOT served by the category. Category does not separate titles by year, etc, only by alphabetical order. This list is usefull. Esn 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per The Way. I also suggest strengthening the language in the article as to what is included in its scope, else editors will spend more time than necessary removing games published by other FOR a Nintendo system. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Neither unmaintainable nor indiscrimate, and I'm not sure how this article could reach critical mass. Maxamegalon2000 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is a well-organized list with information that I'm sure a lot of people look up. Having it organized by year is much more convenient than having to use a cat. Bobbyi 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A good list of information, some of which, stated above, can't be found elsewhere on WP. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Same as everyone else who wants to keep.Uturnaroun 20:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 03:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maplestory Quests[edit]

    Maplestory Quests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Delete: Already lives at StrategyWiki (see link at the bottom of the article). This would need a rewrite to be encyclopedic. De-prodded by author. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete provides very little context, wikipedia is not an instruction manual, it sounds like it was copied from and instruction manual and it already exists at strategy wiki. James086 Talk | Contribs 05:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, from a quick glance, it's mostly a direct-copy subset of the StrategyWiki page it links to. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to MapleStory, not important enough for its own article. VegaDark 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment The "What links here" list shows that this can safely be deleted, as it is unlikely anyone is going to go directly to this page, and since nothing links to it, no one will end up here. Leave it empty. i kan reed 23:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted redirect to primarily discourage recreation. IMO it's a better method than salting, becase salted pages can show up via clicking random article. VegaDark 00:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    North Side Kings[edit]

    North Side Kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Non-notable aside from Danzig story..I would usually speedy delete this, but the article is sort of pathetic and funny..fist fighting with Danzig is normal and no longer notable :) Missvain 05:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do not delete, I was very happy to find it here. I think, it does matter for Glenn's career.
    • Delete per nom. Mishatx 05:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete if their only claim to fame is a fist fight back stage on youtube then they can go. James086 Talk | Contribs 05:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Glen Danzig is pushy, big freakin' deal. --Dennisthe2 07:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom... pathetic in a pathetic sort of way. SkierRMH 08:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - tagged for speedy (not by me). MER-C 10:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. MER-C 10:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't delete: Have been usefull for me. An european collectionist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.129.42 (talk • contribs)
    • Delete - Per WP:V (A Youtube video?Yeah, right) and WP:NOT a collection of information that european collectionists find useful. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, absolutely non-notable and unverifiable. --Kinu t/c 03:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete, G4. —Cuiviénen 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve.museum[edit]

    Steve.museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hoax? Apparently has been deleted twice previously. Web site steve.museum does not respond. Lots of ghits for it, though. Tubezone 05:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Its actually been deleted 4 times [12]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Delete per CSD G4 Missvain 05:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This is true, it is the first page I have made so I did not understand the rules and I originally posted a rough draft. What is the reason for deleting it now? --Sils660
    Comment Web site steve.museum does respond, please try again. --Sils660
    The original version would have failed WP:WEB as a non-notable website. WP:NOT a soapbox for advertising. This incarnation is a recreation of deleted material. —Cuiviénen 05:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NoobishForce[edit]

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

    Creator removed prod without comment. Non-notable player-character from the MMORPG Maple Story. Only ghits link to forums and the users own blog, thus impossible to WP:Verify as well. Possible WP:COI Resolute 05:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete by popular demand and author's request. - Yomanganitalk 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alfonso Faustino[edit]

    I created this page after it was submitted by user:Melissakavanaugh on WP:AFC. I'm don't think it should be deleted, but someone was trying to speedy delete it It's speedy deletion is disputed.

    This article is verified by two independent sources. Alfonso Faustino has worked with several major companies and had relationships with the founder of Oracle Corporation. Sbluen 05:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you Steven. I am more than willing to take any advice to edit my work on Alfonso Faustino so that it complies to the Wikipedia guidelines. I interviewed Alfonso in 2004 and have been tracking his work to date. I corroborated my sources and found the information I wrote to be accurate. The reason I felt that Alfonso should be included in Wikipedia is because of his ongoing accomplishments as an actor, his interest in animals, and his use of keeping a positive attitude to get to our dreams -- in my interview with him back in 2004, I found him to be extremely inspirational and having the ability to motivate people to be their best.Melissakavanaugh 06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    *Keep kind of confused on why its here right now. hmm. Missvain 06:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I retract my keep, ha ha.
    It's here because its speedy deletion is disputed. --Sbluen 06:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the reason to reduce confusion. --Sbluen 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your support Steven and Missvain. Take care.Melissakavanaugh 06:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see no independent sources (IMDB doesn't count, they list everyone that's ever set foot on a soundstage, and the Oracle bit is a press release for the project and it's not even about him; it's about Oracle looking good for the investors). Delete as a NN actor trying to hit the big time. --humblefool® 06:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. Industrial-strength vanity. Lots of weasel-worded name-dropping (he worked at Oracle, founded by LARRY ELLISON!, "In time, Alfonso met some of the top names in the film industry..."), but once you strip those out and the gushing prose, there's no there, there.
    • The reason I felt that Alfonso should be included in Wikipedia is because of his ongoing accomplishments as an actor What accomplishments would those be? The IMDB listing shows two films, both shorts -- and he's not even the major part in one of them. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually in my experience in the film industry IMDB is probably the most reputable internet movie database around because no one can be added without having credits to a film or television project -- it's really tough to get credits for a film project, but to those film people, it's really important, and they fight to get credits on the projects that they work on. I read the Oracle source that the user listed, and it states that Alfonso was a major player in the Tanzania Project of which the user wrote about. True he is not a big-named actor, but I like the way the user wrote about things that he's done outside of acting. I found it refreshing to read about touchable real person doing some cool things. If he was a big-named actor, then his accomplishments would be all over the place. I vote to keep him in because the information is truthful and he is a registered actor regardless of his star power.Sara32870Esq 06:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)User's very first edit[reply]

    Your first sentence, being false in practically every way, fails to impress. Start with IMDB being a user-edited/added database, include the business side which accepts fees for enhanced listings and photos, and mention Hollywood's trend for crediting practically everyone below-the-line including the freaking caterers, and your whole assertion falls apart. --Calton | Talk 07:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone for your input. Carlton and Humblefool: If I rewrote my article in a manner that you feel it's not name-dropping or gushing prose, then would you reconsider your "Speedy Delete"?Melissakavanaugh 06:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    With the same information? Since stripping off the vanity and fame-by-association would leave you with an essentially blank article, absolutely not. --Calton | Talk 07:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Humblefool and Carlton: I removed the gushing prose the name dropping...please tell me your thoughts...by the way Carlton, if you go back to IMDB, you will see that Alfonso had the leading man part in A Dress For A Wedding. Thanks again to all who provided input -- I definitely don't want to violate the rules in this community.Melissakavanaugh 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That's probably not enough to make it pass WP:BIO if it doesn't already. --Sbluen 06:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even close. Not even within shouting distance of not even close. Why yes, he's the leading man in a short. Not a major feature film, not a minor feature film, not a direct-to-video feature film, not a TV series, not a TV episode, not even an award-winning short -- JUST A SHORT. This is supposed to impress me?
    That's probably not enough to make it pass WP:BIO if it doesn't already Guy, this thing couldn't pass WP:BIO if you strapped a JATO rocket to it. --Calton | Talk 07:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven, I appreciate the WP:BIO link; I agree with you, so I'm fine with the Speedy Delete. I will select another person to add to this environment. As a budding journalist, I met Alfonso on the set of a movie, and I really enjoyed getting to know him, so I thought it would be a refreshing subject, but my article and subject just doesn't have the punch. ;-) Take care, Steven.Melissakavanaugh 07:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [irrelevent discussion removed] [13]

    Right now, Melissakavanaugh, you can just end this discussion and say "*'''Speedy delete''' as author." and then add {{db-bio}} to the artice if you agree that it should be deleted. --Sbluen 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete; does not meet WP:BIO for acting, in my estimation, and "interest in animals, and his use of keeping a positive attitude to get to our dreams" is, to be frank, not a reason for an encyclopedia article. --MCB 07:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Sounds like a nice guy, "loves animals," "positive attitude," but the well written article does not present in my opinion enough multiple independent sources to demonstrate his notability. A movie and a short movie, and he worked for a big company. Not quite enough. Re-create the article when he has more movie credits or some writeups in mainstream publications. Edison 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of best-selling computer and video games[edit]

    List of best-selling computer and video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Original research. Article does not and can not meet WP:V. Approximately the entire article is unsourced and I believe it would be impossible to find verifiable sources for the majority of the entries. The state of the article is extremely poor despite being over a year old and I don't see how it can greatly improve. Dionyseus 06:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdraw nomination I am content with the current version of the article, with all the unsourced entries removed. Dionyseus 22:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy Keep, close per it being a bad faith nomination. The only time the user ever suggested that the article should be deleted is because a website, VGCharts, had been proven to be a poor source for Wikipedia, and when that happened, the user talked about deleting it if they are removed. And how can you not see how it can be salvaged? Just because a page which is no better than a Geocities page isn't verifiable does not mean that NeoGAF, IGN, GameSpot, et al. are suddenly not verifiable. At no point is it insisted that the article have exact numbers, either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all the only reason I suggested the article be deleted is because most of the entries are unsourced due to the fact that the majority of the entries were sourced by VGCharts which was recently removed by A Link to the Past. Secondly, I was not the only user to suggest the article be deleted, several users have recently stated that they think the article should be deleted due to unverifiability. If you or someone can greatly improve the state of the article, I'd gladly remove the nomination, unfortunately I do not think that is possible. Dionyseus 06:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And you can prove it unverifiable how so? We get NPD, Media Create, Famitsu, etc. information every week (NPD every month). And VGCharts was deleted because no one could prove verifiability and the one supporting it the most more or less gave up. How can you claim unverifiability when we have several multi-million dollar companies who provide sales information for all three major regions? Their existence shows verifiability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the majority of the article could have been sourced by NPD, Media Create, and Famitsu it would have had those sources by now. Dionyseus 06:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean because people were actively searching for replacement links to VGCharts, right? The fact that I have not worked my ass off to get sources for this article does not indicate that they are not anywhere in the universe. NPD numbers are verifiable, and NPD numbers are available. Tah-dah. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's enough NPD data to source the majority of the entries then by all means please do source them, I however believe that such data is not available for the majority of the entries. Dionyseus 06:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And your only evidence is your ability to say "because I said so". How did you come to the idea that the article cannot be sourced? Challenge: Prove it or close AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable data will never be fully available because the NPD Group does not release sales numbers to the public. Only Japanese numbers are made available (and even then usually just top 10 or top 30 per week). Maybe this should be deleted. TJ Spyke 06:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are. Anyone with enough money can subscribe to NPD. Additionally, Famitsu does a top 500 every year. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's say user X becomes a client of NPD, we still would be unable to use his information because it is unverifiable. How can we know whether or not the data user X is presenting actually came from NPD, how can we know that user X has not modified that information? Dionyseus 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Whew. I was really, really tempted to vote speedy keep on this because I am positive this is a bad faith nomination (if you have a lot of time and a strong stomach feel free to see the talk page of this article to see what I mean), but I think that the article as it exists must fail for lack of verifiabilty and therefore is against policy. Now I have no problem with an article about best-selling games, but even after endless rounds of discussion, no one has come up with a good source for most of this material, while all attempts to remove the bad material and leave what is verifiable has failed and led to edit wars. The fact of the matter is that video game sales data is jealously guarded by the NPD, and virtually the only time reliable data comes out is when a company wants to tout its own success (see this article for more background: [14]. At this point, the only solutions I can see are an RfC or deletion with protection against recreation. Maybe not the best solutions, but it is time for this silliness to end. Indrian 06:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't need just one source; Hell, I have a text document of the North American LTDs for many of the best-selling DS games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can't use your data A Link to the Past, it is not verifiable. How do we know who sent you the text document, how do we know you did not modify the text document? It's unverifiable. Dionyseus 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong and Speedy Keep. 1) The whole point of Wikipedia is to improve articles, and this article has plenty of room for improvement. Our goal should be to fix the article. 2) If the article doesn't have sources, find some. If you can't find them, then nominate it for deletion. If no sources can be found by anyone who's read the nomination for deletion, then it should be deleted. However, I can't imagine that this information isn't out there in one form or another from a reliable source. 3) On the talk page, I found this [15] post by Dionyseus, in which he states, "The article looks rather empty and silly right now, perhaps it should be deleted" and "if the state of this article doesn't improve soon I will nominate it for deletion." Although I firmly believe Dionyseus has the best intentions, the reasoning behind this article's deletion is flawed for two reasons: a) It is based on some sort of "invisible timer" by which someone has to improve the article to avoid a deletion nomination and b) An article's "silliness" is cause for deletion, and although I certainly agree its current format is anything but helpful, I would argue that that's more of a cause for Wikification. Thus, I cannot support this nomination in its current state while the article remains salvagable. --Hemlock Martinis 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Where and how are we going to get the sources? As TJ Spyke pointed out, the NPD Group is a private group, they don't release data publically. Unless someone can demonstrate that the majority of entries can be verifiably sourced, then I believe this nomination was warranted. The article is well over a year old and most of the article is unsourced. Dionyseus 07:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice job avoiding the statement that shows that what TJ Spyke says is incorrect. Anyone who subscribes to NPD can get the numbers. I am able to see the NPD top 20 every single month - Hell, a subscriber to NPD has been releasing the top 50 monthly figures for the DS, GBA, GCN, PSP, PS2, and 360. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where can we see that data? It must be verifiable, otherwise it's just original research. Dionyseus 07:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • From whomever posts it on a web site. Anyone who pays NPD money gets the numbers. It's that simple. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Anyone can alter the numbers to their liking and post it on their website. The website must be trustworthy and verifiable, otherwise we can't use it. Dionyseus 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • So when someone was knowingly by you creating their own estimates, it was okay, but now you say that because the numbers may be modified, we must assume that they are? I highly doubt you care about them being as close to the real thing when you were in absolute support mode for VGCharts. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either get a few verified sources or delete as OR. Grutness...wha? 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no way to salvage this article before the AfD ends. It takes work to find sources for hundreds of games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALTTP, it's not just a matter of money, NPD has to agree to provide it to you (the same way that can't just pay $2,000 to Nintendo and expect them to give you a Wii development kit). They have in the past stopped providing data to subscribers they have caught providing the data to the public (like on a messageboard). I like the list, but unless reliable and verifiable sources can be provided then I will have to vote Delete. Make sure to put this on a userpage though first. TJ Spyke 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have seen "NPD" mentioned many times here. Can someone explain what that is? Andrew Levine 08:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A company which exists to analyze 70% of the market, take those sales, and estimate what they think the remaining 30% sold. This system exists for the publishers, so that they can tell how well their games have performed (although anyone with the right amount of money can subscribe). - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would it not be original research? How can we verify that the data user X is providing actually came from NPD, how can we verify that user X has not modified the data? If a verifiable and trustworthy website like IGN or Gamespot were to post NPD data, that data can be used because it is verifiable, but I don't think we can use data that a user has bought. Dionyseus 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To add to the above, this is by far the most reliable source for sales of video games in North America and the primary source used by everyone from the media to the video game companies themselves. Some of this info trickles out at various times in various ways, but as NPD makes its profit by sharing this info with subscribers, they zealously guard their data from public consumption. As a result, getting good sales figures for video games can be extremely difficult, though is certainly not impossible. Indrian 08:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This seems ridiculous. It's a good topic and it should be possible to thoroughly cite it, even if it takes a long time. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Everyking 09:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is over a year old and currently 99% of it is unsourced. No one has yet demonstrated how the article can be properly sourced. Dionyseus 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. GarrettTalk 10:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep' As stated above, this article being a year old is no reason for a deletion. And it can be cited. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one has demonstrated how the article can be sourced. We can't use NPD data bought by a user, we can only use it if it appears in a verifiable website or magazine, and same can be said about Famitsu, etc. Where are we going to find verifiable sources for a thousand games that have been released at various dates from the 80's to the present? Dionyseus 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - All this looks like to me is a complete bad faith nomination. 193.123.254.98 12:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep, per Category:Best sellers. How about Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? It is very simple: remove all unsourced statements. You have only 10 or 20 games left? Much better, people then would be forced to search for a source in order to add games. -- ReyBrujo 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Folks, please don't forget to assume good faith. It's not just a guideline, it's a policy. --Brad Beattie (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Check the history section of the article. While Dionyseus deleted unsourced statements, A Link to the Past added them back. When Dionyseus reached his second revert, to prevent breaking 3RR, he sent the article to deletion. It is obvious A Link to the Past and Dionyseus can't agree, but the article is the damaged one. -- ReyBrujo 13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. This sentence is taken from that very same Assume good faith policy: This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.. I think the evidence does indeed lead me to a bad faith nomination conclusion. It seems petty, spiteful and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (which also has a policy against it.) 193.123.254.98 14:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very Strong Keep This is one article that I have personally found useful on a number of occasions, as I'm sure have others. The "original research" claims are ridiculous: WP:OR prohibits unpublished theories and self-conducted experiments and such. For this to qualify as original research, perhaps the authors have secretly installed hidden cameras in every retail outlet in the world so they know who sold how many of what? Far more likely, these are sourced either from gaming magazines or reports such as NPD group's annual overview of the video game industry. I agree there should be more of a push to determine sources on these, but the article itself must be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually if you bother to take a look at the article you will see that 99% of it is unsourced, this is unacceptable considering the article is more than a year old. Where do you get that they are sourced? Where are the sources? Dionyseus 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the above comments JQF 15:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep the information is obviously verifiable and objective, and the concept of the list is quite encyclopedic. If it needs cleanup and sources, do so. AFD is not cleanup nor is it an avenue for dispute resolution. — brighterorange (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Bad faith nom, continuation of the VGCharts revert wars. --- RockMFR 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I no longer believe VGCharts is useable in this article, and I only supported VGCharts because I believed a source is better than no source, but A Link to the Past has convinced me in the article's talk page that it can't be used because it is not verifiable. Dionyseus 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      From what I understand, the data is verifiable. But the source is not reliable. -- ReyBrujo 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      According to A Link in the Past and several others, VGCharts' data is unverifable because it uses shipped figures rather than sales. [16] [17] [18] Dionyseus 20:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      We do not judge the sources from the source, but the source itself. As an example, suppose blogger ZZZ says "YYY sucks". Now, we would not go to article YYY and add a controversy section stating that "ZZZ thinks YYY sucks" or "YYY sucks" and referencing such blogger, because the blogger is not reliable. However, if IGN or Gamespot have an article that reads "Initial response about YYY is negative, with even some bloggers like ZZZ stating it sucks", we would be add such information to the YYY article. ZZZ, the blogger, is still a unreliable source. However, IGN or Gamespot are considered reliable in terms of video games, and although the fact they quoted ZZZ does not make the blogger more reliable than before, at least we now can quote a reliable site with basically the same information from the blogger. VGCharts hasn't got the reputation from IGN, Gamespot or Gamasutra, thus it is not considered a reliable source and should not be quoted directly. However, if IGN posts VGCharts numbers, we would be able to quote IGN using VGCharts numbers, but not VGCharts directly. -- ReyBrujo 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately I was unable to find any a week ago when you asked us to find a reliable source that has quoted VGCharts, and believe me I tried my darndest. [19] Dionyseus 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      That is why I say it is a matter of notability and reliability instead of verifiability. -- ReyBrujo 21:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I really don't care whether or not it is a reliable source, nor whether the data is correct. I've seen far too many edit wars (and even wheel wars between admins) trying to add/remove sales figures to video game articles. This nomination is quite obviously a part of this ongoing war. --- RockMFR 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words, your vote is not based on any wikipedia policy or any attempt to understand the situation and is just a knee-jerk reaction to an edit war. The only thing sillier than an AfD coming out of a stupid edit war is a vote based on that logic. Indrian 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Andrew and many others. hateless 18:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I doubt anybody voting "keep" understands the issue or read the debate. That, and we're wasting our time with pointless blabber like "bad faith nom". There are no verfiable sources for game sales, as the NPD does not allow its data to be released publicly. It is impossible to actually verify this information. If an article can't meet WP:V, which is stone-set policy, it must be deleted. Interrobamf 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. I've always had a bit of trouble applying WP:V to an AfD debate. There are some for which it's obvious - Bigfoot Exists! would be an example because the very subject of the article is not verifiable. But List of best-selling computer and video games? That seems much less clear - there are obviously such things as computer and video games. They're sold. Some sell better than others. Some sell best...ergo, there are best-selling computer and video games, and it's possible to make a list with the proper information. So it's only a question of what to include, how to cite it, and how to format it. That's the proper dispute, and it's the dispute A Link to the Past and Dionysus were in before this was taken to AfD. (I agree that the AfD was almost certainly done in bad faith. Any AfD that follows three reverts is almost always going to be in bad faith.) There's a good question of how to cite these things - but as the above discussion illustrates, there are ideas. Someone has this data - as discussed above, it exists. The question is how to access the proper data, apply it, cite it, etc. That's not a verifiability dispute; that's a citation dispute.--TheOtherBob 21:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that it is impossible to verify the information. NPD has the data but does not allow its data to be released publically. As Interrobamf says, if the article can't meet WP:V it must be deleted. Dionyseus 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand that to be your position, but I think it misapplies WP:V, as I stated above.--TheOtherBob 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Interrobamf: verifiability is not negotiable and no number of speedy or strong keeps will change that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Because user:A Link to the Past likes to complain about everything and refuse to use the STATISTICALLY CORRECT VGCharts I believe the article should just be deleted. I'm tired of arguing about it. WhiteMinority 01:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the talk page, the consensus was established that VGCharts is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you're tired of arguing about it, I recommend walking away from the article and moving on to other pages. --Hemlock Martinis 01:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that and would also add that the above vote should be discounted as having nothing to do with policy considerations. Note that I voted delete as well so this is not based on disagreement with the vote, but rather on the immaturity of the vote caster. Indrian 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the point of keeping an article with incomplete information. And it just looks ugly. WhiteMinority 03:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not about good looking, but instead, verifiable information. An "incomplete" article is considered a stub, and will be expanded with time. -- ReyBrujo 03:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. First of all, aggregating and ordering material from sources is not Original Research; it's not original research if your sources say "Game X was produced for console Z", "Game X sold W copies", and you order all games for console X by number of copies they sold. Original research implies conclusions and allegations not explained anywhere; it doesn't mean you can't put work in the article and organise it in a manner that makes it more useful for the reader.
      Secondly, this is a classic case of information for which verifiable sources can be found, and anyone who claims otherwise is obviously not thinking big enough. Seriously, now, what would deleting this article really prove? That we're utterly paranoid about everything, and can't even think of the possibility that there might be reliable lists that list this stuff? That we cannot let potentially badly sourced material live in article history? I'm not pointing you to a source for this stuff because I have no idea where to find the source myself, all I have is a gut feeling that someone just might have compiled such list, duh; all I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to delete the article if people haven't bothered to find that source yet. We're making a mockery out of how Wikipedia is supposed to work in a sane world. This nomination proves exactly what's wrong with the current delete-happiness based on "lack of sources". If I were in a worse mood (and in one of these I might), I might make this AfD the poster-boy. Please save your "no sources, ever" allegations to cases that deserve that stuff. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And please save your over-the-top rhetoric for an issue you have some understanding of. Unfortunately sales information is not available in a reliable way for most games. For every game we have concrete sales figures there are many more which we do not. As a result, the list fails to have meaning. What information we have on game sales is better conveyed in individual articles and perhaps an article, as opposed to a list, on video game sales. At present, this list can never hope to serve its purpose of identifying best-selling video games with any regularlity or accuracy, and it therefore fails to be verifiable, which is the big no-no of wikipedia. While some may have dragged original research into this debate, that is not the policy that is actually impacted here. This is not the movie or music industries, where this stuff is reported all the time. This is also not an industry supported by much secondary scholarship, so I doubt anyone has already put together the big list you speak of. Your vote is your vote, and I know I am not going to change it, but I hope I can point out how your little rant casts you in a somewhat poor light (though, to be fair, I have certainly enganged in worse rants from time to time myself ;) Indrian 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your argument fails due to clear points of policy. WP:V: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor" and "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". It is not the responsibility of those voting delete to provide sources. It is the responsibility of those who wish to keep this article, including you. Wikipedia isn't here to accumulate non-sourced information in the hopes that some kind individual will source them. That's a terrible way to go around it. Interrobamf 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Is it just me, or do almost all of the statistics now have sources? 71.252.107.172 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because User:WhiteMinority deleted all unsourced entries. Originally the article was 99% unsourced: [20]. Dionyseus 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Seeing as the article is sourced now, and that the "99% (that was) unsourced" has been removed, your AfD is not needed anymore. And both you and A Link to the Past should take a timeout, there is no need for your obsessive argumentation anymore, you have both proven your points and are basically discussing and arguing over the same thing over and over again. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The user Dionyseus has been arguing that it is unacceptable for the article to be unsourced because it is over a year old, implying that it "should have had a source by now". However, this is twisting the facts. It may have existed for over a year, but it only just became unsourced recently (and ever-so conveniently, Dionyseus has only chosen to blank the page when VGCharts' data was removed). - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Actually the one who's twisting facts is A Link to the Past. VGCharts was used as a source only recently. Take a look at the article back in September of this year when it was also 99% unsourced: [21]. Let's go further back to December of 2005 when it was 99% unsourced: [22]. Dionyseus 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I suppose December 5, 2005 isn't just recently... but I suppose December 10, 2005 is though? And I scoff at your claims that I am twisting anything. There were no VGCharts links in the September version because they had been removed by me! [23] I hope you will stop making false claims. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What exactly are you showing with the December 10 link? As for your October link, the version I linked was about 30 days prior to your version. On September 9 2006 User:WhiteMinority sourced most of the article with VGCharts, which of course now we know it cannot be used. [24] Dionyseus 05:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • One - Check the Everything and Nothing link.
            • Two - And on August 8, 2006, I complained about VGCharts' usage.
            • Three - [25] If VGCharts was only "recently added", with you trying to act as if WhiteMinority just added it, why would it be there before the edit you cite? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • What I meant was that the article wasn't heavily sourced by VGCharts until recently, I consider two months to be recent. Dionyseus 06:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • However, it can be assumed that the unsourced numbers were from EaN, just like the vast majority of the PS2 numbers were from there. The article had been progressively developed with sources and numbers since December 10, 2005. And they were just recently removed. You seem to imply that the article has been unsourced for an entire year. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. From what I can tell, this appears to be a content dispute. As such, it qualifies as a bad-faith nomination, and AfD is NOT for resolving content disputes. --Alan Au 07:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - Not only is nominating an article for AfD for lack of sources after having a content dispute about the sources that were there a bad faith nom, but lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Please keep your arguements on the talk page, and out of AfD. --PresN 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually my reason for nominating this article was for unverifiability, a valid reason to delete the article. However I have withdrawn my nomination because the hundreds of unsourced entries have been removed from the article, only sourced entries remain and I believe that's the way it should be. Dionyseus 22:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --Daniel Olsen 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Philip Parr[edit]

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

    I feel he fails WP:BIO. His claim to notability is co-authoring a textbook series, which doesn't quite seem to hit the mark. (Being a high school teacher almost never does either.) Crystallina 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Sadly, these days the only way a high school teacher passes WP:BIO is by doing something illegal. --Hemlock Martinis 07:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:BIO, nn SkierRMH 08:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all above. James086 Talk | Contribs 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete The textbook might do the trick if it were famous, but it is barely in the top million best sellers on Amazon, and I did not find reviews of the book or articles about the author, unless he is also the Philip Parr who was in charge of an arts festival. Edison 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kara Keough[edit]

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

    Completing old afd nomination by User:Undergroundbob, no vote from me yet. MER-C 10:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep It's a lame article, and I've never heard of the tv show, but the show is notable, even if she might not be, she is ? lol Missvain 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete Autobio of a bit player on a reality show. Fan-1967 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nonnotable actress. Sandstein 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Trivial. I fail to see how she passes WP:BIO. "author of her own wikipedia article" sound like conflict of interest. Placed by her mother in 7 episodes of 'The Real Housewives of Orange County'. IMDB has 5 credits, of which 3 were TV episodes and one very minor role in Outbreak. 'Implicated' is a minor film ranked 82,664 by Amazon. At least Mom was a playboy centerfold. Ohconfucius 05:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep the show is very notable LazyDaisy 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — LazyDaisy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep It is valid to large degree. PTIuv777 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — PTIuv777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 04:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mostafa Tabatabainejad[edit]

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

    Nomination for Delete Transwiki Delete and transwiki to Wikinews as breaking news item with no claim of encyclopedic notability. Newsworthy but not encyclopedically notable individual/incident. Fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a news service or a place for articles about news events without encyclopedic significance. (On the other hand, Wikinews IS the proper place on Wikimedia for broad news event reporting). Plus let me emphasize that news coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability.

    I'm sympathetic to the victim here (plus my best friend is a student at UCLA). There are many incidents of police brutality - unclear what makes this one special enough (plus though its a serious incident, there are many worse cases too) for an encyclopedia article of its own. Potentially there could be sufficient encyclopedic notability from this incident in the future e.g. if this case leads to some major change in Californian law - but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's way too early to tell.

    Finally, let me make a plea on behalf of Wikinews. When news events happen, people always seem to rush off to create well referenced, detailed articles on Wikipedia at the expense of Wikinews (the proper site for wikimedia news service reporting), which ends up being a somewhat neglected backwater - it's a shame that Wikinews suffers from the good faith mis-impression that Wikipedia is a news service.

    I realize the huge disparity between Wikipedia and Wikinews web traffic rankings make Wikipedia a far more attractive platform when someone wants to spread word about a story. But for the good of Wikinews's profile and Wikipedia's identity, I hope that there will be an increasing trend of transwiking articles such as these to Wikinews. So much for that. Bwithh 06:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah well then - whose brilliant idea was that? The system is an ass. I'm changing my nomination to an outright delete. Bwithh 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some explanation of the issue here Bwithh 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Query Does this restriction still apply to material deleted from Wikipedia's public article space? I realize that deleted content still resides on Wikimedia servers and are not actually permanently deleted - however they are removed and inaccessible from the public article space, so is this content still covered by GFDL? Particularly if the intention is to transwiki the content to another wiki owned by Wikimedia? Perhaps I'll write to the Wikimedia attorney about this question Bwithh 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable. Has been reported in major mainstream media. A unique and interesting case in that a six-minute video of the incident exists. Another example of misuse of Tasers, which is a hot topic. One of three similar incidents reported in LA this week, each one with accompanying cellphone footage. Wikipedia isn't paper. Countless similar articles exist already. Exploding Boy 07:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Added: it should also be noted that the UCLA article currently has a sizable section concerning this incident.[reply]
    I stated in the nomination that the incident is newsworthy and emphasized that what I doubt is whether this incident is encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a news service for breaking news and "hot topics". Wikipedia isn't paper but it's also an encyclopedia and news coverage - yes, even in major mainstream media - doesn't automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. I doubt that countless similar articles exist, but that's the usual Pokemon defence anyway. Can you substantively suggest how this day-old incident falls under, as WP:NOT describes valid articles related to news events, "encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance"? Bwithh 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that it will survive for long on the UCLA page either. Unless this incident turns out in the future to be a defining moment in UCLA history (and predicting Rodney King riots or whatever now would be crystal balling), this incident does not belong on the UCLA page. It's a serious incident, but it's not obvious that its anywhere near the league of say, the Kent State shootings or the Jackson State killings in terms of historical/political significance Bwithh 07:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable for not the incident per se, but for the velocity with which it was propagated across the various media. --moof 09:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a site for everything which is a "hot topic". The velocity which this story has spread has not been unusual. Heck, its not even top story in the UCLA's Daily Bruin anymore Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Maybe for now, I dont think this guy deserves his own article but I think since this piece of news can develope in to something intersting we should keep this. 136.159.133.91 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. Well, this is still a current event - so it might have some historical/political/cultural/etc significance. Or it might not. I'd say to maybe let it stay for now. On a personal level, it makes me suddenly feel insecure and a little paranoid about the police force here and their use of power. I think many others feel the same way too. In that regard, I think this is where its point of signifance may particularly grow upon as the situation develops. At the very least though, this event does deserve a menton in the UCLA page under the controversy section... I personally like how is is expanded upon. I don't know if putting it under the student's name is the best way to explain the event in whole however, but there isn't exactly a real given name (that I'm aware of) to the situation either quite yet. -- Shadowolf 10:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; encyclopedias should be conservative in current event coverage, as advised by official Wikipedia current events help page (with support from WP:NOT). Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The information in the article is not speculative of what is going to happen; only facts and opinions offered by news articles are noted and sourced - therefore, this article is technically alright. I feel it would be trying to "be a crystal ball" to delete the article based on speculation of it being non-notable in the future. I feel we should bring up the issue of deletion again when things begin to settle down a little more; we don't know where this issue is going to head quite yet. -- Shadowolf 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The story has gained substantial recognition, especially on the Internet. --Czj 10:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a site for everything which has gained recognition. Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that gained recognition in the media at its time, such as Prussian Blue (duo), the USA for Indonesia incident, and some of those internet memes. -- Shadowolf 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:POKEMON Bwithh 23:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said those articles were more important. You misunderstood my implication. Both the Prussian Blue and USA for Indonesia articles went through this same similar thing at its time of controversy, and many memes go through the same process as they suddenly come out (but may/may not become a cultural artifact later on). People still read and edit them. I'm saying you should consider that the importance of the subject now, does not mean it will not be important, or even at least relevant, later. People still refer to them. That said, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and neither are we. I say we just let it flow normally in its premature stages before determining if we should cut off its head. -- Shadowolf 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak (Temporary?) Keep Normally I wouldn't call for a temporary keep; we're not a crystal ball. However, in this case it will be apparently in within the next 3 or so days if this particular person is going to become notable enough to warrant an article, in fact we should know by the time the AfD is up since that takes up to five days. I think its likely that this is going to turn into a major court case/incident after watching the video related to it myself. Lets watch the news over the next couple of days and then decide. --The Way 11:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the police being caught on video violating civil rights is not particularly unique. There will likely be a lawsuit - how significant that is compared with similar cases would be the question; for instance, if it approaches the political impact of the Rodney King tape, for instance Bwithh 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From the University of Southern California's (LA's other major university) student newspaper editorial on this incident: [26]"Unfortunately, such events are all too common on the streets of L.A.... [this is one of] the several cases of filmed police brutality to strike Los Angeles in recent weeks" Bwithh 13:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Keep or recreate page if this case escalates to a more serious civil rights suit. The cell phone video did appear on Good Morning America so it has not only touched local news.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, as per the above. A sad character in the history of incidents between law enforcement and civilians in Los Angeles. --Bobak 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep AfD is too early. The incident itself is notable, but I would give it a month before deciding whether to merge this content with the UCLA article, or to stick with the status quo, or neither. This incident of police brutality differs from the supposed thousands of related events in that it was captured on amateur video and it is exponentially gaining the attention of more people every minute. As for Wikipedia policies, please consult WP:IAR. I could continue on and write a seventy-page paper on this matter, but I'll leave it at that. --Ted 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing special or groundbreaking about this incident being caught on camera. There's hundreds of such police brutality videos[ to be found on youtube/google video[27][28] etc. which predate this incident. As for WP:IAR, thanks but I'm very aware of that policy which I have long held is deeply flawed and usually misapplied. Its only workable if one emphasizes that WP:IAR is secondary and in service to the primary and overarching goal of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia rather than e.g. a news service or a dining guide or a crystal ball or whatever else. Bwithh 19:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Postpone debate It's too early to tell if this is notable or not, give it a month, and see if he had any lasting notability. Ariel. 20:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As per Teddythetank and Ariel. Merosonox 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Too early for AfD ShinyWatchGuy
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bwithh 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to do it, but delete. He is certainly newsworthy, but not every newsworthy article is encylcopedic. Unless this balloons into a huge, national, police brutality case -- and it might, but until then -- this is an interesting, certainly troubling incident that isn't going to become part of the enduring historical record.
      Changing vote to KEEP, in light of more extended news coverage, including the Iranian government. This now satisfies WP:BIO 1, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." (Vote Recommendation updated 21:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)). Dylan 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Woohoo! Bwithh 22:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, yeah, I think I was your first delete vote... Dylan 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this is not a vote. It is a discussion regarding the proposed deletion of this article. --Strothra 01:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete newsworthy at the moment but not encyclopedic. Create the article in about 6-8 months, if it's still out there then we'll know that it's notable. Keep due to considerable international press coverage, complies with WP:BIO. --Strothra 01:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep.--KrossTalk 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's clearly encyclopediac. Lots of people are aware of the story, and interested in learning more from an encyclopedia article about Tabatabainejad. It's not an either/or choice with respect to wikinews. It can be in both places, with appropriate treatment in each place. To indulge for the moment in imputing motives, I think this is a good example of how people go overboard in trying to make wikipedia seem more important by imposing an inappropriately high standard of notability. Yes, a person who is notable only because he (or his mom, or his friend) write a blog post about him, sure, delete away. Someone like this? Please. Electrons aren't in such short supply that we need to be so zealous in conserving them. If this article had been deleted, it would have been a real inconvenience to me, and probably a fair number of other people, who are interested in what a wikipedia article on Tabatabainejad would contain. -- John Callender 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia Help on Current Events: "Wikipedia is not a news service. That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic.". + Wikipedia is not paper but Official Key Policy No.1 is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia as per WP:POLICY. News items are clearly not automatically encyclopedic. What is the point of having a separate Wikinews project (run by the same foundation as Wikipedia) if everyone prefers to use Wikipedia to archive news report links instead? The way things are going on Wikipedia, I beginning to believe that the project should just stop claiming to be an encyclopedia, as too many people think that that idea is "inappropriate" and that this should be a free-for-all anything-goes POV information dump instead. Bwithh 03:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disputing the point you're making. Wikipedia shouldn't be a respository of news articles; agreed. I just don't think that point supports the deletion of this article. When I went looking for it, I wasn't looking for a news article. I can get any number of those from any number of sources. I tend not to use Wikinews for that, because I think there are things about wiki technology that work really well for an encyclopedia, but don't work particularly well for a news site. But that's a completely separate issue. And if the point about calling for this article's deletion is to somehow help Wikinews get traffic it wouldn't otherwise get, well, I don't think the cost is worth the benefit. -- John Callender 06:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But people are' using Wikipedia as a news site. which makes Wikinews kind of pointless. Bwithh 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is HISTORY, it is an event that describes racial profiling and it is one of the many events that are probably going to occur in the future where acts of violence against Middle-Eastern individuals is on the rise. It is also an historical account in terms of police brutality. I say it should stay on wikipedia under police brutality/racism/racial profiling or one of all of those categories, along with anymore "excessive force" events that occur. Remember, this may be todays news, but it's tomorrows history, and deserves a place here. Haramzadi 06:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is an issue of scale - yes, this is part of "history", but will this incident have substantial historical significance? It's not obvious that it will and suggesting it will is crystalballing. Wikipedia is not a police incident archive or an activist platform. If we were to include every documented incident in even just 20th century history which occured at this level, the category would at least be in the tens of thousands in size Bwithh 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. What would Wikipedia gain by deleting it? It's informative, it has been widely reported and it's of importance in the ongoing debate about electroshock guns, USA police behaviour and so on -debate that is of probable historical importance. --Cyclopia 08:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now anyway, in a couple months it may be more obvious what we should do. It doesn't hurt existing until then. - cohesion 08:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Provides context for a pattern of police brutality in California that appears to have some historical significance. Same motivation as, say, the bios of people involved of Kent State shootings. Stammer 10:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: This is an example of aggressive behavior of police in a scientific area. In many countries police does not have the right to enter universities; Let alone using taser to punish a student who is studying in a library!. Zeelkey 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absurd. Police in every country have the right to enter universities. --Strothra 15:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does that matter in a discussion about deleting the article? » K i G O E | talk 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete-notable and informative,but not fit for an encyclopedia. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's been heavily reported and has become one of the most viewed video's on youtube. It's entering into internet lure and therefor is encyclopedic. Trilemma 17:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not an internet "hot topic" archive Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article is informative. The subject have also been covered extensively in media and there were reactions at the level of governments as well. I suggest to keep the article under a new title like: Powell Library Event or UCLA Library Event or incident. Sina Kardar 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Definitely notable, of an encyclopedic nature. » K i G O E | talk 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Please explain Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: For the very following reasons: 1) Mostafa is an American of Iranian-decent and based on his laywer's claim, he was singled out for ID check. This brings this issue from a police brutality case to a highly political issue of discriminations against Middle Eastern after 911. 2) This is probably the significant event of police brutality on campuses at least since 70's. 3) This is probably the only case of civil disobedience that has reached to this level of coverage in recent years. Definitely is worthy of having its own page. Zharf 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the 1970s???? What about the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in China (led by students and intellectuals), which like actually looked like it might provoke a change in government at one point, and left hundreds or thousands dead. Or how about the Iran student riots, July 1999 which left more than 17 dead. Or the 1980 South Korean Gwangju Massacre against pro-democracy protestors at and around Chonnam National University with a civilian death toll of 200+. Or if you want a developed country, 1986 national student protests against university reform in France which saw police brutality that left one dead[29]. Okay, if you want something closer to home, what about the September 2006 police brutality pepper spraying incident (against a student refusing to show ID to police) at Brown University[30]? . Let's assume that you are thinking of a US-centric Wikipedia and let's deal with points 1 and 3 that you made. Regarding your point 1), I don't know if you've heard but there have certainly been hundreds of publicized discrimination incidents against ethnic Middle Eastern people (or people are supposed to look like them) since 9/11, which have been widely covered. As for point 3), I think those who were involved in the Seattle protests of 1999 and/or the RNC protests of 2004, just for instance, would disagree strongly with you Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - everything has already been said so far. Tājik 20:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep per Zharf and others. Khorshid 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, recentism and utter non-notability. Wikipedia is not a local newspaper. Several light years from being encyclopedic. Hello!!!! Have any of you heard that Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not the local paper's police blotter???? Weregerbil 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Woohoo!! Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Being in the news may indicate significance. Besides, It is not a local issue and there were international reactions: Iran's foreign minister condemed it and the government is going to enter the issue. The event have been covered by numerous news agencies , including BBC and CNN. I don't understand what you mean by "local newspaper". Mitso Bel 21:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even coverage by major international news sources (and ministries of propaganda) does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it encyclopedic? Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep This is definately a moment in history and possibly a breakthrough historically in terms of police policies regarding tasering, racial profiling, the actions of the UCPD, and the situational use or mis-use of tasers/energy weapons. I state my Strong Keep on this article. Haramzadi 23:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, a historical breakthough in your opinion? Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: factually accurate and verifiable. --Oldak Quill 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it encyclopedic? Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Notable subject in the news.--ManiF 01:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it encyclopedic? Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per all of the above. Khoikhoi 01:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: it's been said above. I would also support a rename per suggestions above. Tyro 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep My main concern is that some reliable information on this very important incident be easily "findable" on Wikipedia. This situation is currently of global interest and could be a breakthrough or watershed in terms of Taser misuse finally getting on the "radar screen" of many, especially in the US. Our world is changing rapidly, and Wikipedia is becoming one of the world's reference sources for people trying to keep up with, and make sense of, the changes. A factual, verifiable article on the Tabatabainejad situation is a must. Wikinews is not yet nearly as well known as Wikipedia. I looked here first, and I've been involved in the Wiki community for a while. It honestly didn't occur to me to check Wikinews. The information needs to be where people go to find it, and at the same time some "education" regarding the role of Wikinews should be taking place. - Mark Dixon 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per others Bless sins 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Noteable incident, and like Jake Brahm, just an idiot who thought he can fight the law. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep This one may be a historic event for UCLA and UCPD!!!!
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bwithh 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep This incident is as equally importatnt to American History as the beating of Rodney King. EricJosepi 08:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No evidence that this is as significant as Rodney King case at the moment, especially as this incident occured after a spate of similar incidents. Bwithh 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete Everyone who wants five minutes of fame (or infamy) should not be able to find it on a resource we strive to make as reliable as Wikipedia. Wikinews at best as discussed above. Truce57 08:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Testify!!! Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. I'm not sure what your cheering of each "delete" response is adding to the discussion, other than to reinforce the point that you have a strong emotional investment in the outcome. So: you really, really want the article deleted. We got it. Thanks.--John Callender 18:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now; the story is developing, might become a significant issue. Come back to it in six months/a year and see if he's still worthy of an article. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly - that's why I suggest waiting. We don't know if this incident will become a well-known one, or whether it will be seen as a minor one. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball as matter of policy Bwithh 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia community is also not to be used as a battleground, again WP:NOT as a matter of policy. This is supposed to be an intelligent discussion of the relevant issues, not an argument for your side or mine. It is neither necessary nor helpful to jump on every contribution one disagrees with (it could even cause some to choose not to participate, and then we lose the benefit of their perspective), nor to crow "Testify!" after those one does agree with. - Mark Dixon 16:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We can say at this point that this story has attracted considerable international interest. We can't predict whether it will be maintained, or diminished. "Wikipedia not being a crystal ball" does not mean that we should delete on the assumption that it will diminish. You seem to be saying that we should assume precisely that. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 19:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It could be argued that it's the position Bwitth is advocating that is relying on crystal-ball gazing, to determine, in advance, that the incident is destined to be viewed as insignificant. Yes, there are a lot of other similar incidents that could be covered in Wikipedia in the same fashion. And yes, it may be only an odd side-effect of the posting of the video on YouTube that has led to the degree of notability the incident currently appears to have. Regardless of the reasons for its notability, though, it seems pretty clearly to have achieved it, or at least gives preliminary indications of doing so. Lots of people have contributed to the article, and continue to update it. Maybe those people, and some of the people stating positions on this page about dramatic historical significance, are overstating things, and will tone down their views with the benefit of hindsight. I'd agree that that's probably likely. But it doesn't mean the article fails a notability test. At least as I see it, it's way, way over that bar already. --John Callender 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - This is definitely a keeper. We are probably beginning to see the extension of public journalism where cell phone camera is being used to capture and disseminate news events. This is probably one of the most touching videos I have seen and since it is not being picked up by national media, its wikipedia should keep this.
    As already noted above, there are hundreds of videos like this available on youtube and google which predate this video. Also, Wikipedia is not indymedia/alternative news service Bwithh 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're incorrect that it hasn't been picked up by the national media: LA Times, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, the AP wire, and Iranian and Chinese state newspapers have all reported on it. Dylan 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - although I agree with the person earlier who said that the title should be changed. This is not really an article about Mostafa Tabatabainejad but about the incident.Ms medusa 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It is notable, as long as there is enough room in the wiki servers, we should be inclusive. Of course, since it is a living person bio, we should pay attention. As for the rename (or reorientation) proposal to make this article about that particular incident, I suppose it is ok since I don't think that this person's bio is of the importance in itself, but it is because of the incident that he made the news, so if somebody was willing to change the title, it would be ok. Baristarim 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, change title and focus to the incident itself.. --Masamage 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP - We should definitely keep this up until we at least know what the outcome of the situation is. If those police officers are found to be guilty of violating this man's right or if they are found guilty of police brutality then this incident becomes significant when discussing the subject of police brutality or for that matter police brutality and the LAPD/UCLAPD. So until we learn more about the situation and more importantly the outcome, I think we should have this article on Wikipedia. -DAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.192.61 (talk • contribs)
    • KEEP - With all my respect to the previous comments for deltion of this entry fully understanding the concerns and agreeing that wikipedia is not a new story repository. This is not just about an incident, this is about the person Mostafa Tabatabainejad. Mostafa has become a bit of a hero. A voice of definance and resistance to the erosion of personal freedom. Wikipedia will serve as a fine place to collect information about this very interesting character.
    • Keep - Wikipedia does not, to my knowledge, require a level of popularity before an article is kept. I can find articles on obscure alien races from obscure 1990's video games; I don't think an article on a guy who got famous for being tasered warrents a deletion simply because it's not big enough for an encyclopedia to cover. I would suggest if this entry is deleted, then the entry for Rodney King should also be deleted, for the exact same reasons. Or they should both be kept, because they are, after all, interesting subjects that people might want information on.--TheCynic 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I was in favor of deleting the article beforehand, but the topic has garnered significant attention in national news. Deletion might constitute blatant omission. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I agree with Bwitth that this should go to WikiNews for now because it is so new and prior to this incident Mr. Tabatabainejad was clearly non-notable. When a significant, fully substantiated factual record has developed (either through the administrative review or the lawsuit which Mr. Tabatabainejad is apparently about to file), then we can do an article on him. --Coolcaesar 06:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not encyclopedic. Mike Dillon 08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge with University of California, Los Angeles. --Ixfd64 09:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - He is notable now and will be notable in the future. That we do not know this for a fact should not form an argument for the "Wikipedia Is Not A Crystal Ball" principle justifying its deletion, if it does, then any new article about a newly notable person or event is liable to be deleted for the same reason. Thedangerouskitchen 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This is quite notable. There is significant controversy about the (over)use of tasers, and this case also involves the use of newly-ubiquitous camera phones to film police actions that would otherwise be eyewitness accounts only. We're not going to run out of paper if we keep it. — Omegatron 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Clearly notable. -Lapinmies 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Mostafa Tabatabainejad is the Rosa Parks of this generation. It would be utter madness to delete this article. Xj 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Omegatron. Badagnani 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This is a very notable incident and per statements said above.
    • Keep and change title. historically significant like Shooting of Latasha Harlins, Robert Davis (New Orleans), and many other incidents. doesn't matter what happens in the aftermath. still significant for a student of history and police conduct. Wizmo 07:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I think it's a bit premature to be drawing conclusions about the historical significance before the fullness of time has made it apparent, and to be making comparisons to events whose historical significance are already clear, the subject of this article is significant enough for inclusion on Wikipedia on the basis of the broad-based national news coverage he is receiving right now. As a side note, if the subject of an article is very recent, then perhaps it would be a good idea to give it a week or so before trying to decide whether it is noteworthy enough for inclusion, rather than to immediately start deletion proceedings. I think it's quite clear at this point that this article is going to stay, and a whole lot of unnecessary rhubarb in this discussion could have been avoided if we had just waited a few days. Nohat 08:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep although WP is not a crystal ball and without evidence we have to assume that it is not noteworthy. This should be a wikinews entry first and foremost, but this is the kind of articles we should have links to under police brutality, tasers, etc. That these kinds of things happen are not only news, they are also a fact about how things seem to work in the world (including democracies) - saying they are only news and thus not encyclopedic is saying that they are unique occurences. Its notable because it is so damn important.

    If this is deleted all the same, I suggest we link to a mention somewhere under police brutality (and have a link there to the wikinews article which we certainly should have). Lundse 08:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep This is a noteworthy and probably historic event. Discussion has been heated and there is a need for a neutral collection of the facts. Whatever anybody thinks of tasers, it's doubtful we'll ever hear of one used in a library ever again. Revolute 09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Although we can't be 100 % sure, the amount of coverage and exposure would suggest this incident will be remembered as a noteworthy event for a very long time (although Revolute's suggestion that it will become a historic event is pushing it). To debunk the Crystal Ball/News event argument: often elections (just an example, other kinds of events too) have an WP article dedicated to them, that was started the moment the event was ongoing, and for which deletion was never considered. Several of these elections/events proved to be less noteworthy than this incident. Still, they have some importance, and merit a WP article. On a side note, I would suggest renaming the article to Powell Library Incident. The article is about the incident rather than about the victim; and that's just fine: the incident is far more noteworthy as the person Mostafa Tabatabainejad. — Adhemar 11:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest splitting into two articles, one on the incident and its aftermath, as well as the current one with biographical information on Tabatabainejad. The biographical one will be fairly short for now, but it could be expanded as new information comes to light. And running another call for deletion on the biographical article will give all of us something to do with our time. :-) -- John Callender 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete - Do you really want to start an article for everyone that happens to make it onto someone's cell phone camera? This started as a violation of college policy that was escalated to what amounts to a misdemeanor. The ruckus that took place is no more notable than any other resisting arrest. It's always ugly from the outside. How about the black guy in New Orleans post Katrina that was captured on tape being beaten by NOPD? How about every car chase that makes it onto a news helicopter camera? Just because this is a UTube/blog phenomena doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Geneb1955 11:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course we should not include everything caught on camera, nor should every piece of news have an article. But important court cases, good examples of a phenomenon (such as police brutality) should be included. Not because they are caught on tape or good news, but because they are important culturally, legally or otherwise. If this was just a misdeameanor, a ruckus and someone resisting arrest, then I would agree. But I see it more as an instance of misuse of force, taser used for punishment of a handcuffed subject and police brutality. Lundse 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I have personally heard about it from three separate sources since it occurred, and I believe it is notable enough to deserve an article under the WP:BIO guideline. CoderGnome 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but change name to something like "November 14 2006 UCLA Incident". Nicolas1981 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Article highlights a shocking event that there is interest in, and a need for correct information on. The article also documents the aftermath of the event, which is important to be noted and held on record. The ongoing legal case will also develop with time, and the article should serve to provide users with access to the latest developments and truth about the issue. I would, however, recommend that the article is moved from "Mostafa Tabatabainejad" to "Mostafa Tabatabainejad Tasering Incident" to ensure that the person and the event (which fills the entireity of the article) can be logically seperated. AdamSebWolf 00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete as a hoax. Robdurbar 00:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Craun[edit]

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

    I can find no evidence that this man ever existed, or that anything contained herein is true. Bill Oaf 07:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In short, google yields up a number of results that have no relation to anything written here. There is an obituary for a Robert Craun who died this year, but the birthdate is too late. There is another Robert Craun who died in 1987, with no info. It's quite possible that everything here is true, but the article has been tagged as needing sources for a while and has seen no verification attempts. Bill Oaf 07:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No references, no specific ghits, not even a note as to rank or units served with, authored by a single purpose account. There's been a spate of this kind of thing, see Timothy M. Williams. These kind of fake articles are offensive and should be made into smoking, salted Wikicraters. Tubezone 08:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Should have been speedied to begin with really. MartinDK 08:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speeedy delete could be an attack page. SkierRMH 08:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentHow could it be an attack page?Edison 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as hoax. So tagged. MER-C 10:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If he really lived the career described, he was pretty stealthy: No entry in the Social Security Death Index, no WW2 Draft Registration Card, no WW2 enlistment record. There are census records and death records for men of that name but with the wrong death decades or implausble birth years. It is up to the creator of the article to document the facts, since maybe somehow he slipped between the cracks of record keeping or the original records were lost. Every bio article needs a source. Edison 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Edison. --Charlene 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedied as copyvio. Fang Aili talk 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pakuranga College[edit]

    WP:SCHOOL non notable school, low ghits, no claim to notability SkierRMH 07:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, most of it is probably a copyvio. Deletion must be without prevention of creation according to the standards which apply to most articles on New Zealand secondary schools. See Category:Schools in New Zealand for examples (both good and bad). If someone improves the article significantly during this deletion debate my vote is likely to change.-gadfium 08:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 08:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as copyvio from [31]. So tagged. MER-C 10:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Unfortunately I can't close this as anything other than no consensus as there clearly isn't one, but noting it isn't a very helpful closure. Requests for Comment or some lively debate on the talk page may be a better idea than bringing this back to AfD again. Yomanganitalk 15:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Third holiest site in Islam (expression)[edit]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam (second nomination)
    Third holiest site in Islam (expression) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The first AfD was closed as no consensus. The second AfD, closed as procedural speedy keep was overturned at WP:DRV. This is a procedural relisting and I abstain. Please consider prior discussions above when discussing and closing. ~ trialsanderrors 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Please also skim through previous AFD before using this page. That will help to decide you better. Thank you--- ALM 10:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Article has improved with the removal of "tourist-guide" references and the addition of reliable sources confirming significant disagreement over identity of certain sites. Avi 08:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC) See below[reply]
      • Please stop pushing your POV by deleting references you do not like and creating controversy from a fact recognized by OIC that consists of all the Muslim majority countries. --- ALM 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see here: I removed the POV of "western personalities" (unless you feel that all the Iraqis quoted are also western) and fixed your citation to use wikipedia templates. I have shown in great detail here how you unfortunately only quote partial sources when the whole source would tend to repudiate your point, so I would suggest you re-study WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Thank you. -- Avi 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have still removed the fact that ALL Muslims majority countries are member of OIC (see OIC page). Can you put it back because I want to avoid WP:3RR? I never quoted a source unless I am sure about it. It must be some other person? You read WP:CITE and do not revert the material when it is cited. thanks. --- ALM 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did something even better, I wikilinked OIC to its wikipedia article. This way, there is no need to bog down the opening paragraph with statistics, as everything you want to know about the OIC is one click away. -- Avi 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It does matter a great deal and that is why I am saying it at this AFD page instead of article talk page. When we say two things FACT-1 OIC has all Muslim majorty countries and FACT-2 same OIC recognize Al-Aqsa mosque as third holiest site. Then why this article should remain kept? To annoy all the Muslims or to achieve some other hidden objectives. If you do not want to change it back I will request someone else. I believe there are still neutral persons in wikipedia and someone can do that edit for me. --- ALM 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC
                • Unfortunately in your case, wikipedia is not a vehicle for disseminating the opinions of the OIC. The OIC carries significant weight, which is why it is the only organization mentioned in the lead of the article, but as there are plenty of reliably sourced and verified statements that there are valid alternatives, to delete it because you do not like it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Similarly, adding extra sentences in the lead to (not-so-subtly) try to push one POV over another would also be a violation of NPOV. The OIC is given the weight it deserves by being in the lead. Our job here is not to appease the worlds Jews, Muslims, Christians, or animists; but to create a fair, impartial encyclopedia that bring suitably notable, reliable, and verifiable sources as devoid as possible from the specter of editor bias, and let the reader decide, and not decide for them. Threatening to violate wikipedia policy by using another editor is not an appropriate step in the dispute resolution process. Thank you -- Avi 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have been here since a year and never get banned or even treated like that. But I meet you in last week and you have [threaten me to ban already for nothing and now doing it again. WP:3RR gives me right to ask other editors view about a revert. Which I just have done in above post and I have not post any request in some user talk page. I know WP better than you and you do not have to tell me to read something. I hope your wish to ban me will be soon fulfull so that you could sleep at night. You go and read WP:3RR, WP:NOT, WP:NPA, WP:CITE ... yourself. --- ALM 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Chill out, ALM. You seem not to understand wikipedia as well as you claim. 3RR warnings are given to people to prevent them from violating WP:3RR. You do not have to be a sysop to give the warning, that is what WP:AN3 is for. There was no threat anywhere about banning, unless you have a guitly conscience, perhaps. Also, doing it again here? Can you point it out to me? I merely said that your threatening to violate wiki rules by enlisting the help of others is not a step in the wikipedia dispute resolution process. I fail to see a threat against you. Also, you should read up a bit about the difference between a ban and a block, you are interchanging the two improperly. But, as I mentioned earlier, I am finding it harder and harder to assume good faith based on your proven track record of misquoting cittations, adding POV's, delivering threats, misunderstanding editors, and lack of civil replies to those who would attempt to talk with you reasonably; but I will continue to try. So, I would suggest that 1) you may wish to study up a bit on wiki policies and guidelines more, as I think it is you who may not have a full understanding of the many policies of wikipedia and how they apply and interrelate, and also the definitions of various terms such as ban, block, 3RR, NPOV, RS, CITE, CIVIL, NPA, etc. Secondly, I think you should relax a bit about the block; it's very simple, no sysop should ban anyone unless guidelines and policies were violated, although warnings should be applied for the education of the editor and for tracking for sysop purposes (e.g. new users should not be blocked for WP:3RR without sufficient warning, etc.). Lastly, I think you should once again read about the purpose of wikipedia, and how it is not to push one POV over another, but to provide a fair, impartial encyclopedia that brings suitably notable, reliable, and verifiable sources as free as possible from NPOV. You have much to offer, but please do so in accordance with policy. Thank you. -- Avi 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have learned a thing from you that is to abuse other person but keep using smily. I will adopt it. Hence dear Avi you said that I have track record of misquoting cittations. Please prove of it first? Then I will ask for other serious allegations you have put against me one-by-one. I am very near to report you personal attacks against me which you are launching against me since a while now (see WP:NPA). Dear friend Avi cool down . Either prove each and everything you have said or I see what I can do with your above post. --- ALM 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I don't know who said it, but please stop assuming why i vote as i do, stop puting me in stupid categories like "he is Muslim! HE ISS BNOOB! He is SHi*A1!!! HE HATES JOOOOOS, HE IS THE MASTERMIND OF THE MUSLIM GUILD!!!!". I have had enough of such comments on the latest month! I have no idea what the third holiest site in Islam is or is not, i voted keep since i liked the article, THATS IT! --Striver 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Dear User:Striver It was not me but the creater of this article :(. It was [32], and [33] . --- ALM 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I think i just projected some of my frustration on some users that maybe did not deserve all of it. in that case, sorry. In either way, i am not very interested in finding out who said what, as long as i am kept out of it in the future. Peace, everyone. --Striver 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Outdenting) Misquotes. -- Avi 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That was not me. --- ALM 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely correct, I owe you an apology. -- Avi 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conditional keep, based on cleanup Further research for me has shown that while there exists disagreement over the identity of the site, academic support in English is weak. I've removed most of the "tourist-guide" stuff, but I'd prefer to see the article be culled from more obvious POV mentions and stick with the sites that are actually considered such as Imam ALi and Hala Sultan. At this point, I most probably could live with a redirect to Islamic holy sites with the following two caveats 1) The notable entries here are brought there in their entirety, without hiding or deleting the information, and 2) if more notable information is found, that the article get recreated as a non-POV fork per summary style -- Avi 14:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete The point is not that the article has tourist guide information or not, but the point is that how much is it related to mainstream Islam and would it support that. We don't even have a single WP:RS and WP:V compatible source, that would assert this conclusion. Even the name of the article is a grave violation of WP:NPOV. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this still seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information without any real purpose. That such and such location is mentioned as the third holiest site in Islam can be placed on the location's page itself. BhaiSaab talk 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab talk 08:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If that is a dispute between Shia/Sunni then many Shia should be editing here and voting for keep. Where are they? I found no Shai but only people related to Israel editing there. Obviously, we all Muslim think Jerusalem as our third holiest site and very important for Muslims and it used to be our first Kaba. In the early days of Islam prior to the hijra and until the beginning of the seventh month after hijra Muslims offered salat facing towards Jerusalem. [1] . These people related to Israel want to make it disputed using fake media/travel-websites sources. Those sources are already discussed in above AFD. Do you think the article name is right? Third holiest site in Islam..??? Should we also create articles about First holiest site in Islam, Second holiest site in Islam, Fourth holiest site in Islam, Fifth holiest site in Islam and so on? All Muslims in last AFD have voted to delete the article hence apparently they do not think the information mentioned in this article is right. Which Shia is fighting to keeping this article? However, some people like Avi who had never worked in any Islamic article and active in Jews article become interested in this one? Mostly Jew editors in last AFD voted for Keep. Do not you smell that something here is extremely wrong and they have created this article to deny Jerusalem importance in Muslims eyes? Oh I should be stupid and continue to assuming WP:AGF despite all the things I see open and clear? Please delete this POV conspiracy article and merge any useful material here in Ziyarat article. Please do not create a reason to hate wikipedia with the existence of this conspiracy article. --- ALM 09:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment : Many Muslim Shia users voted keep. For example User:Striver who seems to have many edits which are anti-Israel (although I assume AGF) voted keep. [34] Amoruso 12:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of note: User:Striver has changed his mind and is now calling for deletion of this article (along with the rest of the self-identified Shi'a editors contributing to this discussion). (→Netscott) 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How it becomes M.A.N.Y. Is one is equal to many in your language. I am going to ask User:Striver to vote here again because he has NOT voted in second AFD. You should give at least two people example to prove your MANY point. --- ALM 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm Shi'a. I voted delete. Sa.vakilian is Shi'a. I'm pretty sure he voted delete as well. BhaiSaab talk 19:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you BhaiSaab for your support. These people claim that they are fighting to keep that article for Shias. --- ALM 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry that I don't keep racial profiling tags like you. For me a wikipedia user is a wikipedia user. I happened to notice Striver was Shia and voted keep - he has anti israeli edits and rv's. This makes your claim false. One is enough to show how bad faith and wrong your claim was. You owe a lot of people apologies too. Cheers. Amoruso 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know what I am. Being raised as a shia. Kind of Shia. I don't care. I don't like these words. And yes, I voted for delete because this article violates WP:POINT. Show me another encyclopedia which has such entry. I've explained in more details below. --Aminz 11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep; maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a good article topic to me. The "expression" in the title is weird to me; why not just have the article at "Third holiest site in Islam" (which is a redirect)? Everyking 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - if the article could be improved, it would be by removing some of the content and turning it into more of a list. The list is as objective as it can get. - Richardcavell 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete : POV Pushing, Edit wars, more POV pushing, personal agenda's, conflict of interest, Edit wars, Users acting in bad faith, some people that haven't even read the article or looked at it's history and don't know why it's up for AfD in the first place claiming that it's 'good' and 'interesting' , Self published sources, Undue weight given to content in articles that aren't about the sites themselves. For more information, take a look at the article's talk page. So, violation of WP:POINT, misusing WP:V, WP:NPOV among other things. And if you do find the content interesting, it has already been forked into the respective articles of the proposed site(s).And no, this isn't a mere content dispute.(WP is not a soapbox). thestick 10:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete in favor of redistributing all noteworthy content to individual articles on particular sites. The title change to me does not solve the matter of the "third holiest site" ultimately being a theological designation and not a linguistic or a political one or a matter that can be authoritatively addressed outside of scholastic, peer-reviewed literature on the topic, written by theologians. Keeping all the sites lumped together like this as if the respective assertions from various sources were all of equal value or weight seems to me, on its face, to be a misapplication of the NPOV policy, if a well-intended one by most of the editors who worked on improving this article. I think everyone involved would be better off putting these debates behind us by forking the content and deleting the article. --Amerique dialectics 10:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rename page Third most important site in Islam, (this removes the argument that provides for theological scholarship vis-a-vis naming a site "holiest"). Avi has done a fabulous job improving the article. There has been no pre-zionist invaision scholastic, peer-reviewed literature written by theologians produced stating that Al-Aqsa Mosque is third, so why should it be needed for all the other sites? Chesdovi 11:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are plenty, but you wont find them if you don't want to. thestick 11:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't read Arabic, you find them! Chesdovi 11:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Actually I'm going to have a surf around now and see what I come up with. Chesdovi 11:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's not what I was proposing. In any case, there is no WP policy mandating "pre-Zionist invasion" resources for Islamic theological questions, if good faith is assumed.--Amerique dialectics 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and then redirect to Al-Aqsa mosque. Obviously al-aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam, and there is absolutely no need for separate article. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it isn't obvious if al Aqsa Mosque has a section called "Third holiest site", TewfikTalk 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep per previous discussions. It's getting ridicilous. Please close this nomination. Amoruso 12:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It cannot be speedy close at this time because last AFD decision for doing so was changed. See this WP:DRV. --- ALM 12:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are you referring to ? In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept. This is the same article, you can talk about renaming it in the discussion page but shouldn't list it all the time. Amoruso 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not really a third AFD but previous AFD which was speedy keep after TWO days of discussions is overturned. Why it is difficult to understand even with the URL I mentioned above? I have not renominated it but an admin had renominated it because of a thing called deltion-review. --- ALM 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    if you didn't nominate it what possessed you to falsely claim that it can't be speedily kept ? It should be speedily kept because it was agreed from day one that there's no consensus on the subject and nominating the article for deletion every 2 seconds is very disruptive. Amoruso 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep and protect from deletion. Why have an AfD for this article every week? That's not often enough. Let's have one every day.--Mantanmoreland 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Do you have any comments about the article? thestick 17:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and learn how to settle disputes outside of AfD Frankly this looks like a creative way of edit warring without actually edit warring... A lot of work has apparently gone in to this article and even more on sending it here every week. Protect the article and force the editors to reach a consensus on the talk page before sending it back here again. MartinDK 14:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Stop complaining about another AfD. The last one was overturned at deletion review. -Amarkov blahedits 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Reading through these past AfD's and deletion review makes me think that someone needs to read WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. MartinDK 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've read it. What's your point? I don't even CARE about this topic, I'm just annoyed by people complaining about relisting an overturned AfD. -Amarkov blahedits 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per POV of title. Merge any encyclopedic and well documented info into the city's article. Edison 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment we do not delete articles due to problems with their titles, TewfikTalk 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, needs content editing but nothing fundamentally needing deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a sometimes contentious topic, but NPOV can provide good insights by saying what each of the positions on the issue is and who holds them. It would be less neutral if we simply redirected the term. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if OIC that consist of ALL the Muslim majorty countries say that Al-Aqsa Mosque is Muslims third holiest sites. Even then you need this article. Even in Quran and Hadith there are so many references about Al-Aqsa Mosque but you do not care? No Shia want to keep this article but all Muslims are voting to delete. It is an Islamic POV and Islamic article but you do not care about wikipedia Muslim views? :( :( --- ALM 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OIC is one group, not an official voice for muslims, and even the pope has dissenters. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That means until all the more than 1.3 billion Muslims say something it is not a majority Muslim view. OIC has all the countries president and head of states. Who could be something more offical than that? --- ALM 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Presidents aren't spiritual leaders; they have their own motivations. Even if the UN passes a resolution saying something, that doesn't make it true, it only makes it true that the UN has declared something. The article can say "OIC, an organization composed of such and such, has declared..." instead of saying "whatever OIC says is true" by taking their word as fact. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, --Shamir1 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - unless we're going to have an article listing everybody who has been called the "stupidest person in the world", everywhere that has been called the "most beautiful place in the world", etc. Just because more than one person has strung the same two words together in a sentence doesn't mean we need a Wikipedia article on it. Good grief. BigDT 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete and redirect - as per other users. Editors have obviously scoured the net and found every possible website where unknowns, army officers, tourist guides and secular papers have made a passing reference to some random site as having equal or greater status to Masjid Al-Aqsa in Islam.Wikipidian 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would suggest that if it going to be retained as a redirect, it just be redirected to Islam, rather than to a particular location. Otherwise, this silly argument is just going to continue. BigDT 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm, you do have a sensible point and a good compromise. Though the al-aqsa mosque article already has a section on "third holiest site." Wikipidian 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete147.188.128.117 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anon votes are struck out. Suspect sockpuppet. Amoruso 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a vote and it isn't RFA - anons are permitted to participate, though it would be helpful if he/she would give a reason for deletion, rather than just a statement. BigDT 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with BigDT. Anon IP users are welcome to express their opinion here. Please do not strike out the comments of other users, whether they are IPs or not. The closing admin will judge the merit of the arguments presented based on the application of logic, not the origins of the opinion. Thanks, Gwernol 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete As a phrase, it has been used, but it isn't notable, and has the added problem of being completely unreliable depending on your brand of Islamic paganism, your historical point (at one point, Mohammed had his followers bowing to Jerusalem instead of Mecca for example), and a host of other factors. Not worth having, and if any articles explicitly claim a location to be "the third holiest site in Islam", that is a factual inaccuracy that needs correcting too. RunedChozo 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Seeing the comments above is funny. I particularly love such phrases as pre-zionist invaision, Obviously al-aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam (obviously someone doesn't know his own religion here), Even in Quran and Hadith there are so many references about Al-Aqsa Mosque but you do not care? - Actually, the Koran only refers to "al masjid al-aqsa" (meaning "the farthest sanctuary") once, in relation to a tale of Mohammed traveling to a heavenly sanctuary, Jerusalem is referred to in all its other references as "the nearest", and the Al-Aqsa mosque on the site wasn't built until decades after Mohammed's death, so he couldn't have gone there even if he'd wanted to. But don't let a little thing like historical fact get in the way of your arguments, please. RunedChozo 19:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually a reason to KEEP. You can add this information at the intro of the article. This info exists on the al aqsa mosque article , jerusalem article and others. Amoruso 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If there was a way to quantify holiness then this article would simply redirect to the article about that one site, and if you cannot quantify holiness then this subject is inherently POV. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, since i like the article. Not because i am the overlord of some random Cabal, not since i hate Jooos and not since i am Shi'a. Does it notice that i do not appreciate being attributed with random imaginary motives? Good. --Striver 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note to ALM to drop his crusade after this insightful edit). Amoruso 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, for the last time -- Jews have cabals, Muslims have jihads, Christians have crusades. Keep it straight people! -- Kendrick7talk 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (the previous signed comment should be taken cum grano salis)[reply]
    • Rename to List of major Islamic holy sites. To me, there seems to be two seperate articles here trying to be born. The first article, which probably doesn't deserve to exist, is about the expression 'third holiest site' and its use and abuse, a bit like the expression 8th wonder of the world, which does not seem to have a page. The second article is the list of sites, with just one line of information about each site, and maybe a picture for some of the most important sites. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not to merge in Ziyarat an already exiting article. --- ALM 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, good idea. Will continue on talk page. Ben Aveling 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep since this is neutral and encyclopaedic. The argument that it should be deleted because the al Aqsa Mosque is obviously the third holiest site is one that totally ignores the idea of Wikipedia having a neutral point of view. The idea that this will be brought to AfD instead of working out issues on Talk strikes me as absurd and disruptive of process (per MartinDK). TewfikTalk 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Why not? No policy violations are apparent, and the my-mosque-is-holier-than-thine content arguments strike me as slightly silly. Needs a better title, though, or maybe a merge to another article on Islamic holy sites. Sandstein 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your arguments are right. I also want to merge it to Ziyarat article. But saying Keep you help them to keep "My mosque is holier than yours" POV. Please reconsider your Keep as it will not give results mentioned in your above post. --- ALM 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Boy (sigh). Amoruso 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merging to Ziyarat looks good. But merging and POV removal are content issues and do not require deletion. They can be discussed later on the article talk page. There's no reason to reconsider my advice to keep this article. Sandstein 21:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. I guess the idea here is to keep nominating this article for deletion until it finally gets deleted without engaging in dialog or compromising with people who hold different views. I can't go along with that. Sorry. Elizmr 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No body renominated it. It is a continuation of 2nd AFD which was stopped after two days. It is relisted by a neutral admin and not be me or someother Muslim. --- ALM 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It is a neutral and informative article. Isarig 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Amerique and thestick. ITAQALLAH 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Rightly or wrongly, controversial or not, the term is often used in the American media to describe the Al-Aqsa Mosque. If this assignation is not controversial, the phrase should a redirect to that Mosque -- it seems to be controversial, though, and thus the a full article is warranted. The reason that "first holiest" and "second holiest" do not merit full article is that those phrases are not commonplace in the media (at least AFAIK, if they are elsewhere, then we should have articles for them.) Mecca and Medina are the subject of less Western media coverage than Jerusalem, given the media's obsession with conflict. Xoloz 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep.Opiner 06:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, there is no question that anyone who is expert on Islamic subjects will find this article confusing. For every article, there should be some information that is conceived and passed. Based on my experience working on this article, and based on other comments made by other editors, I can give the following comments:
    1- Some editors think that the message from this article, and they edit with this assumption in mind, that Mecca and Medina are not disputed, and that their place in Islam is not disputed. Well, I would like to see from them a proof that Mecca and Medina are not disputed particularly given that several of the citations included in this article here mentions Jerusalem as the second holiest for example. These editors who believe in this message are hunting for any mere mention of the word Third in Islam just to include it in this list of sites shown in this article. If the article is written to de-rank Jerusalem from its status in the religion of Islam like here, [35] and here [36] and this [37] then this is called bad faith editing if indeed this is what is intended by these users. Certainly, If one is to exclude the scripture, Quran and Hadith, which is the reason this site is third Holiest for Muslims, then one may argue not only the status in Jerusalem, but also whether Mecca is the first holiest or whether Medina is the second holiest, and so forth. I believe that these issues should not be exposed to erroneous materials found on the web or misinterpreted by some writers. Instead people look for an Enclopedia to tell them the truth about something and not confuse them more. This is a topic that should be treated with more respect. Having what qualifies for WikiPedia as resources on the internet here and there is not enough for this Article to claim precedence on this issue. Finally, some one added that a city in Tunis was the third holiest sometime in the past [38]. Well, let me tell you that this is wrong again, and that the two references brought here are copy paste of each other, therefore passing the same mistake. To correct you, Kairouan was a notable Islamic city at the time with one of the oldest universities built in the Islamic history. The same can be said in regard to al-Azhar in Egypt. These mosques were the main destination of scholars for them being centers of science and knowledge at the time. Actually al-Azhar continues to be so even today. However, saying that they are the third holiest is again a mistake which only shows the confusion by some who are not familiar with Islam or with its correct terminologies.
    2- Another message that might be conveyed through this article is whether the term Third Holiest is political or religious. This is of course a point raised by anti-Islamic editors like Daniel Pipes and Joseph Farah. Those editors, not only question the Holiness of this site to Muslims, they also question whether if this site was at all the one intended to be in the Quran. They also questioned whether there is anything holy for Muslims in Jerusalem. And finally, they questioned whether ‘Palestinians” ever existed at all. Some say what about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem. See this [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15066] and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28222] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15029]. See these for denial pipes [39]. Well, of course these editors never discuss if the Holy of Holies term used by Jews to refer to the same site is also political or religious, particularly that the oldest continuously existing Jewish community of Palestine refer to a place in Nablus as the Temple that is the one meant to be in the Bible and Torah [40]. I do not see a discussion on whether the Holy of Holies is a political or religious one. I do not see an article therefore written to discuss the Disputes regarding the Holy of Holies. Also, I do not see any written articles to discuss First Holiest and Second Holiest in Islam.
    I think that the second point or the second message is a valid one, and may easily go to the Aqsa mosque article. Of course, this should be done by deleting all the other sites mentioned in that section because most of them are based on erroneous reporting or wrongly perceived reporting.
    Finally, it is wrong to conclude based on the material in this article that since the Ummayid Mosque is the third holiest by Syrians and since the Eyup Mosque is third holiest that this is the case for Sunnis given that Turkey and Syria are mostly so. The same can be said regarding the other sites attributed mainly to the Shiites. I see that this article is basically surviving by a material that at best can be described as erroneous and inaccurate reporting by some Journalists or visitors. This NOISE is only amplified by this WikiPedia article, and it is basically adding more confusion.
    Finally a remark by many Iranian newspapers confirming the confirmed: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]
    I appologise of course if some of these links included hateful language and were offending. The point here is that the official stand in Iran is that Jerusalem is the third Holiest.
    • All of these site can be discounted as they are all politically motivated, none are talking about the subject of Jerusalem itself. Chesdovi 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that most citations in the article are messed up and contradict each other which proves they are mostly erroneous reproting by non experts on the issue.
    Oh by the way, the sites of the Mosque of Mecca and the one in Jerusalem were chosen and used so before birth of the prophet Muhammad. This is clear from [Quran 22:26]||}} and from Sahih Muslim, 4:1056. I am saying this because I noticed those not familiar with the Islam do not understand this fundamental issue. It is only the Mosque in Medina which was estaablished by the Prophet Muhammad out of these three sites. This is really a reason why such things like Holiness are not going to be sufficiently addressed with out referencing Muslim authorities or scholars on the issue.
    • This article isn't about the third holiest site according to Muslim autorities and scholars, but on what other people beleive to be the holiest? Chesdovi 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Almaqdisi talk to me 05:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect to Al-Aqsa. There is no such entry in other scientific encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Islam, etc etc. We are giving undue weight to the question of "What is the third holiest shrine?". One can ask why such question is so important? Why other answers are important? Aminz 11:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is obviously a controversial topic, but its very controversial character is of cultural and historical significance. I hope the article will be kept and spawn an instructive edit war, fought on the basis of appropriately sourced information and scholarly arguments. I also hope to see soon on Wikipedia articles on other controversial topics such as Moses the Egyptian (see e.g. Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism by Jan Assmann) Stammer 11:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete the point is not just that the article is controversial but that fact that it pushes a clear POV that attempts to devalue the position of Al-Quds-Jerusalem in Islam. This issue of Third Holist Site had reached a consensus amongst the vast majority of Muslims a long time ago. I think the article dose nothing to further wikipedia’s NPOV policy and clearly misuses WP:V. –Palestine48 10:29, 18 November 2006
    • Expand into Holy sites of Islam. Alternatively keep. Plain deleting seems out of place. The expression is very correct in my understanding (and Islam is by definition not "Pagan", as someone posted over there, but a Judaism-derived religion like Christianity, I protest as Pagan myself) but the entry seems to have little merit by itself. It does not seem an ecyclopedic entry and its content should be in other articles (but I think the same of all those articles about videogames' or TV series' characters, you know). I think that Muslims' opinions should be considered primarily (as long as they are consistent) when making the decision, as other people may have some vested interest in negating the Muslim holiness of Jerusalem, which is beyond doubt. --Sugaar 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Ziyarat may serve for merge but list of holy cities is too generalistic. If merged to Ziyarat Holy sites of Islam should redirect there. But, in my heathen opinion, I think that Ziyarat refers to a group of Islamic holy sites associated with Mohammed, being surely others, specially in Shia context. Keeping and reverting move to Third holiest site of Islam is a serious possibility too. In any case, the article is good and should not be deleted. --Sugaar 06:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: As per my comments on the last two AfD attempts. 10% of Islam is not an insignificant group of people, let's not discount their views. This is important encyclopædic information that needs to be kept. By the way, we really should change the name of the article back to Third holiest site in Islam as everything that it has been changed to smacks of POV. Valley2city 02:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : Shia Muslims views aren't being discounted, firstly All Shia's don't believe the same and, check out the other comments if you're interested. thestick 03:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all of the Shia wikipedian are saying to delete the article (see comments above). However, if you cannot see this then ... --- ALM 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Merge into List of holy cities#Islam and delete. (And we DO delete articles because the titles are WP:NPOV, if the GFDL would require the name be kept in any history.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - if we're going to delete this, then what do you say about articles such as Greatest chess player of all time? - Richardcavell 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment- The chess books might discuss this(even probably in detail) but other scientific encyclopedias don't have an article on the third shrine. At least I haven't seen. --Aminz 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment, I would say that such a comparison is a false analogy. Chess players' abilities are indeed quantifiable (ie: how many games won, how many errors made, etc., etc.) however how does one quantify "holiness"? (→Netscott) 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Scott, in that case, are you willing to remove the "holiness" quantifier from all Mosques, shrines, Temple mounts, Western Walls, Churches, Cathedrals, Sepulchers, etc. in wikipedia? Granted that is reductio ad absurdum, and I'll agree that holiness may not be quantifiable in terms of photons or grams, but I think that there does exist a hierarchy in all religions, and there is a significant debate about what comes after Mecca and Medina in Islam. -- Avi 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Avi, please show me an article of a debate. That's what I am looking for. If an academic has published something about such a *debate*, then I'll take back my argument. I feel it is we who are making it a debate. --Aminz 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sayed Mohammad Mahdi Al-Husseini Almodarresi has unequivocably called the Imam Ali shrine the third holiest site in Islam. I believe he is considered a respected academic among Shia Muslims. -- Avi 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see any "debate" there... Based upon what you are talking about Avraham we can conclude that this article is nothing more than original research in that the article itself is framing a debate. Now you and I both know that is totally against Wikipedia's policies. I'd be curious to see if you in fact could produce a preferrably scholarly theologian link or links that specifically expound upon the idea that this is some sort of a "debate" about the "third holiest". (→Netscott) 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Avi, I mainly meant western academic sources :) But I had a look at the link. It is not a *debate*: one that in which one scholar argues that for this and this reason X is the third holiest shrine and the other one contends... To shias, in practice the third holiest shrine is indeed Karbala; if you ask a shia where do you want to go: aqsa or karbala, I won't be surprised if he says karbala. But to be honest with you, I don't understand what is going on here. Honestly I don't understand why it matters to know which shrine is the third one. I have done some research on Islam and this question was by no means something important to be answered in academic papers. I feel there is something more to this and that academics are not concerned with that something. This is to the best of my knowledge, tomorrow it may turn out to be such a hot dispute... but then I'll ask what is it supposed to mean that "the third holiest shrine is X or Y". --Aminz 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This started in the Al Aqsa Mosque - Ithink someone wrote a section in response to claims made there that AL Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest and he said that this view is not universal - it was them moved to a differnet article after claims this was undue weight on the al aqsa mosque article - so I don't see what the problem. If it's not for shia like you say it might not be and then Jerusalem too isn't 3rd holiest like claimed on other articles but it's rather KARBALA, then you can see why it's interesting to know and write about. Cheers. Amoruso 03:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it is true *in practice*, by which I mean the attention Shia have. I have no idea what it is in theory. It might be the case, I dunno. Again, it is not an important question. Like which shirt do I like the third? It doesn't matter really. --Aminz 04:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter really what the effects are of cryptonite I presume but it has articles. Again, if this didn't come up in reference to Al Aqsa - if it's simply not true - then it wouldn't come up... we can delete all references to third holy site/city in wikipedia and then censor this infomarion but as it is the articles are misleading. Amoruso 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Arthur. The whole creation of this article reminds me of something equally problematic. ;-) Khoikhoi 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This article cannot be maintained in a NPOV state. The reason for that is the fact that the article was created to settle scores in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact that you could in principle have a bona fide article on this subject doesn't mean that we should keep this article. Similarly, if Neo-Nazis were to create an article about genocides with the intent of diminishing the Jewish Holocaust, you would have little chance that the usual wiki procedures would be effective in producing a NPOV article on that subject.Count Iblis 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, but that indicates an inadequacy of the Wikipedia model that should be addressed (or at least acknowledged) rather than waved away. An article about the Canaanite Genocide would certainly be endlessly controversial. That would not make its subject matter historically or culturally irrelevant. Stammer 06:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Comment' There is certainly a need for new wiki policies to deal with this. But until such policies are developed, we should use the existing wiki procedures to improve articles and delete those articles that wikipedia cannot handle. We can handle genuine POV disputes that are about the content of the article itself. That is no reason to delete an article. What we cannot deal with are are articles that are created as "weapons" to fight a conflict. The edit wars that you then see are not driven by a genuine difference of opinion on the subject matter itself and therefore cannot be resolved (at least not before the underlying conflict is resolved, in this case the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).
    Should we tolerate articles on wikipedia that are in a permanent "State of War"? My opinion is that we should not tolerate such articles, because they damage the reputation of wikipedia. We shpould, of course, give the article the benefit of the doubt when we first suspect this problem. But after a while we should say: Enough is Enough.Count Iblis 14:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Reply "Should we tolerate articles on wikipedia that are in a permanent state of war?" As I already argued, yes. There are actually many articles in Wikipedia which are heavily controversial. Some of them are IMO excellent (not this one, but that's just my POV). Controversy, even radical controversy, is an essential component of scholarship. Moreover, you may have noticed that, beside trading accusations and not-so-veiled insults, some of the participants to this debate are stating their methodological assumptions, raising issues and discussing the validity and admissibility of the sources presented. In other words, they are talking across the fence. That's a good thing, at least far better than other types of confrontation around Aelia Capitolina. Stammer 11:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I have changed my mind to delete, after having actually read the article. The article gives an undue weight to random non-scholarly things. It would be comparable to having Bush is a fuckup (expresion). You will find some sources for it, and maybe even some semi-important person, but as a whole, you wont find real high level scholars maintain such a view/expresion. For example, it uses one unsourced/unrated hadith from a non-Muslim scholar and some random quote from some guy in television and some random websites, and then proclaims proudly that "With an estimated 130 to 200 million followers worldwide, this accounts for approximately 15% of all Muslims.[15] It is estimated that only Mecca and Medina receive more Muslim pilgrims.. Im sorry, but at the very best, this is missleading, my father who is well read confirmed to me that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third post holy site among Shi'as, and i go by that over some random guy, random website and random scholar any day. Maybe if the article would be renamed to Ignorant claims about the third holiest site in Islam i would vote keep, but than we would have a notability issue. So, delete the article. If it gets delete, i truly feel sorry for the well intended guy who spent so many hours creating it, may it can be userfied? --Striver 13:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very good comments! I hope closing admin will read them. Thank you. -- ALM 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very good comments? Hmmm… “you wont find real high level scholars maintain such a view/expression” and he goes on to say his father “confirmed to me that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third most holy site” … so the expression is used! His father may not be a high level scholar but it’s good enough for him! This is not about high level scholars, but about what the world at large refers to as Islam third holiest site. Maybe your father disagrees, obviously a good enough reason for you delete the page. I’m just sorry that the only other expression you could come up with contains foul language. You state “undue weight to random non-scholarly things.” Well wikipedia provides for such pages, as it was considered Undue weight on the Al Aqsa Mosque page where this info was originally posted and was therefore moved in accordance with W:NPOV where pages can be made to express minority held views. Chesdovi 14:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Minority views can be expressed in separate articles, but Wikipedia must still present them in an NPOV fashion, point out that these views are not the majority view. --BostonMA talk 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • "so the expression is used", yes, just as most holiest site in Islam (expression) and second most holiest site in Islam (expression). Why don't we have article on them? "This is not about high level scholars, but about what the world at large refers to as Islam third holiest site.", ok then name it to Misconceptions regarding the third holiest site in Islam and i will vote Keep, just as we have Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS. "I’m just sorry that the only other expression you could come up with contains foul language." most secure place in the world (expresion) [58], were is that article? "where pages can be made to express minority held views". That is the best argument so far. However, i have not been convinced that a notable minority view holds such a belief. As i have explained, you can take any expression and Google information regarding such a thing "Best president"? "best car"? The key is scholarly, you find a prominent scholar, knowing that he is talking about, that X is the third most sacred, and not the consensus one, then you have notability. Random non-notables and semi-notables talking over their head does not mean anything - im sorry. --Striver 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please explain to me on what basis your father believes it’s the third holiest. Is it based on that random verse in the Koran or other random Hadiths? Wikipedia is not only for including the majority held view but also other views. There is no compelling reason to subdue the contents of this article. Where do you think journalists and news websites get their information from? Maybe the attacks they report on are also unreliable? They usually glean information from the area of the attack interviewing the “natives” who will provide them with the details for their report, and if they say the site is third holiest, why should you dispute their beliefs? People have a right to know that the third holiest site in Islam is contested. With 1.6 billon Muslims, I’m sure there must be some dissention in this regard. Chesdovi 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • He holds the view, referring to consensus. He is not aware of any controversy related to the term "3rd most sacred", he views that there is a consensus on this issue. "Maybe the attacks they report on are also unreliable?" Yes, even they are humans. And even humans are humans, maybe they interviewed some ignorant kid, or maybe his translator screwed up and was talking out of his hat? Maybe they want to boost the coolness of their tourist resort? Who cares, none of them were scholars, we are not talking about news and eyewitness credibility, rather on the "sacredness" of something according to Islam. You think you will be born with that knowledge, or empirically observe the "sacredness" with your own eyes in all three sites and conclude that "Oh yes yes, i now see clearly that X is most sacred"? This is a scholarly issue, not a "i'll ask some eyewitness about it" issue. With 1.6 billon Muslims, you will find enough ignorants to make any non-scholarly view as "relevant", you will even find ignorant Muslims that say they are not sure about the existence of God. Are we going to create Muslim who do not belive in God? --Striver 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So every self-identified Shi'a (or Shi'a related) editor in this discussion is now calling for the deletion of this article? The reasoning that Shi'a supposedly held another view about what site was the "third holiest" as justification to not delete this article appears to be getting weaker and weaker. (→Netscott) 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is the typical method. You put aside the disputes amongst yourselves in order to unite against the common issue of Jerusalem and Israel. It is playing out here just like an instruction booklet. It is a well known fact that Shia veneration for sites in Iraq surpasses that of Al Aqsa and no huddling together for deletion of this page, which seems to be seen by all Muslim users here as anti-Islamic issue, will change that fact. Chesdovi 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, this is about the jews, i love to ruin it for the jews. C'mon, stop that, i did not mention the Arab-Israel conflict when i consulted my father on the issue, and neither did he mention it when he answered. He stated that Muslim prayed at that direction in the begging, and then somethings about Karbalam but nothing about Israel, and certainly nothing about Jewish people or religion. And just for the record, i have a knowledgable Jewish friend who believes in Judaism, and we get along just fine, even though we stand on different sides in the Arab-Israel conflict. In fact, we enrich each others POV. --Striver 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I find it heart-warming that this article has managed to get Sunni and Shia to find common ground at last, maybe this will be the beginning of the end of the daily tit-for-tat killings in Iraq. Well done ALM. Chesdovi 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Chesdovi, you comment is out of line and underlyingly provocative, even if you use this heart-warming words. Please keep focused on the matter at hand. Cheers! Aboosh 16:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Im glad you are glad, but i do not view it as "heart-warming that this article has managed to get Sunni and Shia", since i see no unity issue here, just a voting on the notability of an article. I go with the truth, not wiht Shi'a Islam or Sunni Islam or anything. Admitedly, Shi'a Islam does seem the nearest to the truth at the moment, but... what am i rabbling about? --Striver 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Dear Chesdovi my friend. This is extremely negative way of thinking. Please change it as it will not benefit anyone including yourself. If I feel something is right then I will fight for it. Even if I have to oppose all Muslim wikipedian and have take side of Jews. But you are not right, here my friend. You are assuming bad faith on group of users. Please do not do that. pleaaase... --- ALM 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong keep: (1) I do not think there is any dispute that there are verifiable and reliable sources establishing that various sites are considered the "third holiest" in Islam; (2) the fact that many editors believe that those sources are wrong is not a ground for deletion. Similarly, even if some of the sources are bad, that is not a grounds for deletion - it's a ground for clean-up. In this case, the article is much much improved from its state during the original AFD -- leave it in place and let the Wikipedia process continue to improve it. TheronJ 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DELETE: Actually TheronJ, via the WP:V, the burden of proof to the verifiability and the legitimacy of the sources falls on those who want to keep them in the article, not those who want to remove them. And by your note, there are MANY editors who dispute these sources. The policy that WP editors normally follow, is move all disputable arguments to the discussion page, find a neutral point before moving them to the main article. This has been repeatedly broken in the editing of this article. Some editors even put very blunt Edit summaries’ stating their intent, especially in reverts done between Wikipidian on one side and Avraham and Chesdovi on the other. The following shows one of these edits [59]. This article should be deleted, and the suggestion to merge the agreed-upon sources with the Ziyarat article is very plausable and do hope that the admin consider it heavily. Aboosh 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete or Rename to Third Holiest Site in Islam Controvery and Rewrite. This article has gone through several transformations.

    • In it's original form, the subject of the article was the third holiest site in Islam. With that as the subject, it should be clear that the consensus of Islamic scholars would determine which site qualified. Giving significant weight to views which are not accepted by Islamic scholars would be giving undue weight and a violation of NPOV.
    • The article has been significantly revamped to remove some of the most dubious sources, such as travel sites. In its current form, the article is a POV Fork ostensensibly about an expression. However, the article does not clearly explain the notability of that expression. Instead, it pretends to present, in a pretended neutral fashion, some collection of statements about on an expression, without giving a clear explanation of why the expression is Notable. Without such a clear exposition of the Notability of the phrase, the article qualifies for deletion as failing to properly assert notability. Also without a clear explanation that there exists an overwhelming consensus amongst Muslims regarding the third holiest site in Islam, and a clear explanation that the main proponents of the theory that the third holiest site in Islam is not in Jerusalem, then the article would not be an encyclopedic article about a controversy, but would be re-enacting that controversy in the guise of reporting objective facts. --BostonMA talk 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability problem could be remedied. The phrase is in fact notable, because it is central to a controversy. The article could clearly explain the notability of the phrase, if the subject were about the controversy, rather than a pretense at an objective inquiry into which is the third most holy site in Islam. However, to cover the controversy in an encyclopedic fashion, the article would need to identify who are the main protagonists in the controversy. On one side of the controversy is the overwhelming consensus of Islamic scholars. On the other side is predominantly non-Muslims. The editors who have demonstrated Ownership of this article have yet to allow such an encyclopedic treatement of this controversy. In its current incarnation, delete as non-notable. --BostonMA talk 14:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Third Holiest Site in Islam Controvery"? What controversy? I see no controversy, is there a "Most secure car" controversy just because many people use the expresion on different cars? Or even better, do we have a Second largest planet controversy? No? Really no? Is it Titania? Or is it Sii? Maybe its Germarc? Sure, most people say saturn, but are we going to delete that article when it gets created? isn't that to suppress a minority view and censor a controversy? --Striver 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe we neeed most free country in the world controversy, is it USA? Or maybe Cuba? Hey, its maybe Canada? Hey, maybe its Netherlands, France, Canada, Japan, Germany? Man, this is a really big controversy, dont you think? --Striver 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The controversy is this. Joseph Farah wrote an article Myths of the Middle East, appearing in the WorldNetDaily on 11 October 2000, which claimed that Jerusalem is not the third most holy site in Islam, because, according to him:
            "What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15066]
          • I don't think there is any significant controversy amongst Muslims regarding the third holiest site in Islam. However, there are non-Muslims who claim that the third holiest site in Islam is not in Jerusalem. I think it is appropriate to report on that fact. However, I think it is inappropriate to conceal the fact that it is non-Muslims who are primarily, and quite vocally, putting forward this claim. It is inappropriate to mix in a lot of non-notable opinions to conceal the fact that there is virtual consensus amongst Muslims regarding the third holiest site. It is inappropriate to conceal the historic record of this consensus. I hope this helps to explain my position. By the way, I am also for delete. --BostonMA talk 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It seems from the above discussion and previous discussions that while Al-Aqsa is most commonly cited as the third holiest there are enough varying claims such that there is no undue weight issue with discussing them as long as the article makes clear that to the majority of Muslims, Al-Aqsa is considered to have that position. As observed by Theron above, at this point in the discussions there is no dispute that there are verifiable and reliable sources that list locations other than Al-Aqsa and assertions that those are wrong are not relevant. Furthermore, as observed by others above the difficulty to make an NPOV stable article is not a reason for deletion - this applies to all Wikipedia topics that are controversial. The argument that other encyclopedia's don't have articles on the topics at hand also is not an argument for deletion- Wikipedia has and should have many more topics than a paper encyclopedia. I'm also troubled by the religious and ethnic tensions that this discussion has brought up. It is illogical to think that somehow whether Al-Aqsa is the third or the fourth or the oth or the [i]th most holy location changes anything in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in so far as no one would seriously argue against the statement that Al-Aqsa is one of the holiest locations in Islam. We should be able to make an NPOV article on this topic. This article needs careful discussion by a variety of other editors in a calm fashion without attempts to POV push, not deletion. JoshuaZ 15:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep and take appropriate action against those who nominate the same article for deletion for the third time in less than a month. Beit Or 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) abuse the AfD process by using it as a means of resolving content disputes. Beit Or 20:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was not renominated a third time, this is the second AfD being relisted as determined at the DRV, after consensus found the speedy closure to be incorrect. This AfD is not out of order. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've changed my comment. Beit Or 20:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and/or Rename. I see this kind of article--especially the form it is in now, where "competing claims", so to speaked are listed. Too many journalists and people with strong opinions will start state things as fact and/or assumption that are not leave folks wondering what the truth is--or worse, with the wrong impression. This kind of article can provide a detailed perspective on an issue like that. And that, IMHO, is what an encyclopedia's job is.--iFaqeer 01:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • i held that view untill i reallized that the article is just a stich jobb of various "look, my hood is the best!!! You NOOOB!" kind of claim. Nothing really notable or scholarly. I would appreciate to be counterproven in this issue, bring me a notable Islamic scholar that contest Al-Aqsa is #3, and ill change back to keep. Untill then, it is just a collection of a bunch of ignorant and egoistic claims, OR'ed to give the impression of a controversy. --Striver 02:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Bring me a notable Islamic scholar..." Mahdi al-Modarresi His biography has called another site, other than Al Aqsa, “thrid holiest”. Chesdovi 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I cant see anything on that link, maybe its broken?--Striver 00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Here is the article, Allah knows how many other refrences I could find if I was fluent in Arabic! [60] Chesdovi 11:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean, c'mon, just look at the candidades, its the burial place of the following Shi'a Imams: Imam 1, Imam 3, 10 or 11, a Shi'a random mosques, random Sunni mosque, random Sunni mosque , another Imam 1 mosque and then Imam 8 mosque. So think about it, are all Shi'a ignorant and can't keep track on if it is Imam 1A, 1B, 3, 8, 10/11 or the other two random mosques that are 3# sacred, or is it just a "I have the cooooolest hoood!" that ignorant reporters could not sift out? --Striver 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • iFaqeer , you are of course correct, and I appreciate your good faith in this especially since certain users tried to falsely claim that all muslims vote to delete. What's sad is that certain POV pushers not only they nominate the article for deletion every 2 seconds, they try to delete it in other ways or just to place a million tags on the article to make it unreadable and that's quite sad. We can't create articles on wikipedia like that, a shame. [61]

    Amoruso 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amoruso, I think you need to read WP:Reliable source policy. What is shame is to create an article based on False Authorities on the subject. Read Beware of False Authority Almaqdisi talk to me 23:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read it , thanks, and if you have content issues try use talk pages and not resort to measures like tagging without reason or nominating for deletion. Read the pillars of wikipedia for this. Amoruso 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Amoruso, my good will has its limits. My position is based on the principle that just because an article has bad content (indulge me here) does not mean it should not exist. However, the way to go, IMHO is that that if something is a controversy only in a few minds (justified or not; that's not the point), the article should say so: "A few people ..." or "Western media sometimes refers to...but almost all Muslims..." and so on.--iFaqeer 11:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    *Keep its pertinent subject matter PTIuv777 08:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Accused of being a Sock Puppet Almaqdisi talk to me 08:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I'm still disappointed at some users saying this AfD is just a clever way of settling a content dispute. Take a look at the talk page, and especially the first AfD where a major contributor to the article and a staunch supporter to keep it went as far as referring to the situation as intimidation by a 'sect of Muslim fanatics'. This article screams "I am nothing but an attempt to make a mockery of Muslim beliefs" by citing the most obscure of sources and it's evident from statements like "According to Capt. Emma Schofield Rawze-e-Sharif is the third holiest site in Islam", just since when did OC-3 US military personnel become Islamic scholars. thestick 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I've made an error in assuming the nationality of the officer. Anyway, just letting anyone thats interested know that I'm aware of it before they start shoving the fact down my throat. thestick 16:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Al-Aqsa IS the third holiest site in Islam. It simply is. Every single reputable source says it is. And no, I am not Muslim. Why this article exists, and continues to exist, I have no idea. But if people are voting keep simply because the Muslim editors are votestacking, I urge you to rethink your decision. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "stop puting me in stupid categories like "he is Muslim! HE ISS BNOOB! He is SHi*A1!!! HE HATES JOOOOOS, HE IS THE MASTERMIND OF THE MUSLIM GUILD!!!!". Striver, you are Muslim, you are Shia, and you probably do hate Jews, though I personally have not seen that and consequently AGF, but you did mastermind the Muslim Guild and are trying to derail its MfD even now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete I don't know why should we put all of this sites in this article. As a Shi'a I believe that Al-Aqsa Mosque is the mosque which Allah has blessed according to Qur'an17:01. The other sites and shrines are respected by some of the Muslims but not all of them. So please delete the article or just maintain Al-Aqsa. Also we can move this article to The holiest sites in Islam which include whatever exists in List of holy cities#Islam . --Sa.vakilian 06:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    but in your response you bring up that it is your belief. You discount the possibility that other Muslims may maintain another site as their third holiest. We're not going to delete the article on Al-Aqsa. This article just gives alternatives that are accepted by a number of Muslims. Valley2city 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Valley2city, User:Sa.vakilian was specifying his belief due to the fact that a number of folks have been trying to argue (falsely I might add) that the article should be kept because Shi'a Muslims don't view the Al-Aqsa Mosque as the third holiest. There is a grain of truth to that notion but the percentage who hold that view is so small that to have an entire article about it (based upon a supposed general Shi'a belief) is an argument to "undue weight". (→Netscott) 09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: It is again obvious that this article is just confusing the average reader with totally false statements. The latest invention we have here is that "While Kairouan is considered today as Islam's fourth holiest city, some secular scholars have noted that during medieval times Kairouan was regarded as the third holiest city in Islam.[3][4]" . This is a wrong statement even if one finds what supports it on the web. The matter is that we need to emphasize that this whole article neglects Beware of False Authority. It does not need a rocket scientist to realise that the article is totally confusing the average reader and gives the impression that Muslims do not know their religion and claim anything to be Holy based on the politics of the Day. Merge with Ziyarat and with Holy Cities in Islam, and delete this article, and keep a small discussion at al-Aqsa mosque page to discuss whether the Third Holiest attributed to it is religious or political. That should be encyclopedic enough. Almaqdisi talk to me 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes[edit]

    1. ^ Lindsay, James (2005). Daily Life in the Medieval Islamic World. Greenwood Press. pp. 142–143. ISBN 0313322708.
    2. ^ User:Avraham's comments

      "... Regarding WP:SOAP, of course the article is being used by some in that way. ..." -- Avi 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

      (User:Avraham has edited heavily on (in good faith mind you) and is a proponent for the article.)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cathedral of hope[edit]

    There are multiple churches with this name, this is simply one of them, non notable organization SkierRMH 08:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, but not many in Texas with a majority gay congregations! Weak keep, simply because that's kind of unusual and thus probably notable. Tubezone 09:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep but rename to Cathedral of Hope (Dallas). I agree that a majority gay congregation at a Christian church in Texas is notable, but there are no references to reliable secondary sources. It would be a definite Strong Keep were references given. Also, "Hope" should be capitalized as it's part of a proper name, and the city name should be used to disambiguate it from the thousands of Cathedrals of Hope worldwide. Change vote to Strong Keep per Edison's changes. Church has been written about by multiple non-trivial secondary sources. I still suggest a move. --Charlene 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentNow it has lots of reliable independent sources, that it is the largest U.S. gay church, and that the structure is architecturally significant. Edison 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I agree with Ohconfucius, the very novelty of a Gay Texan church may qualify it for notability. --The Way 11:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (Note: vote was originally cast on the wrong AfD, with respect to an individual unrelated to the Cathedral of Hope. I moved it in good faith so that the vote would be located in the right place and for no other reason. --Charlene 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Weak Keep I agree about renaming it, and provide reasonable sources and links and it could be an interesting article about one of few "gay churches" in this country. Missvain 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The very definition of a notable church, both as the largest gay church, and for having a noted architect, Philip Johnson, as the designer of the new structure. I added several independent mainstream sources. Edison 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Charlene. Adding to notability is the move from MCC to CofC. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Fourth-largest congregation of a mainline denomination. Carolynparrishfan 10:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a slightly sick feeling in my stomach I say Weak Keep. Just scrapes into the notability club, largely on the strength of being a big gay church. If it weren't for the particular ministry I'd vote the other way: ideally I think we shouldn't care about whether people are gay or straight or whatever as individuals, and I feel pretty queasy singling out groups that have a particular orientation just because they have that orientation, but are otherwise unremarkable. (To see what I mean, consider PTAs: I don't believe we should cover PTAs in general, and a PTA all of whose members live in Castro Street is no more noteworthy than one all of whose members live in heterosexual suburbia. It's surely the same with church congregations.) WMMartin 18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Many of the keep votes were arguing for the existence of this substance, not for the inclusion of this page. This is original research and Wikipedia is not the place for it. Others were referring to an article other than this one--a hypothetical debunking. Others were revotes or anonymous. All told, consensus appears to be for deletion. Chick Bowen 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brown's gas[edit]

    • Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas
    • Main reason to delete for: No reliable, third party sources
      • Yes, the search gets many Google hits, but nothing that would qualify as a reliable source. Blogs, forums, post your own press release sites, ...
    • Auxiliary deletion arguments:
      • Previous AfD closing failed to weigth the arguments
      • Continuing confusion with plain vanilla Oxyhydrogen and Oxyhydrogen flame
      • Article may be keepable if It's not real, but many people believe in it can be sourced, but I don't see valid sources for it. The postings on the web can be done by 3, 30 or 3000 people, who knows?
    • Rants
      • I'm sick and tired of reverting this into a semi-sane state. First of all, the persistent Brown's-gas-fans should decide for themselves, whether it has spectacutar properties different from oxyhydrogen:
        • (a) Same properties: No need for separate article, short mentioning of rare synonym with strange connotations at Oxyhydrogen
        • (b) Miraculous properties (e.g. The quantity of hydrogen and oxygen atoms produced is in accordance with traditional electrolytic theory, although the volume is not, or Transmutation of Radioactive Materials, or creates ten times more Brown's gas than normal electrolysis systems do): Pack your Brown's gas generator, give the next major university's chemistry department a visit and receive your Nobel prize soon.

    Pjacobi 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Might be a hoax, but if it is it's an extremely well-known and widely-discussed one. Google found 100 Books results for "Brown's Gas" (in quotes) and magazine/newspaper mentions includinf this Wired story. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment -- all but two books don't refer to Yull Brown's alleged invention. As both "Brown" and "gas" are rather common words, there are a lot of misleading results. --Pjacobi 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Lacks reliable sources. Tengfred 17:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No independent sources to show it is scientifically valid, and not enough mainstream references to show it is a notable hoax or notable pseudoscience, so delete and block recreation to prevent the Wikipedia article being used for promotion. Edison 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It is my belief that both the unusual properties and the claim of energy generation are false. However, I have seen many references to Brown's Gas so Wikipedia should have an article about it. Paul Studier 21:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Google hits are not a reliable determinant of notability. Without a single reliable source it doesn't matter if Wikipedia should have an article-- Wikipedia CAN'T have an article about this subject. Period. OfficeGirl 01:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and Edison; deja vu all over again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete even hoaxes need to be properly referenced. (Otherwise we risk the danger of meta-hoaxes.) Demiurge 14:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I have corrected the article to contain real scientific information in additional to prevailing stereotypes. Its a shame that more scientists are not available to add to my inclusions. I will continue to update this article as my research, and understand of the phenomena evolves. I am a first party source that is involved with Brown's Gas on a college level, if you have any scientific questions contact me at (646) 296 - 5385, or email me at [email protected]. This article is important to keep, and I am confident that more first party sources will show themselves eventually to add to my inclusions.
    • KeepOk, I understand, but the claims that are scientifically verified are not biased, are objective, and are rational. They are not my opinion, they are verifiable facts. If you feel that my first person status is interfering, and establishing bias, please change the format, and the sentence structure. There is no reason to remove pure scientific facts, please only remove any unintentially included bias. I am trying extremely hard not be be biased as this article, and the topic of Brown's Gas, greatly deserves the best representation possible. If no-one knows anything about Brown's Gas only a primary source has information that has to be passed on to secondary sources. Please bare with me, and lets work together to fix this article and give Brown's Gas the unbiased representation it deserves.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.218.207 (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Welcome to Wikipedia 24.193.218.207! Please be aware that your contributions may violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and most likely also Wikipedia:Verifiability. BTE: An encyclopedia, as a tertiary source prefers secondary sources over primary sources. --Pjacobi 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As per the "verifiability policy" it clearly says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", and Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. ". I feel that I am within the guidelines of the "verifiability policy". Please talk with me if you feel otherwise, and I guarantee that I will work with you to maintain the utmost credibility, reliability, and integrity of Wikipedia's policies.

    Comment I see no evidence of a "well-known professional researcher" in these self-published sources. Moreover, you left out " These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." I see nothing to indicate that this is true here.
    The points about using self-published sources in articles about the author(s) clearly does not apply here, since this article is not about any author; it's about a gas. Tengfred 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article no longer lacks reliable resources. Note that I have added many items in the "references section". The Korean manufacturer in particular is a company filled with Phd's and reliable resources, and while their English is not optimal they are capable of getting their points across. Please refer to these "references" prior to considering this article for deletion. These companies substantiate all the properties of Brown's Gas that are now posted. I have also added in text citations to help better substantiate the claims in this article. One addition that must be made is a citation for the "perpetual motion" claim. Now that a reference section has been added, it is only right to show the reference for such an obsurd claim. Note that all the companies in the references section don't even adress the notion of perpetual motion because it is truly something that should not even be considered; the term obsurd is overwhelmingly appropriate.

    Nseidm1 14:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep as per Nseidm1 comments LazyDaisy 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: [62] -19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep & Debunkify - this is a well known and well documented fraud. Including it in Wikipedia with its colorful history and well documented debunking should prove very useful. It's already listed (but not linked) in History of perpetual motion machines. Rklawton 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep it is well known PTIuv777 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:' Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LazyDaisy. --Pjacobi 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Crankiness is not inherently notable. WMMartin 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:' Crankiness is an inherent repercussion of a bad nights sleep and/or constipation. --Nseidm1 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pjacobi you should listen to Nseidm1 and give up on your conspiracy theories.PTIuv777 08:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still se no reliable sources in the article. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources says "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias." Also, the section on physics articles in the same page, points out the importance of using peer-reviewed scientific publications. As far as I can tell, there are no such sources in the article. Right now, the article is a mess of controversial claims, with almost no inline citations and a pile of obviously biased sources. From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources again: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". It is possible that a coherent article can be written per Rklawton, and if so, that article might be useful. As the situation is right now though, I still support Delete. Tengfred 09:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment There will never be exceptional evidence for using Brown's Gas in an over-unity fashion because it is impossible; I have addresses this bogus claim with the "note". I would remove this blatentlt erronious claim due to its impossiblity, but it is crucial to document all prevailing stereotypes about a scientifically straight forward technology. As for the "semi-rational" claims, these are not totally outragoues. These claims are reasonable, and highly substantiated by the videos sections where users can observe the claims first hand; Brown's Gas can be visually seen behaving in a novel fashion as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen or a pure Hydrogen flame. Also, the reliable sources policy says "take caution", it dousn't say that the references cannot cannot be used because they are company websites. Also, the fact that multiple website, and multiple companies exists across the planet establishes a greater level of credibility as compared to if only one website or only one company was listed. Please note that I have clearly distinguished and defined Brown's Gas production as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen production and pure Hydrogen production; the method is obviously novel. Nseidm1 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes the claims might be exceptional, which is why I have placed them in sections title "over-unity claims", and "semi-rational" claims. The section "properties" is a section that is based on measurable phenomena. Such a section its not biased, as they are intuitive and rational inclusions based on observable and measurable properties, hence why the section name is "properties". It's ok for a topic to be controversial, and have controversional claims, the reason this article is now informative and un-biased in because the claims that are controversial are marked as such. The main reason this article should remain is because I have specifically clarified the exact difference in how to produce Brown's Gas as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen and pure Hydrogen. The difference is clear and distinction is well defined. Brown's Gas is clearly a separate phenonema as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen and pure Hydrogen; the unique production method dictates so. I still support Keep. Nseidm1 07:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Note that the Oxy-Hydrogen article does not have any references other than another third party source. Even considering such a lack of references the article remains. The point is that an article does not have to have an overwhelming amount of references to still be considered a credible article. I would argue that the most important aspect of a credible article is how rational and how objective the text is. In the case of this article, there are many points of view considered, and the text specifically considers the dubiousness of the claims. This article is objective, rational, and references real companies that are researching, patenting, and marketing common ducted electrolytic technologies. Nseidm1 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lets close this deletion debate. This article has come a long way. Noah Seidman 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - since this is a "chemistry" or "physics" related article, then we should use only university sources. If we remove non-university sources from the article, you'll see the article is still un-sourced. Rklawton 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There may be an article to write here, since this is regrettably a popular canard/investment scan, but what is here isn't it. The extra energy observed comes from one of the electrodes that is getting dissolved in the process. But how does one go about finding acceptable sources for this crap? Dr Zak 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - acceptable sources... Google "Brown's gas" and "fraud" - and you'll find tons of sources. It'll certainly help debunkify this article. Rklawton 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is here right now is a heap of unreferenced stuff bordering on advertising, nothing salvageable here, everybody move right along. Why not redirect to water fuel cell, which is a proper article on the same subject? Dr Zak 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support - redirect per Dr Zak. It's a good temporary fix 'till someone wants to write up a good article detailing this particular scam. It's got quite a history. Rklawton 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom & above Vsmith 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but Stubify for rebuilding as a pseudoscience debunking References supporting this amazing scientific discovery aren't convincing. Seems to be enough out there for a pseudoscience debunking article though Bwithh 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename to Brown's Gas Hoax and stubbify --BostonMA talk 23:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is now clearly in compliance with Wikipedias deletion policy and therefore should remain. As for the tone of the article, I agree that others should be participating and contributing to establish better compliance. The lack of contribution, especially on the part of all that want this article deleted, highligh the opinionated bias and unsubstantial reasoning used in attacking clearly established credibility. Noah Seidman 05:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already voted twice on this page... --Daggerstab 09:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional Comments Administrator please take note. The reference of "hoax" and "fraud" are mere terminologies and are not inherently substantive. Individuals that utilize these terms do not make any citations and they have no substantiation for their claim other than their own opinion. Opinions are not enough of a reason to discredit the novelty of a phenomena that is clearly distinct from Oxy-Hydrogen; the distinction has been defined specifically within the text of the article; Brown's Gas is clearly produced in a novel fashion as compared to Oxy-Hydrogen, and pure Hydrogen for that matter. The attacks on rational statements, that are obviously logical, are inconsistent with the substantiation required to discredit the phenomena of Brown's Gas. Please also note that the BEST Korea Company and Arizona Hydrogen Company, both cited in the references section, are multi million dollar companies that have overwhelmingly mainstream clients. Arizona Hydrogen Company sells products to NASA, Ratheon, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, GE and Motorola. BEST Korea Company is laying the foundation for fuel consumption on the Korean peninsula as the distribtuion of liquid fuels is impractical as compared to on-site generation. Noah Seidman 14:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mention that Arizona Hydrogen Company sells products to NASA, Raytheon, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, GE and Motarola. Could you provide a citation where any of these companies, including Arizona Hydrogen Company make any claim about the existence of Brown's gas? --BostonMA talk 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In this edit, Nseidm1, states that Arizona Hydrogen Company does not produce "Brown's gas". [63]. Odd he should use them as a mainstream reference, since even he agrees they have nothing to do with Brown's gas. Rklawton 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to the above, the Brown's gas folk say that generators made by Arizona HydroGen produce Brown's gas, even though Arizona HydroGen says nothing of the sort. --BostonMA talk 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Denis G. Hurley[edit]

    22 year old law student and regular contributor to Football club newsletters and contributor to student newspaper. Young Turk, who may be going places, but certainly not there yet. Delete per WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 09:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article seems to overstate subject's contributions to the student newspaper--could not find any relevant mention of him on An Focal website, certainly not on the masthead of regular contributors. Very far away from meeting WP:BIO, and has some WP:V issues. Darkspots 12:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete That would make every other newspaper writer notable who is as minor as an obituary writer. Missvain 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nonnotable at this point in his life. NawlinWiki 17:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no, no, no, no, NO! Bubba hotep 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Blah, blah, blah. He made a website for a potato chip company and he writes for a student newspaper. Someone get him Knighted, quick! This guy sure is notable. Pfft. Down with this article! .V. 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete, either G11 or A7, take your pick, it's either blatant advertising or an article which fails to assert the importance of a website, or even both. Hiding Talk 16:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    GroundReport[edit]

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

    This entry appears to be spam advertising a run-of-the-mill commercial blog site. Bhuston 10:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A run-of-the-mill commercial blog site that doesn't even exist yet. Per the article, Slated to officially launch in early 2007. Delete, possibly speedily, as spam and Crystal ballery. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, spam. So tagged. MER-C 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete a7, g1, yet another Disney wannabe hoax. NawlinWiki 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stefan Faison[edit]

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

    Biography on non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Gets only 8 Google hits. 100 Songs About Jake, the film it says he'll star in in 2007, gets 0 results. There's also no support for the claim that he'll star in Nancy Drew (IMDb lists a different actor for the role). After the article was speedied yesterday (per CSD A7) the original creator recreated it exactly as it was before. The same editor also did the recently deleted article on Sade Faison (see AFD/Sade Faison), so I guess there is some kind of relation there. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete all bar Ostannya Poema, which can have another AfD if there are any doubts to its notability. Yomanganitalk 14:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ty (song)[edit]

    Non-notable songs; fails WP:MUSIC. We don't need an article for every song ever written. This AfD also applies to the other songs from Ruslana albums without any or not much information included:

    1. "Ty (song)"
    2. "Svitanok"
    3. "Ostannya Poema"
    4. "Kolyskova"
    5. "Myt' Vesny"
    6. "Prochannya z Disko"
    7. "Like a Hurricane (Ruslana song)"
    8. "Accordion Intro"
    9. "The Tango We Used to Dance"
    10. "Wild Dances Part 2"
    11. "Wild Passion"
    12. "Dobrij vechir"

    Luigi-ish 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete all per nom, unless evidence of notability is added (and I expect we'd have to find a Ukrainian-speaker to find that). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete all bar Ostannya Poema, which is now listed as a released single. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per above. You should tag each article with {{subst:afd|Ty (song)}}. MER-C 12:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for fixing that. I don't know how that showed up as mine. --Charlene 12:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Use {{unsigned}} to flag unsigned comments. MER-C 13:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the strange thing; it was signed, but there wasn't an "end nowiki" tag originally, so the comment was shown as four tildes. I added the "end nowiki" tag and the signature showed up as mine. I didn't know aobut the unsigned comment code, though; thank you! :-) --Charlene 15:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per WP:SONG - none of these charted in any medium or large country, including Ukraine. --Charlene 13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per nom. Edison 18:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all If you make a song page there should probably be more info. ReverendG 05:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Ostannya as a released single. Keep "Wild Dances" per the association w/Eurovision. No opinion on the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wild Dances Part 2" isn't Wild Dances, though, which is the one more associated with Eurovision. In terms of a performance at Euroclub, my understanding (and bear in mind I've not been to an ESC yet) is that it's more just a place where ESC artists get to perform some songs, as against a real assertion of notability in the manner of a released single or an actual ESC performance. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, good to know. I preferred to err on the side of caution, but knowing that... --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't necessarily take my word for it, though. I'll chase up some of the European ESC fans and see if I've just led you up the garden path. Watch this space. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm told on reliable authority that Euroclub is just a big party and that a song being performed there has no particular notability just as a result of being performed there. It'd have to be a released single to start on the notability trail. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Individual songs need to achieve a much higher standard than this even approaches to be included in an encyclopedia. •Elomis• 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Deleted by Jni. -Amarkov blahedits 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ANAN NIKETAN COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE WARORA CHANDRAPUR[edit]

    ANAN NIKETAN COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE WARORA CHANDRAPUR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    No assertion of notability Amists talk • contribs 11:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Military of Réunion[edit]

    There is no such thing as "Military of Réunion", for Reunion is simply a French overseas departement. Though the article actually states this, I see no reason why there should be an article for this phantom army. It would be quite as senseless as an article on say, the Military of New Jersey. --Janneman 12:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - the military spending figure given is simply that of France. I wholeheartedly agree with the nominator.--Nydas 12:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Nice catch. Darkspots 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The information given is already found under French Army, French Navy, etc. I would think that anybody who knows Réunion exists would know it was a French département. --Charlene 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we move or repurpose this article instead to be about the french military in Reunion? (note by the way we do have an article about the Military of New Jersey) Morwen - Talk 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the National Guard isn't quite the same as a full-fledged independent army, which this here article suggests exists (w/ expenditure, availability etc.) in Reunion. --Janneman 13:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom ReverendG 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. —Xyrael / 10:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Tsolakis[edit]

    In my opinion this is a pretty significant person, who left a fairly notable Sydney high school. I believe it should be kept, it was PROD'ed, so have undeleted and I'm taking this to AFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This is bullshit for people not citizens of Australia to ahve any input on whether they feel this article should or should not be placed on the site. What if anyone searched for KIM TSOLAKIS, and the artical wasn't there - obviously the site would not live up to its purpose! And Kim was a great, and intelligent man who deserves more than a simple article here, and rather a website dedicated to him. Please all those not from Reddam House would not understand the importance of such a man, and thus i feel should not put any input into this matter!

    The criteria at WP:BIO do NOT constitute Wikipedia Policy. Anyhow, I'd argue that this article is worth keeping, BUT only if there is a liklihood that it becomes a genuine bio of its subject. The man has had a distinguished career as an educator, and I cannot see why NOTORIETY or its lack, should disbar a person of accomplishment from having those accomplishments listed/described on Wikipedia, so long as those accomplishments are demonstrable and verifiable. Aurelius One 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Besides the subject being non-notable pursuant to WP:NOTE, the information given may also be intrusive pursuant to WP:BLP. The article purports to explain Mr. Tsolakis's employment situation and his reasons for being dismissed. If it says on Wikipedia that he was asked to leave because of his health, couldn't that affect his chances of getting a new job? Also, no reliable sources are given for the information provided or even for the fact that Mr. Tsolakis exists. --Charlene 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC
    • Comment both Ta bu shi da yu and Aurelius One are from Australia. I have a feeling that Kim Tsolakis is notable down under and perhaps not in North America. :) I'd say if Australians want to keep him, then keep him. That is of course if proper sources are provided. Missvain 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A walkout by seniors at a high school does not make a person's bio encyclopedic. There is one unidentified newspaper clip cited. Multiple independent sources are needed to show notability. Edison 18:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Google (even when restricted to Australian pages) has hardly heard of him, and what it has got is standard boilerplate wherein "head of school Kim Tsolakis said...", nothing about his departure or the strike it apparently caused. I'm from Australia as well, although a different state, and follow the news closely - and wouldn't know this man or the events in question from a bar of soap. I'm also not sure about the idea of opening an AfD on an article which was prod'ed when the nominator wants it kept. Surely the idea is to remove the prod and add information asserting and verifying notability? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:V and WP:NPOV can't be satisfied without significant sources; there are none here. Mangojuicetalk 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Reddam House - a quick Google search reveals he was the Headmaster of Reddam House, and introduced unorthodox practices to help Year 12 Students like giving them iPods (see here, and I think he also had some other unorthox practices when the school first opened, such the different style of uniform, etc. (RH is one of Sydney's newest private schools). That said, he isn't notable outside of the school itself, and most Headmasters of schools don't have their own article apart from if they were notable in some other respect - I vote we merge this into the school article and keep it notable. JROBBO 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, I'm sorry to disagree with the nominator, but I don't think there's enough meat here for a full article. An interesting story for the school or community article though. Lankiveil 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete. This might have been news, but it's not encyclopedic. WMMartin 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per JROBBO. JPD (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Already Redirected to Zionism - Yomanganitalk 17:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposals for a Jewish state[edit]

    This article seems to be not referenced by anything and better dealt with other articles. It's very inaccurate, confusing and irrelevant. It erroneously suggests some sort of universal acceptance of these so called proposals undefined and unexplained. Should be deleted by WP:CRUFT. Amoruso 12:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, if there's any information to merge with I agree. Amoruso 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. both of the articles mentioned by Missvain (talk · contribs) discuss post-1948 history. The best place to merge is Zionism
    • Delete. Unsourced and fragmentary. If sourced, merge into Zionism or someplace else. Sandstein 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as currently written. If sources can be scared up, a merge per Missvain or Sandstein is in order for what's sourced. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect to Zionism. I have been bold and done the merge into Zionism. All that remains is to do the redirect. --Richard 05:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The merging is only with something sourced. Right now it's not sourced and not true, no need for the merge. It can be deleted, this material exists already when it's true like argentina and uganda and russia. In fact all this information exists already, also Ararat. Some of it just isn't true and serves no further encyclopedic material. Amoruso 12:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the case that material can only be mentioned once in an encyclopedia. Detailed treatment should take place in only one place and Zionism is as good a place as any unless a Proto-Zionism article is created.
    In what articles does the true information exist already?
    If any of the material isn't true, you or any other editor who knows it not to be true can remove it. The only reason that I merged the material into Zionism instead of voting to keep this article is that there isn't enough content in this article to warrant a separate article. If it's all false, it obviously should all be deleted. If only part of it is true, then the true part should be in Zionism and the false part should be deleted.
    I notice that you have removed the material from the Zionism article. I think this is a mistake but rather than edit war over it, I will open a discussion on the Talk Page to see what other people think.
    --Richard 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A further explanation of my position. It seems to me that some mention of these proposals (the ones that are true) belongs in the Zionism article.
    There is no mention of David Nassy's efforts to colonize Curacao and Cayenne in the articles for those locations. However, there is an article on David Cohen Nassy which does mention those efforts.
    I noted that there is no mention of a proposal for a Jewish state in the Pavel Pestel article. Perhaps this information is false?
    Mention of these pre-Zionist proposals for a Jewish state are clearly relevant to understanding the Historical Background of the Zionist movement. That's why I moved this material there.
    --Richard 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I have no problem to move the material to zionism article - there's a section there called alternate proposals so please move anything useful there. I just want to make sure it's accurate or sourced. From the David Cohen Nassy I don't see any proposals for a Jewish state. Jews moving somewhere is not the same as a Jewish state, but I may be mistaken about his intent. At any case, we agree to delete the new article and merge any useful information to Zionism, no problem. AFAIK btw, the only proposal from that list of places is Ararat which has an extensive article I believe (via Noah), I could be mistaken though. The information exists now in the talk page of zionism as prelude so there's no fear to delete this article then. Amoruso 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Can we just redirect it now then ? seems a consensus. it wasn't sourced, could have been redirected to begin with without AFD, my mistake... Amoruso 04:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I'm going to do this on WP:BOLD since it's me who nominated this article to begin with - if anyone objects, then please revert me and keep this debate open, and I'm sorry in advance. Amoruso 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and merge sourced, salvageable facts into other appropriate articles per above (if it still matters). 6SJ7 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't see any reason for this article to be ["strangled in its cradle"]. Someone turned it into a redirect to Zionism, however the quest for a Jewish state has a richer and longer history than Zionism. For example, the Soviet Union organised a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in siberia which was entirely separate from the Zionist movement. This article could develop into something quite interesting. Why stamp it out now? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The USSR's Jewish Autonomous Oblast was not a proposal for a Jewish state. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ::: Well, before the Jewish Oblast was actually created there was years of discussion and proposals within the Soviet Union for different possibilities of Jewish state. There is a rich and interesting history there. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 11:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    the article is a redirect now, so it's why I think discussion should close (was a mistake)... if one wants to make the redirect to something else in the future he can do so I guess, and it will be analysed then. Also if it were to be deleted it can't mean it can't be re-created in the future. As it was, the article was compltelely pointless. For example, if the article was talking about proposals not of Jewish origin but of Soviet/Nazi origin etc then the title could be a better one too, if btw it would add anything to existing articles. Amoruso 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete, strong consensus below, but more importantly, it fails to assert the importance of the web-content, and thus meets criteria for speedy deletion, specifically A7. Hiding Talk 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dumb Dinosaur[edit]

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

    It's a Flash animation. Speedy removed, see Talk:Dumb_Dinosaur. procedural nom, no vote. Amists talk • contribs 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability (csd a7). So tagged. Mr Stabby looks rather tempting. MER-C 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete - Per MER-C, ia gree with MR Stabby too.
    • Durrr-lete, speedily if possible. Not even an internet meme. — Haeleth Talk 14:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then, in the spirit of Haeleth; De1337. NN animation. James086 Talk | Contribs 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete A7 web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There is absolutely no reason to delete this page. It is a very notable flash animation from a very notable site. It deserves here on wikipedia and there's certainly no harm in that--Boris Allen 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per above. 642 results on Google search. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per a7, tagged Missvain 16:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per A7. Also fails the 20-year rule (and maybe the 20-day rule). --Charlene 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. It seems telling that the person who expanded it didn't actually argue for keeping it. Chick Bowen 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Christmas sandwich[edit]

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

    Procedural nom, don't think it should be speedied, no vote Amists talk • contribs 12:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Wikipedia is not a cook book, unreferenced, no assertion of notability. MER-C 13:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No claim of substantive encyclopedic notability made. No evidence that this is a culturally significant "gimic" Bwithh 14:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per MER-C. Severe verifiability concerns. FWLIW I've never once encountered these allegedly-popular "favourites" in a lifetime in England, but maybe I just buy my lunch in the wrong place. — Haeleth Talk 14:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect and merge to Christmas dinner. Creation of "Christmas"-themed foods around that time of year is widespread (in the UK at least) with Christmas sandwiches being only one of a list, Turkey and Stuffing crisps being another. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources indicate that, unlike Christmas dinner, Christmas sandwiches are not solely eaten on Christmas Day. Uncle G 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Uncle G's edits. hateless 18:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unlike, say, US supermarkets (with the exception of Trader Joes), UK supermarkets are quite versatile and inventive with their seasonal gimmicks and new products. However this sandwich is essentially just a Turkey Sandwich (often or even typically found made with cranberry sauce in supermarkets at any time of the year without special Christmas branding) with the "special seasonal" addition of stuffing. That's it. There is no indication, even after Uncle G's edits (the article is now a well sourced advert/nutrition info article), that this recent sandwich "innovation" (branded as an "old favourite" apparently - which I can only think is a reference to the practice of using up leftover Xmas turkey scraps in sandwiches and that's about it) has any cultural significance sufficient for its own article. Bwithh 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are indications that it isn't "just a turkey sandwich". Apparently there are vegetarian Christmas sandwiches. The article doesn't mention this because I want better sources. Uncle G 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better sources, or better sauces? Bubba hotep 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article looks, if not great, at least fine. ReverendG 05:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, thanks to UncleG's edits, good work. Amists talk • contribs 11:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks?" test. WMMartin 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete ummm, it's a sandwich. And I say that without prejudice to the notability of WMMartin's socks. Eusebeus 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete (although parishcruft is bit unfair) Yomanganitalk 14:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    St Francis of Assisi, Middlesbrough[edit]

    This article is about a non-notable parish. This parish hasn't done anything unusual or important, and this article would be useful only to a very small group of people who live around the area. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Please note that this article is not about THE Francis of Assisi. -- THLCCD 13:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This article is about a parish not a person. Maybe you should adjust your nomination accordingly. You should also consider this [64] before you proceed any further. (Note: I don't know the WP policy on including church parishes). --Folantin 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, lord, there are sub-single-sentence stubs on every RC parish in Middlesborough?!
        Delete all (except any that actually have information in their articles) and unlink them in the parent article - there is no purpose whatsoever in having a link from a list of parishes to a sub-stub "article" that merely states that the subject belongs in the aforementioned list of parishes. — Haeleth Talk 14:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I thought that a parish was the next stage above a Bishop. -- THLCCD 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete This is a reference-less sub stub. Also see Diocese of Middlesbrough which links to over 90 similar parishcruft articles which mostly lack content, references, or multiple independent sources to show their notability. A mass delete might be in order, but should be separately nominated from this AfD. The Wikipedia practice has been to delete such articles due to lack of demonstrated encyclopedic notability, even if a church history or some such is copied and pasted to fill out the article, or even if it links solely to the church's website. Edison 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per Edison. The cathedral should qualify for an article if one is written, otherwise notability needs to be shown on a parish-by-parish basis. Most will fail. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. It appears this is WP policy. The other parish stubs should go too. --Folantin 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: parishcruft not needed nor wanted. Go from here to the place from whence you came, and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul. Moreschi 21:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Borealis Paddling Expedition[edit]

    A one-time human interest story in a local paper at best. Not notable, no sources provided. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Mangojuicetalk 13:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. A Google search turned up no actual media coverage, only promotional pages and links on some personal and company web sites. Does not appear to be an event of widespread public interest or knowledge. --MCB 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not enough reliable third-party sources (in fact, none at all) to make an article, thus no notability, no verifiability, etc. 170.215.83.212 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Chick Bowen 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr Stabby[edit]

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

    On suggestion from MER-C, Another Flash animation. "Mr Stabby" "Flash animation" gets 1160 ghits, "Mr Stabby" "Flash Cartoon" gets 656 ghits, tempted to A7 Amists talk • contribs 13:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong DeleteSpeedy Delete (Changed by Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)) - May get some G-Hits but article makes NO assertion of why it is notable. Get rid of it! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, whether speedily or not. Little or no notability, not even an internet meme. — Haeleth Talk 14:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I've seen it, it's pretty funny, it's not worth an article. James086 Talk | Contribs 15:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no opinion on whether it should be speedy or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I cannot believe this. It was put up for vfd a while back but survived and has been there ever since as a useful reference. Tbh I find consider this to be nothing short of a sneaky way to justify deleting this article without good cause. I'm sure those who voted to keep it last time will not be too happy when they find out what has happened--Boris Allen 15:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any previous AfD nomination. Can you post a link to it please? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete there are too many flash cartoons out there, and most of them are non-notable. Cute drawing though. Missvain 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per A7. One out of ten million non-notable Flash animations (has there ever been a notable Flash animation?). --Charlene 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and please yield to that temptation to A7 :-) Guy (Help!) 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Fails WP:WEB. MER-C 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepThis is a really good article guys- it's been up for a while now and survived one vfd already--Stabby 12:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per above. Note that I am a good friend of Stabby and not a sockpuppet. Please ignore my userpage, I have given up on wikipedia entirely now and have only returned here today to vote by special request of Stabby--Largeremis 12:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Without reference to show it is notable, than there are just too many flash cartoons out there to give each an article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Without prejudice to the merits of the article, I believe that it has been nominated politically - such nominations should automatically be rejected to deter wikipoliticing. Dave 19:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please be more specific in what you mean, politically. Without clarification your statement does not reveal much information to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I see there is that the nominator mentioned an intention to nominate this article before hand. Then another editor agreed. This does not show any sort of ulterior motive to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forgive me for being cynical, but what I see is a user positioning him or herself for an eventual RfA by doing the bidding of other users. Given the amount of activity on Mr. Stabby, it is clear that tens of admins and thousands of normal users have seen the article and not felt that it required any kind of deletion nomination. Dave 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are forgiven(for being cynical). I disagree with your interpretation. Often users will ask others opinions before taking an action, that is all I see going on. Neither positioning, or favour trading is evident. Also, consensus is not gained by observing users lack of action(such as not nominating this page until now), instead we start an AfD and discuss it to gain consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Frankly, there is no reason to delete this. Why delete it? It contravenes no wiki rules to my knowledge. It seems to me that the whole "Delete things that aren't noteworthy" attitude flies in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for. Sure, this kind of thing wouldn't be written about in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But this isn't Britannica. This is Wikipedia. It is our place to have articles written about the little stuff, the stuff that people want to read about. I urge you to keep this artlcle. --Jake Papas 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The policy WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is longstanding and very compatable with what Wikipedia stands for. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: clearly meets section 3 of WP:WEB through distruibution via Weebl's Stuff. If we are to accept that WP:WEB has any meaning at all, then we must keep this article. Also, see [67] for excellent demonstration of how many people it has touched and motivated to write about it at one time or another. Nevertheless, my reason for keeping the article is at present a procedural one, as noted above. I offer this note to assist other voters. Dave 21:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. Though WP:WEB is a guideline and thus subject to consensus. I find that criterion a bit odd, does that mean every flash cartoon they carry is notable? Considering the number of toons this site carries I consider this to be a trivial reference. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My personal opinion is that common sense needs to applied. A 'major' cartoon series, widely distributed on the internet, and with over 10 million views on weebl's stuff alone, like Mr. Stabby deserves its own article. Something like Dumb Dinosaur, less widely distributed and with less views does not (but should be mentioned in the main Weebl's Stuff article. Dave 22:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe in common sense. What I would beleive is multiple, independent, non-trivial references. Show me the links, and I may change my vote. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify, I was talking about applying common sense to WP:WEB. [68] [69] are both evidence of Mr. Stabby being a meme, in that they refer to it indirectly (I took those two links from the first ten hits in a google search for "Mr Stabby" - the other eight hits are the cartoon itself). The number of views that the cartoon has attracted has made it notable enough any how. Dave 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If anyone ever asks me for an example of a trivial reference, I will probably use those diffs as an example. See reliable sources to see why I think this way. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't using them as references for the article, I was using them as references to support my point that it has a large following. Dave 12:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well as I said above, we determine notability based on multiple, independent, non-trivial references. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Who the heck wants to read about a cartoon murderer? It has no use to Wikipedia at all. I don't anyone will want to research on this. I urge you to delete this article. Children who read this article (5 year olds or something) will probably get the wrong idea for a so called cartoon. Delete. Kyo cat(T)•(C) 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say Delete- To the comments above:Wikipedia is not censored. Not censored for children, old people, no one.--SUIT 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point too - I also note the above user is under seventeen. Perhaps they have been corrupted by the anime they clearly enjoy and are about to perform indecent acts with tentacles. Dave 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - non-notable cartoon series. Creator has some notability; if anything, any useful information should be merged there. MikeWazowski 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per MikeWazowski. ReverendG 05:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Dave - article meets WP:WEB. Also, it is a short article (the right length for its subject matter) and to the point. I think it is a usefull addition to wikipedia. Esn 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepAs per above. Also, this was only put up for deletion by Amists talk • contribs out of spite because I contested the deletion of Dumb Dinosaur--Boris Allen 23:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn flash cartoon. Eusebeus 00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Weebl's cartoons. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. My friends in real life have talked of Mr. Stabby. Thus, I believe there should be an article about Mr. Stabby. --Burstroc 21:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability - Yomanganitalk 18:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tabblo[edit]

    This looks like WP:SPAM and fails WP:WEB MartinDK 13:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Isn't there a speedy category for this kind of thing? — Haeleth Talk 14:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete there is something called speedy delete. tag A7 Missvain 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    PxHDDLoader[edit]

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

    Fails WP:SOFTWARE PxHDDLoader is a copying utility for a modded xbox. It will copy the entire game to your Xbox’s hard drive so you can play it without the use of the game’s original CD. Extremely useful for preserving your games. Possible merge into Xbox#Modding_the_Xbox? MartinDK 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete Very short article with little or no context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep It is a very noteworthy article. LazyDaisy 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep - I actually sourced from it for a computer course I was doing. PTIuv777 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 03:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment To the closing admin: The sole purpose of the two accounts above is debating on AfD's. Looking at their edit history it is a blatant example of sockpuppetry. Please disregard these editors. This is attempted vote fraud on something that isn't even a vote.MartinDK 08:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment How is an article 2 lines long that clearly don't pass WP:SOFTWARE noteworthy let alone one that you would use as a source for a computer course? That is quite frankly beyond my imagination. I should just have speedied this one to begin with. MartinDK 08:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as an attack page. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Boss monkey[edit]

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

    Contested PROD. Completely uncited neologism/original-research/jargon kind of thing. Perhaps it's a valid jargon term, in which case redirecting to...um...dunno-where, it certainly reasonable, but the page as it stands is not up to par. PROD tag was removed but nothing was actually fixed. And from the talk page it now appears one intent of the page's creator is to be a blog or chat more than an encyclopedia page, which WP is not. DMacks 13:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete POV essay not an encyclopaedia article. If you want to slag off your boss, get a blog. --Folantin 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as racist attack page. Read the end: "One similarity of boss monkeys have is that a substantial amount are from third world countries [...] In time this usually results in [lawsuits etc or] good old fashioned primate-beating violence." Sorry, but referring to people from "third world countries" as "monkeys" is completely unacceptable. — Haeleth Talk 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Speedy delete as this meets {{db-atk}} in all respects: It is a page created primarily to disparage its subject . ("Solely| rather than "primarily" in this case), even without the racism. So tagged and author warned. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedied as nonsense. --Fang Aili talk 16:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wenenbob[edit]

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

    Non notable terminology - no google hits. Also possibly comes under "wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day". Ladybirdintheuk 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tagged for speedy deletion under G1. yandman 15:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Omniphile[edit]

    Totally unsourced with a mere 2,680 dubious Google hits. I think it's someone trying to define some sort of indiscriminate pansexual, like Captain Hero. Either way it's not article worthy, except maybe noting that very few "pansexuals" have indiscriminate attraction on its article. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, nonsense. The pansexuality article already covers everything that is true in this article. I for one seriously doubt that anyone has a sexual attraction towards moths. (if you do, please don't reply to this..) yandman 14:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. Moreschi 15:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Drivel. Suspect blend of Latin and Greek too. --Folantin 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Moreschi. However, there are a lot of Latin-Greek blends (or bastardizations), e.g. television. This is non-notable no matter the language of the parent words. --Charlene 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nothing to add to the above !votes, which sum it ujp nicely. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nonesense. ReverendG 05:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete due to lack of sources commented on here. —Xyrael / 10:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kermit Dannehl[edit]

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

    Only claim to fame is a "World Record" which this person does not in fact hold Bilbo B 15:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Not being a golfer, I had to look up "Shoot his Age" as this meant absolutely nothing to me, but i found this reference:[reply]

    And finally, the record for most times shooting your age belongs to Frank Bailey of Abilene, Texas. From the age of 71 when he first shot his age, until age 98 when he last did it, Bailey matched or beat his age on the golf course 2,623 times.[70] (Kermit claims to have perfotrmed this feat 930 times) Bilbo B 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how authoritive that source is since we can't be sure which bits of the article are sourced from the Golf Digest and which are not, however I don't think it materially matters in this case. Rich257 15:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — the only claim for notability is the record which is, at best, disputed. Rich257 15:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Rich - Missvain 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep well known, especially in golfing cirles. LazyDaisy 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like to add some references to the article to prove this please? Rich257 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think it was published in 'Golf International' PTIuv777 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete as nobody is contesting it. Yomanganitalk 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjamin Davies (photographer)[edit]

    It's been two months and the page still has a {{wikify|September 2006}} tag, is still a stub, and wasn't moved to page with an WP:MOS-compliant name until November 4. Surely the page for a famous photographer would be better cared for? Oh, and by the way, ANZANG Nature only has 296 Ghits, international or not, and only 87 of them were really distinct enough from one another. When and if he proves his worth, I'm sure he'll get a proper article. Rmky87 05:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because he has yet to show any evident of having gotten very far in the photography world.--Rmky87 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete G11, A7 and WP:UGH for "asset retirement solutions provider". 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    Computer Disposals Limited[edit]

    Computer Disposals Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This company does not appear to show notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexrealm (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 November 2006

    Computer Disposals Limited exceeds the requirements of the WEEE directive, which will become law in the UK from 1st January 2007. Please allow some time for this Wiki to be updated to include more substantial content. I would argue that CDL is a notable company and is a much larger company than their homepage would suggest.

    16/11/06: Page edited to include more substantial information related to Computer Disposals Limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.156.100 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 November 2006

    • Delete. Non-notable. yandman 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fight on, Loyola[edit]

    These are lyrics. They do not belong on wikipedia. Also, nothing links to this page. Eclectek C T 03:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. --Folantin 15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete! Delete! Delete! I can't believe I actually read the lyrics. Lame. Missvain 16:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Wikipedians, Delete! Non-notable. I added the name of the fight song to the article abut the school, with a link to the athletic dept site to get the lyrics. I am surprised the school has not at least added a midi file with the tune so all Loyal Loyolans can learn it to sing at the big game. Does the school have a band? Copyvio, most likely, unless the song was written so long ago it is public domain. Edison 18:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - AND? Moreschi 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete! Delete! per WP:NOT! Delete!-- danntm T C 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete on, Wikipedia! WP:NOT. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Lyrics don't belong, and mentioning the song on the Loyola Marymount page is enough. SliceNYC 02:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Lyrics! ReverendG 05:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    George Petralia[edit]

    This page is about a man who may be a nice person, but definitely lacks notability.--Orange Mike 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    He has been interviewed on Canada's National TV station "Telelatino" and hi notoriety stems from not from his sculpturing but from discovering Carol Baker, where press releases mention that he is a sculptor.

    There is more history to follow on this man.

    --Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Still not notable. I assume that you mean Carroll Baker (singer)? (Note the spelling.) --Orange Mike 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes.

    He was a student and co-worker of another famouns sicilian sculptor that will be included shortly. The note to Carroll Baker is that her website mentions that he is a sculptor.

    --Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No sources to show he is notable. Lots of people carve things. Edison 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Claim to fame doesn't seem remotely sufficient. Actual press reports, and Baker's website, do not describe him "discovering" her, but rather that he wrote her first major hit, but I can find no indication that he was a significant songwriter otherwise. Fan-1967 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hippie flipping[edit]

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

    Is this notable? Dangherous 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Candy flipping is notable, hippie flipping is not. There once was a day when I was a heavy hallucination-lover, and I have never heard of the term "hippie flipping." I was actually hoping it'd be similar to cow tipping. Missvain 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unreferenced, looks like original research. Edison 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fully unverified.-- danntm T C 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - for all the comedic ambiguation the name causes – Missvain thinks "cow tipping", I was thinking hammer throwing or caber tossing, but with a long-haired, floral-shirt wearing dude with a spliff hanging out of his mouth, soon dropping to the ground in dismay as he is picked up and thrown the length of four parked buses. Bubba hotep 22:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dwarf Tossing Delete - Just throw this one away. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Drug combos usually don't warrant articles. Exceptions being things like speedball (drug). RIP Cris Farley/John Belushi/Mitch Hedberg. ReverendG 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Edison and danntm, Laugh per Bubba. :) Nihiltres 04:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mobile DJ Forums[edit]

    Mobile DJ Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Chick Bowen 03:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete per A7 Missvain 04:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the talk page says that "Information relevant to its significance of its subject will be added shortly" That is as of November 17th. Missvain 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per WP:WEB. Mangojuicetalk 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Website with 400 members. Needs multiple independent sources to verify notability Edison 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. 400 members? AMAZING! INCREDIBLE! WOW! --- RockMFR 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be Speedy delete per WP:CSD G4? Wasn't this article up for AfD before and tossed? Tubezone 02:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not under this name--no indication in the logs it's ever been deleted. Chick Bowen 05:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete 400 members? Pff. ReverendG 05:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Obviously this AfD does not preclude a future merge by anyone inclined. Also, please forgive me for using rollback to remove the AfD tags but I had to speed this up somehow. Chick Bowen 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shogo Kawada[edit]

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

    I propose this article, and all of the other articles tagged along with it, be deleted. Each article is a biography of a fictional character in three separate continuities. However, most of these characters are minor in all of the continuities. All of the characters have appropriate descriptions each of the separate continuities here, here, and here. All of the articles in question have cluttering problems, resorting to "In the film, the character does this. In the book, the character does this. In the manga, the character does this..." With suitable alternatives provided, I believe the following pages should be deleted.

    Three pages is definitely preferable to forty-three small, cluttered pages.

    • Strong Keep - You should instead ask for a merge, NOT a delete. I'm okay with merging, but not with deleting. WhisperToMe 18:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you feel this way? Just curious. Monsieurxander 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in all honesty, I don't know how one would go about merging an article into three different articles.Monsieurxander 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At the top of the character pages you can add a {{mergeto|articlehere}}. If you want a specific section merged, you can add the same template to the section. Normally you would add a mergefrom to the anime, manga, and film pages, but since there are so many a mergeto on the character pages would be more appropriate. Voretustalk 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - these should be merged, as WhisperToMe said, not deleted. Voretustalk 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I also opose this. The individual articles went into a lot more detail. The new character pages are way too big and don't look very appealing. They're more cluttered than the individual articles, in my opinion. (Bishusui 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Speedy Keep All Firstly, I'm not at all convinced these are non-notable. The Battle Royale movie, while probably not familiar to most US audiences, was an enormous hit in Japan and is amonth the top 10 highest-grossing Japanese films of all time. Secondly, any AfD in which a huge number of articles are suggested for deletion is pretty much doomed to fail and also be a complete and total mess. Simply put, AfD is supposed to be a discussion, and it's unreasonable to expect participants to read 43 different articles and vote on all of them at once. Try listing one first to get a sense of whether deletion of the rest is possible, or try to get consensus on the talk page to merge them or something, but a meaninful discussion for more than 40 articles all at once just isn't going to work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep all, Andrew Lenahan said it all. hateless 18:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge To a single list of characters, and delete the plot summaries and pictures. For each character to have an article, I would expect to see multiple independent mainstream coverage of each one cited in the article for that character. Much of the material in each article is duplicated. The individual ized content is just plot summary, and I see no point in taking every notable work of fiction or movie and having an article with pictures and a plot summary. Edison 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep per Andrew Lenahan. Not only are most of these characters notable enough for their own article, but more importantly blanket nominations like these are really bad AfD form and generally result in boatloads of articles being deleted without being looked at, as in the Esoteric Programming Languages fiasco. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but I'm not opposed to some kind of Merge for convenience sake. However, I concur with everybody else who has said that this kind of mass nomination is a bad idea. At the least, seeking input on a few characters to start off would be much preferred. FrozenPurpleCube 20:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. WP:NOT a plot summary. Interrobamf 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge There is no reason for every character to have their own article, no matter how popular it was in Japan. TJ Spyke 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge the lesser characters. Delete excessive plot summaries and pictures. Bwithh 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- RoninBKETC 10:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all, with editorial merging suggested for some of them. --tjstrf talk 10:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are all major or minor characters in a major Japanese novel, a movie (technically two, but most understandably don't make the sequel) and a manga series. Shuya Nanahara, Shogo Kawada, Noriko Nakagawa, Mitsuko Souma, and Kazuo Kiriyama are major characters in all three storylines and should be outright kept. The other articles should either be kept or split and merged into the three lists indicated by the nominator. The articles are a bit of a mess, but that is a problem when dealing with multiple, slightly varying continuities, but while the easy thing to do is delete, I think the right thing to do is clean them up. -- saberwyn 11:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep all as above. MightyAtom 12:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep all There is no reason to delete them. All the characters have had articles for a long time and have all been this way for a long time. Why should it suddenly be a problem now? There is no need to delete the articles. Although a clean up and maybe merging some of the articles would not be a bad idea. But to just delete them would mean lots of peoples good work would go to waste, plus don't forget the articles would not have been left up in first place if they had not been relevant. Urrgh5591 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It looks like the articles will be kept for now, but only if some cleanup is involved. If we keep these articles and no improvement is made, then they'll only become a stronger target for another AfD. Personally, I think some should be deleted, some should be merged, and most if not all need cruft-cutting and out-of-universe perspectives. The articles, as they are now, are not what we should strive for. Change will be needed. -- Ned Scott 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no way the articles will be deleted. Why delete an article of a proven fictional character when you can redirect to the character's information? Again, I am okay with merging the less notable characters. I wasn't aware of any of the articles that had in-universe perspectives. WhisperToMe 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep some Only the relevant ones, like Nanahara, Nakagawa, Kawada, Kiriyama, Souma, Mimura... - Access Timeco 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Timeco, just about all of them are relevant. Battle Royale focuses a bit on each of the 42 "contestants" as a way to prove how people react differently in the scenario. WhisperToMe 16:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • How are they relevant? Why shouldn't they be merged? ---Kunzite 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep some True, but I think the "not so important" characters could be merged into one big article and the bigger ones keep their own articles. But do not delete any of them. Ap2000 17:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep all — Most are notable in their own right, hence an AfD that bundles everything simply doesn't work.--Endroit 17:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly how are these characters notable "in thier own right"? Do you have citations? --Kunzite 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close AFD and let me merge 'em The articles need to me merged into relevant sections and these should be redirected. Someone must have done some massive clean-up on this series--there were seperate articles for every single minor character in the entire series. Fiction guidelines suggest that they all be merged into one page. Writing about fiction guidelines suggest that they need futher clean-up to remove the in-universe perspective. --Kunzite 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 12:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Elvira Arellano[edit]

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

    Non-notable subject, no different from the millions of other illegal aliens L0b0t 15:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, per my nomination. L0b0t 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. People who cause governments to act are notable, and the Mexican government asking the US to not deport her is causing a government to act. More sources would be nice, but it doesn't matter. -Amarkov blahedits 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Every single action taken by every single government in human history has been caused by people. How does this make one notable? L0b0t 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Keep it! -Chicaneo 07:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Previous comments: This article does not pass the 100 year test (future speculation) i.e., -- "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?" Nor does it pass the 100 year test (past speculation) i.e., -- "If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?" See WP:BIO for notability guidelines. I agree with LObOt, the subject matter of this article is no different from the millions of other illegal alien stories frequently heard about in the news these days. …Chicaneo 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment99% of the rock band articles, album articles, athlete articles, and politician articles would fail the same test. Edison 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep current event. Give the article time to develop. --evrik (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The place for current events is WikiNews, not Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you cite where that is official policy? --evrik (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, from the article: "On November 14, 2006, Saulito Arellano appeared before Mexican lawmakers." How many illegal immigrants do you know that have appeared before a national legislature? Plenty of sources written to show notability, and 100-year test is a suggestion, not an actual notability criteria. hateless 17:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Testimony before a govt. subcommittee, especially one of a foreign government, does not automatically confer notability. I have to go before the House Armed Services Committee several times per year. Should I get an article in the encyclopedia based soley on that? L0b0t 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment If you can find 30 articles about you in major national publications, then by all means you are notable enough for an article. Edison 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are an illegal immigrant, yes. Illegal immigrants are among the least vocal groups ever of political consequence, for a great many reasons. For one to get such an audience is very notable. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, multiple independent sources of information is enough to confer notability per WP:BIO. And as a last point, the "foreignness" of a government is irrelevant, this is a world-wide encyclopedia. hateless 18:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment In this case, the nationality of the govt. in question takes the wind out of the sails of your argument, she is a CITIZEN of the country whose govt. she testified before. If she were to speak before the U.S. govt. then she would be an illegal immigrant speaking before a govt. and that would be a wee bit more notable. A Mexican citizen speaking before the Mexican govt. is an everyday event. L0b0t 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're spinning. You might as well say she's a woman and they regularly testify before Congress, thus she's not notable. The point remains is that she is a member of a class of people who individually has rarely had an wide or powerful audience. She has two, the Mexican Congress and the North American news media. See the cited sources, again. hateless 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You've both got me spinning. She did not testify, her 7 year old son Saulito did. Saulito is a United States citizen who testified before the foreign government of Mexico on his mother's behalf. Both of these individuals are from groups that rarely have a wide or powerful audience: children & "illegal" immigrants. - Chicaneo 07:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a very important event. Illegal immigration is one of the hottest political topics today. This woman is at the forefront of that debate and she has become a symbol. She came into the United States illegally and gave birth to her son here. While she is holed up in that church and sending her son to Washington and Mexico to plead on her behalf, there has been talk about whether U.S. born children of illegal immigrants should be automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. This woman is making history. There is something about her or illegal immigration in the newspapers at least once a week. At first, it was only in the Chicago papers, but now that it has been picked up by CNN, I think the article deserves to stay. If she is not notable, then I'd say at least 20% of the articles on people in Wikipedia also deserve deletion.Crazydog 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct. At least 20% of the articles on people in WIkipedia do deserve deletion. WP:INN - the fact that there are other articles here that shouldn't be does not affect the merits of this individual case. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. She is the president of an political advocacy organization. That alone gives her notability. Her case has been given substantial coverage in national media, and, as was pointed out, she has become a symbol for the struggle of undocumented people for their human rights. For this, she has been both lionized and demonized. She may yet cause a change in laws or policies. As evrik said, give this story a chance to develop.--Rockero 18:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable advocate for changes in immigration laws. I found 30 independent articles about her in major national publications, and added 10 of the to the article's talk page. This degree of coverage means that she is in fact "different from the millions of other illegal aliens" contrary to what the nomination stated. Edison 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment thanks for those articles. I'm going to try and use them to expand the article. --evrik (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Current affairs don't belong on Wikipedia. Recreate the article later on if she actually turns out to be important in retrospect. For example, if her advocacy actually causes changes in immigration laws, she will deserve an article here; if she achieves nothing and is forgotten in six months, she will not. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable person; AfD is also not the place to play politics. -- AuburnPilottalk 21:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep, Clearly meets WP:BIO for "achieving renown or notoriety for (her) involvement in newsworthy events". The "Google Test" yields 180,000 hits [71] This case has parallels in that of Elián González. The article could be more balanced, but deletion is not the way to get it there. -- Shunpiker 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as newsworthy but not encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service or a political soapbox. Please use wikinews for writing current events articles not wikipedia. Quote from Wikipedia Help on Current Events: "Wikipedia is not a news service. That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic.". Also, has been said above, being discussed by or testifying before a legislature is not automatically an sign of encyclopedic notability (nor is media coverage). I don't see any substantive claim of encyclopedic notability - she's one representative of a notable issue. The organization she is president of doesn't seem to be encyclopedically notable either. Bwithh 07:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a news story, but a biography. --evrik (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take away the news story and you don't have much of an article Bwithh 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This story is three months old. Not even wikinews is slow enough to consider that "breaking news". -- Shunpiker 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That statement is most certainly an incorrect exaggeration. hateless 04:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the current version of the Elvira Arellano article is much different from the one I voted on this morning. I based my vote on the (23:03, November 15, 2006 68.166.88.10) version. That version only had 5 paragraphs and contained 11 links to the same three sources, one of which was an editorial damning Ms. Arellano. That version did not assert importance nor significance and had been marked for speedy deletion earlier. Since my vote, the article has been significantly improved and I believe that the current version establishes that this is a watershed case regarding the civil rights of children and of immigrants. Elvira's son is 7 years old, is a U.S. Citizen, and his mother and primary caretaker is being deported. If that's not significant then what is it? If I could change my vote at this juncture, I would say Keep it! - - Chicaneo 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Bwithh. Other than the fact that she decided to try the unusual (but not at all unheard of) tactic of taking refuge in a church, this isn't even a newsworthy story. And it's not encyclopedia-worthy either way. --Aaron 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Chicaneo, evrik, and Edison. It's a very important event that could possibly change the way procedures like this are handled and also the fact that she has made national and interntional headlines over the past few months. --Moreau36 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per all arguments above. The "no current events" people should take their crusade elsewhere. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, let's look at WP:BIO
    The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person - Check, got 'em coming out my ears, per Google.
    Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated - Check, ditto as above. Wads of news stories. An editor's opinion of whether she's newsworthy or not doesn't count, actual amount of press coverage does.
    Clearly passes WP:BIO, and article is well referenced to boot. I'd note that if WP had existed in 1955, Rosa Parks, would have been included. The comment "no different from the millions of other illegal aliens", besides being POV, is wrong, few illegal aliens get over 400,000 ghits. Speedy keep Tubezone 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. This is something of significance and users will come here looking for information. Badagnani 19:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to inform that User:Chicaneo has been asking people on talk pages to "come and vote". 1st. It's very bad form to spam talk pages asking people to participate on a discussion, and 2. AFD is not a vote. -- Drini 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree, it's bad form, and AfD is not a vote. But in this case I think it's a moot point as it's pretty clear Ms. Arellano meets the criteria for inclusion. Tubezone 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentYes I have been contacting people. I have only contacted those who have a pre-declared interest in Mexican-American, Latino, or Hispanic issues and who are listed on one or more WikiProjects relating to these issues. This is the message I have left: "The Elvira Arellano article is up for deletion. Please vote by linking to the Arrellano article, then follow the links at the top of the page. Thanks. - Chicaneo" We are all busy, and those who are interested and/or knowledgeable about a particular issue need to be made aware that their attention is needed on a particular issue. This is not spam. It is communication and networking utilizing grass roots efforts techniques. I offer my sincere appologies to those who feel that these actions are "in poor form" Chicaneo 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well you weren't actually soliciting votes in a certain direction (heck, you did vote delete originally, and a few weeks ago, I might have, too, despite the local press coverage where I am), rather, simply soliciting input. I just don't want admins suspecting meatpuppetry or that votes are not being made in good faith. Tubezone 03:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's reasonable. Sometimes (especially with minority issues) the word has to get out so that people who know about the issue can weigh in. --evrik (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Her story illustrates the complexities of immigration issues at this time. It could be linked to articles on immigration, civil disobedience, social impacts of the September 11 attacks. I think it passes the 100 year test. She may not be the first thing people search for when researching these issues, but her story will be of value to them. [[User:Wdr12 14:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)wdr12]][reply]
    • Keep Subject appears to be a prominent activist. The article contains numerous sources, an indicator of notability. -Will Beback · † · 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. —Xyrael / 10:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Gift of Gum[edit]

    The Gift of Gum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I came across this in CSD and prodded it, but prod was contested. CSD/Prod reason was Not real, fan fiction, no sources. I've no knowledge of SpongeBob episodes and am not sure this is a hoax, bringing it here for review. Kimchi.sg 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. yandman 15:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. and Yandman. One of those "your guess is as good as mine" non-articles. --Folantin 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above Missvain 16:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fake episode --Caldorwards4 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: crystal-balling is not permitted, nor is an article that is obviously complete bollocks. Moreschi 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Entirely ambivalent - I await the article for The Gift of Bollocks where it is theorised that Sponge Bob finds a load of shit under a crab and doesn't know where to put it... apart from on here. :) Bubba hotep 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Someone added a source proving that this episode is real in List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. The source is an article on The Best Day Ever. [72] Squirepants101 16:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per link. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 16:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That still doesn't get away from the fact that the article doesn't seem to stipulate what the episode is about. As Yandman said: WP:NOT a crystal ball, and if it hasn't aired yet, any speculation would be OR. Bubba hotep 19:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ARE YOU GUYS BLIND?!?! there is a source on the episode page. look--Chikinpotato11 03:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - my comments above were based on this version. It appears to have transformed into a proper article since, therefore I have changed my opinion to not bothered either way. unwatching page Bubba hotep 20:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very strong keep -- after my experience with the deletion of Best Day Ever, I think it would be pointless to delete this. In that case, the article was deleted because it had no content and was about a future episode. Even there, it was constantly recreated but the whole thing was moot anyway because the episode aired relatively soon afterwards and then things changed. Here, those arguments don't even apply, and we have a clear source, some actual info, and the article would be recreated in a few weeks even if it is deleted, so there's not much point. Mangojuicetalk 05:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    K-E-E-P Once again people are deleting articles that turn out to be real, Like Best Day Ever, The Pink Purlonier, Squidwood, Best Frenemies, Rule of Dumb, and Driven to Tears.Chikinpotato11 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retain If there is an episode description on a Nickelodeon(r) website, then it must exist. Ketsuban 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Wed 22 Nov 2006 0057 Z

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

    The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    BDSL[edit]

    Wikipedia != Wiktionary yandman 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Completely non-notable. Diez2 16:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Very much in agreement with nom's reasoning. --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and let it grow, it's a sub-stub and naturally there'll be nothing but a definition here. But it has potential for more. hateless 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the sentiment somewhat, but there just isn't enough to work with. --RoninBKETC 10:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeleteNot many Google hits for BDSL business digital subscriber line. Some sites say BDSL is broadband digital subcriber line. Unreferenced technical definitions should, in general be deleted. Come back when there is a source for the info, and when there is some content to add.Edison 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - hateless, stop giving votes without policy. It's not notable, it's not even verifiable, it's a definition and policy is clear on this. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - please. Per nom. riana_dzasta 16:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - provided this isn't a neologism someone made up yesterday, send to Wiktionary. But delete this. Moreschi 16:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete, almost certainly vanity; still a student so not even up to the level of the prof test Guy (Help!) 16:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Redmon,_Christopher_David[edit]

    Redmon,_Christopher_David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Non-notable subject L0b0t 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, per my nom. College student writes an essay on the environment and Jesus so he gets an article in the encyclopedia? Vanicruft. L0b0t 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete as nobody is contesting it - Yomanganitalk 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Dias[edit]

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

    Definitely fails WP:BIO. Tagged for notability September 20. I move to delete this page. Diez2 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Unreferenced sub-stub. Edison 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Proto::type 12:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Professions (World of Warcraft)[edit]

    Professions (World of Warcraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The article's content seems to be a game guide in its entirety, which fails WP:NOT. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of deletion, but it seems to at least technically qualify. I'll abstain. Brad Beattie (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, 100% pure fanboy cruft. L0b0t 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Reasonable information about a notable MMORPG. While I can understand game guide concerns, information about a significant aspect in a game does not automatically qualify. FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete original research, indiscriminate collection of information, excessive coverage of a topic on which we already have a supersufficiency ofarticles. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is a listing of specific attributes of a game indiscriminate? And what would you consider non-excessive coverage? FrozenPurpleCube 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Note that this information is already thoroughly contained within WoWWiki --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Prescence of information elsewhere besides Wikipedia is not always a good reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per LObOt and Guy.--Folantin 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Guy: WP:NOT a game guide. Or a place for useless cruft, for that matter. Moreschi 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain how and where this article is a game guide? FrozenPurpleCube 19:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The various gathering professions are all means to an end, never an end in themselves. A player may take a gathering profession to supplement his crafting profession, or simply to sell the items he gathers, but the products of these professions are never directly beneficial in and of themselves." All that is what I would expect to see in a game guide. It is total junk of no encyclopaedic benfit whatsoever. Wikipedia is not here to tell people what to do to get through the next level. Also, per WP:FICT, this piece of trash should be written from a real-world perspective: it clearly isn't. Just being part of WOW is not good enough on its own: this article must relate to the real world. It doesn't, in addition to other concerns. Moreschi 20:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not a game guide to me, since it merely describes how Professions function within the game. If anything, that introductory paragraph is essential to understanding professions within World of Warcraft, so that you would pick it out as a problem makes me question your definition of a game guide. How is understanding what professions are within the game total junk of no encyclopaedic benefit whatsoever? How does that even tell anyone how to get to the next level? It doesn't even tell you how to advance within levels, or provide advice about the best things to do with a given skill. Nor do I concur with your WP:FICT complaints. This isn't a plot summary, and the article clearly distinguishes between this world and the World of Warcraft. It even provides some context within the game for the perceived value of certain skills. Sorry, but you have failed to show any substantial merit to your complaints. FrozenPurpleCube 14:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per L0b0t and Guy's coments. Edison 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide, this is non-encylopedic and there are a million other places to find this info on the 'net. NeoFreak 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Pointless argumentation as Wikipedia dosn't delete articles just because "there are a million other places to find this info on the net". If this was the case Wikipedia could just as well close it's doors right now as 90% of all information on WP is from online sources. Oh, and no, this article doesn't break WP:NOT, as it doesn't tell you how to play the game. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your "counter-argumentation" is bust. I'm not advocating deletion "just because" anything. This article is fancruft, un-encyclopedic, a game guide AND it's info can be found in a million other (more appropriate) places to boot. This article does indeed explain, in depth, game-play mechanics and is therefore a game guide. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for every fanboy's favorite game; It's an encyclopeida. Try tripod. NeoFreak 10:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when was something being able to be found elsewhere grounds for deletion from Wikipedia? And could you explain how this article is not encyclopedic? What is un-encyclopedic to you? And how is this article in-depth? It's clearly not. And fancruft is not a good argument in the first place. FrozenPurpleCube 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Is it necessary to have an explanation of each profession and what it can do? No, a paragraph in the main article about them is plenty for an understanding. The rest is just fancruft. -Amarkov blahedits 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think it is desirable to have an explanation of each profession on a single page, with a description of what they can do. This is no different from the classes and races of WoW. FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It was a part of the main article, but if you have even looked at the main article you might have noticed that it's already huge and bloated, and the reason this was moved was for that reason. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Clear game guide Bwithh 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Please, give me an example. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Can't have game guides, horrible precedent to set. Stare decisis can bite you in the ass. ReverendG 06:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep I would love for anyone here to give me an example on what in this article actually reads as a game guide.. It doesn't tell you how to play, only what each profession is. If this is a game guide, then we must AfD almost all game/movie and book related articles on Wikipedia, as they also tell you about their subject matter. A most pointless AfD by a user who started by prodding it, which I removed as someone changed the entire article. And now, he AfDs it. I assume good faith, but I'm concerned about the reasoning from the nominator. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Hey there Havok. I'd just like to clarify that my nomination is indeed in good faith. I'm honestly concerned about how the article sits with WP:NOT#IINFO. I don't feel that the professions in the game are any more notable than, say, the types of armour or the weapon proficiencies. As best I understand it, a game guide covers the mechanics of a game and an encyclopedia covers what makes a game special and noteworthy.
    As for Wikipedia:Game guide, when I read the "...certain attacks by the opponent will trigger a visual cue, a vibration of the controller, and a chime. Attacking at that point causes Link to dodge or parry then counter-attack from the rear" it sounds very much like the kind of content that defines a game guide. Yes, it's written in a much better tone, but the information it carries doesn't seem encyclopedic.
    Clearly though, we disagree on what should be included here and I don't believe that we'll come to quick agreement either way. Still, I wanted to clarify my reasoning for nominating this article. Hopefully we can get some other users to look at this and provide some external perspective. --Brad Beattie (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, I think covering the mechanics of a game is part of what makes a good encyclopedia. For example, you make an article about Super Mario Brothers. It helps to explain how the game is played. Same goes with sports like Football, Baseball and even Chess. Which if you look at them, contain much the same kind of stuff which you object to. FrozenPurpleCube 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - Forked out of the main article to an article for each profession, then was condensed into one page to remove game guide content. The content here is what would be relavent to the main article without getting into too much gamecruft. It seems to me that there is a group of Wikipedians that want almost zero game content on Wikipedia. For someone playing the game this information is next to useless, but someone wondering WoW is, this basic info is useful. As far as OR goes, well about the only reference that could be used is the game itself, or possibly the manual. PPGMD 16:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Too big to be merged into main World of Warcraft article. Doesn't seem "crufty" to me. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to List of character classes. Ben Standeven 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Have you even read or seen the article? This has nothing to do with "character classes".. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ridiculously Strong Keep It's Classes in World of Warcraft again! How is this a game guide? It explains what the professions are, and basic use. If it had a list of what zones had which ores/herbs/etc, then you would have a point. If it gave information on how to complete the specialization quests (IE Tribal/Elemental/Dragonscale leatherworking) then you would have a point. But there is NOBODY bringing up any points other then "no it should be deleted." It's hard to assume good faith with this. Also, WP:CVG states "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable." The content has value for people interested in joining the game, thus it is kosher. -Ryanbomber 13:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC) -Ryanbomber 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Anything that descibes gameplay mechanics is a "how to" and therefore a game guide. NeoFreak 05:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, actually, it's not. Game play mechanics fall under rules, and is a vital part when describing anything remotely interactive. I would like to forward you to these articles; Baseball, Chess, Monopoly, Go, Basketball etc. All these articles describe in detail game play mechanics, rules and even strategies. All of which break what you are citing. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I totally understand where confusion could arise from those examples. In the articles covering sports it is vital to descibe these sport's rules in order to differentuate them from others. They easily fall under WP:IAR and the guildline (and it is just a guildline) of WP:COMMON. You have to have a basic understanding of the rules of these games so you can understand what makes it "football" or "soccer" or "chess". In addition these are famous and influential sports and games, their influence streches back hundreds of years and their impact is incalcuable. The need to descibe the diffrence between the specific rules and game play mechanics of "World of Warcraft" and "Everquest" don't quite equate. Videogames can be given an encyclopedic overview and all cheats, in depth game mechanics, game play points, etc can and should be covered for interested parties with a few simple lines of external links to the sites that are devoted to that: Game Guide sites. NeoFreak 08:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I still fail to see the relevance of what you are saying. Basically what you are saying is "computer and video games are unimportant". At least that's what it looks like. As you brought up chess in your example, I would say it's equally important to describe the rule set of a video game as it is a board game or sport. The only difference between them is that many people don't see computer and video games as a "notable" hobby so to speak. And I would also think WP:IAR applies to CVG just as much as chess and soccer. Oh, and this article doesn't fail WP:NOT in any instance. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment BTW, you say that those games impacts are incalcuable. Well, maybe. Does that mean we can't decide what articles should or should not be kept on them, or that WOW's 7.5 million players don't matter? Isn't that enough of an impact for a few articles? Football has over a dozen just describing gameplay. Chess even has an article on strategies and tactics. Not to mention several spin-offs from there. Why does Wikipedia get to be a gameguide for Chess? (And that's not even bringing up the huge list of chess players.) WoW has less than 50 articles. What is wrong with this one? FrozenPurpleCube 16:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Game play mechanics != instruction manual. Saying something exists in the game is fine. Saying how to do something is not. "Engineers turn ore into explosives" is fine because it explains, in general, what Engineers do. "Goblin Engineers with 235 skill can turn 1 Mithril Casing, 1 Goblin Rocket Fuel, 6 Solid Dynamites, and 1 Unstable Trigger into The Big One" is not because it explains how to accomplish something, namely how to make The Big One. -Ryanbomber 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.--Húsönd 18:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary McKague[edit]

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

    Procedural nomination, it has been deleted through prod but restored, and was listed for speedy as failing to assert importance. I take the view that being a commissioned artist is important enough to beat that criterion, so bring it here to get a community consensus. It was listed as a prod with the reason No assertion of notability, few google hits, no independent sources Hiding Talk 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete Putting "Gary McKague" and "raku" into Google gives only 21 unique hits, mostly Wikipedia mirrors and places selling his pots. If you look at the site for his studio, this article appears to be a copyvio of his bio there - if the article is kept, it should be rewritten. I think this one should go, unless someone finds some decent independent sources. --Brianyoumans 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete Obviously a skilled artist whose work is sold at a number of venues. Could not find independent writeups other than vendors and directories. Edison 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:N per WP:BIO. Seems to be another vanity article with no sources. NeoFreak 20:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not appear to meet the qualifications set out in WP:BIO Deli nk 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Received wisdom[edit]

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

    Looks like a candidate for Wiktionary to me. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ray Addison[edit]

    non notable TV producer; does creating one talk show for a Sky Digital channel really make you notable? Brianyoumans 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Obscure TV producer. Also producing does not necessarily mean that he even created the talk show, but that he was in charge, or partly in charge of overall production of the show Bwithh 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails to assert notability. Demiurge 14:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Priddy[edit]

    Fails WP:RS, WP:BIO. Non-Notable; Self-promotion; Vanity article: Priddy created his own page [73] SSS108 talk-email 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This Robert Priddy should not be confused with several other famous people with the same name, specifically Robert T. Priddy, Robert L. Priddy, Robert F. Priddy, charitable Robert & Ruby Priddy, photographer Robert Priddy or airline founder Robert Priddy. SSS108 talk-email 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notable enough for a stub even if the original author needs to be...dealt with. NeoFreak 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He looks notable enough, and reviewing the history involving the related conflicts, I am having trouble believing that this nomination was made in good faith. WP:POINT. This whole drama shows us all the reason why it's risky to discuss politics or religion.OfficeGirl 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: How exactly are you assessing notability? Most of the books listed on his website are web-books. The other stuff is related to his college work. If I did not feel that there was sufficient reason to vote for deletion, I would not have made the request. The article will never progress beyond a stub because of Priddy's lack of notability, in my opinion. SSS108 talk-email 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Commment: I disagree that this article will always remain a stub. The main reason why Priddy is notable is because he was a staunch follower of Sathya Sai Baba who turned into a staunch critic and prolific writer about the subject. It is possible to digress on his writings critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 10:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Andries, name even one reputable or reliable source that has made reference to Robert Priddy. SSS108 talk-email 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Commment:My supposed lack of notability is of no concern whatever to me, nor that it does not compete with the struggle for notability through Wikipedia of SSS108, who so far has no known publications or qualifications whatever as far as anyone can tell. I never taught at any 'college' but was employed 1969-1972 as a researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Social Research and I taught for 15 years and researched in various disciplines at the University of Oslo (at various Institutes, including under the Advisory Board for Examen Philosophicum] when I left teaching with a university-supported State pension. This is just to put the record straight.ProEdits

    I disagree with Andries rationalization. By Andries reasoning, then all staunch critics of Sai Baba's that became followers would also be very notable. Who are they and where are they mentioned in Wikipedia? This is another of Andries' ploys to push his anti-Sai agenda and nothing more. The MOST notable thing Priddy ever did was get a very well respected book publisher (Samuel Weiser) to publish his pro-Sai Baba book. This is NOT an easy thing to do as these publishers only pick so many books per year and they must believe they will make back their investment by selling millions of books. But Priddy had to go to an unknown independent publisher with an anti-Sai agenda to get his anti-Sai Baba book published because NO reputable publisher would touch it. Freelanceresearch 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Commment:FreeLanceresearch has done no research on this, as I never submitted my Sai-critical book to ANY publisher. I was approached by Indian Skeptic with a request to publish articles I had put on my websites, which was subsequently edited by Premanand and published under the title 'End of the Dream'. So much for FreeLanceResearch's research!ProEdits
    • Keep. His academic publications show him as a scientist if nothing else. Gaurasundara 07:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I see absolutely no information on his bio showing Robert Priddy ever even received a degree? Why? Does he even have a degree, and if so, what is it in? In other words, what are Priddy's actual credentials for being called a scientist?Freelanceresearch 06:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Subject is notable. It is unseemly, to say the least, for followers of a particular guru to nominate the article of the critic of their guru for deletion. — goethean ॐ 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Strange, because no one complained or suspected Andries motives or intentions when he had Kasturi's article deleted. Kasturi is mentioned in numerous books, published books and is far more notable than Priddy. Funny how people see it one way but not the other. SSS108 talk-email 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The article Narayana Kasturi (Sathya Sai Baba's hagiographer) was deleted by somebody else because I filed a copyright complaint which was completely justified. Andries 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: You submitted Kasturi's article for deletion because you said he was "non-notable". The copyright issue was another issue. SSS108 talk-pecial:Emailuser/SSS108|email]] 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Commment No, I did not. Feel free to re-create the article Narayana Kasturi that was deleted only because of a copyright violation. Andries 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you knew anything about me, you would know that I have never defended anything that Andries has done -- quite the opposite. — goethean ॐ 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Published author, several books. I also agree with goethean. M Alan Kazlev 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete a7, grammar school race, author attempted to use own edit to another article as a "source". NawlinWiki 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Big Race[edit]

    The Big Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This looks to me like a very clear cut instance of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, but since the {{prod}} tag was removed, it gets to come to AfD. I say Delete. Hawaiian717 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consensus. —Xyrael / 10:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alert Logic[edit]

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

    This article reads like and advertisement for a non-notable company. It doesn't show that the subject meets our notability guidelines. Unless it is rewritten from a neutral point of view with addition of notbality, it will be deleted as advertising. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sleepyhead 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Should be Speedied This definitely meets the criteria for db-spam. Diez2 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, based on your helpful feedback, I have added citations referring specifically to Alert Logic from three two of the top publications in the high tech world: Computerworld and eWeek. and CSO. From my understanding this meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Is this correct? I have also included attributed information about topics that are highly relevant to a wide audience. The reason I was drawn to post a profile of Alert Logic is because I was researching the topic of Software as a Service and noted that there are 25 profiles of companies in this space with profiles on Wikipedia. I used them as a template for the Alert Logic profile but made an effort to focus on research and information about network security as opposed to product features.
  • Thanks the advice on the notability guidelines. Any further help/advice would be most appreciated. Tallik 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keepI saw Alert Logic mentioned in ref 1 and ref 4. Ref 2 is broken ("Could not find" error message). ref 3 and ref 5 did not mention Alert Logic anywhere I could see. Ref 1, eweek, and Ref 4, Computerworld.com, seem like reasonable mainstream online and online/print, respectively, sources. This is weak support for notability, but probably enough. Edison 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for for the heads-up on the bad link on Ref 2. I'll fix that and work on including other souces that cite Alert Logic specifically. You are correct that the CSO article does not mention Alert Logic. Sorry for the mixup there. Tallik 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are now two three links that mention the company, though the Computerworld.com link isn't a third party/independent source as it just parrots the press release linked to in the article as "said in a statement." Unless a second truly independent link describing the company is given it doesn't meet notability guidelines. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Much work has gone into this article since I {{prod}}ded it.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment below.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Reads like an advert, maybe {{db-spam}} material. Also, sourcing of third-pary coverage is insufficient, per WAvegetarian. Sandstein 07:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Its an ad. ReverendG 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Being quoted by eWeek and Computerworld establishes notability. --Pkchan 07:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to all for the helpful feedback. The Computerworld article is a bylined article based on an interview between the reporter and a company executive. It is not a press release. Computerworld would never, ever go for that. The Computerworld article is based in its entirety on information supplied by Alert Logic to the Computerworld reporter. WAVegitarian did indeed give me the good advice to add some third party citations and that's what I did by adding the eWeek and Computerworld references. I will also link to several other citations as well. Thanks again!
    • I've added an additional citation to an article that was published in the Houston Business Journal about a $5 million round of Series B funding for the company.
    Tallik 14:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The interview seems not to have gone much past the press release that is referred to in the article. A bylined article like this isn't independent. With another truly independent source I would change to a weak keep. The article also needs to be rewritten to be expository rather than persuasive. The current form has a very nice persuasive essay structure of: what the company is and what it provides, why its products are vitally necessary, how the need is growing, specifics about the awesomeness of the product, concluding with a summary of the product and a brief note about further use and need. It is the "you need their services" tone that makes it read like an advetisement, alternating threats with protection services. The most recently added reference lifts a quote directly from a press release without attribution: "make that all-important leap from an early-stage company to being a real player in the IT security market." This is something that houston.bizjournals.com has done with a number of other Alert Logic press releases. Looking back at the eWeek article, it seems to be mostly "company/representative said..." I'm not going so far as to call either one trivial or not independent, but it isn't the strongest coverage I've seen. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made some changes per your recommendations, WAvegitarian. I revised the article in an effort to be expository and non-promotional. I included an additional citation to CRN, a well-known national business publication. To me, the article in the Houston Business Journal is important because of the news that it contains: $5 million from well-known venture capital firms is "notable" news. Thanks again for your help and advice.
    Tallik 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definition of sources per Wikipedia
    I'm struck by the broadness of the definition of sources considered adequate per the Wikipedia guidelines:
    None of the citations for Alert Logic are "self-published." They are all by independent reporters from publications that have good reputations for accuracy and fact-checking. However, Wikipedia says that ....
    Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:
    it is relevant to their notability;
    it is not contentious;
    it is not unduly self-serving;
    it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
    there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
    '    Tallik 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    • The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DIWF[edit]

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

    Vanity Article. not notable. Pvegeta 17:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, but not for vanity. There is no notability and no verification. Diez2 17:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It has had a total of only 300 members. No references for notability are presented. Edison 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article is not asseted to be notable, and is unreferenced. Hello32020 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Edison. Mytildebang 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete this non-notable, fancrufty, vanity article with prejudice. NeoFreak 21:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete per all above, yet another article (or really, spam) about a NN online wrestling site with few members. Tubezone 02:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per precedents on E-Feds --RoninBKETC 10:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete Vanity article. Englishrose 19:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Scissorfight[edit]

    This band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Several albums on obscure labels. 721 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep The article was rated "stub-quality" on the WP rating scale. One question I have, though: Was this article ever tagged for notability or importance prior to the nomination for deletion? If so, for how long? Diez2 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That rating is irrelevant. It was placed by a 'bot as a result of the {{US-punk-band-stub}} being used in the article. Your question isn't really relevant, either. What is relevant is whether the subject of the article satisfies th WP:MUSIC criteria. If you wish to make a proper argument for keeping it, please cite sources showing that this band satisfies one or more of the criteria. Uncle G 17:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It meets WP:BAND, on the criteria of, "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.)" Diez2 17:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Where are the sources? They don't seem to be in the article. ColourBurst 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not enough independent reliable sources presented to demonstrate notability. Sorry to add this to the burden of their album being delayed "due to the hard drive the album was being stored on accidentally being erased." I hate like hell when that happens. Edison 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As per ColourBurst, there are no references to third-party coverage in the article. Sandstein 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Scissorfight in their own genre are as notable as many of the other Indie bands on wikipedia. Xpendersx 17:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The band is not notable enough and there are no sources to cite to counter the argument. I second Sandstein. --Evening Breeze 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Redirect to Phil Foglio. Yomanganitalk 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Studio Foglio[edit]

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

    Has been tagged for importance since May 18. Nothing has been added to this stub since September, and it definitely fails WP:NN and (because of its unedited state), also fails WP:STUB. Diez2 17:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep. The chief merit of this page is to point readers in the direction of Phil Foglio and Kaja Foglio, highly notable individual artists. The studio is apparently their joint business venture, and considered alone, probably does not merit an article on its own. This information could of course be merged into either or both individual articles to get rid of the stub. In that case it should be redirected, which raises the delicate question of where to redirect to. Best to leave this stub as a sort of disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No evidence of notability other than their own website. Edison 20:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Phil's own article. The studio is not notable. (Phil, on the other hand, is a Hugo nominee.)--Orange Mike 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC) correction: Hugo-winner--Orange Mike 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Phil as the far more notable of the two, and as the one whose article isn't a stub. Xtifr tälk 06:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per above. Sandstein 06:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep on the notability of Phil Foglio. TheRealFennShysa 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete FA Premier League curse of Christmas. The second article needs a separate AfD as it is tucked away halfway down the list and can't be expected to have attracted the same amount of interest. If you add another article to an AfD it needs to be almost right away and needs to be prominently mentioned near the original nom. Yomanganitalk 15:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    FA Premier League curse of Christmas[edit]

    stinks of OR Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?) 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Statistical trivia, not encyclopedic. Agent 86 19:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Agent 86 - fchd 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability? Sources? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No assertion of notability. Hello32020 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Apparently the team that is in last place in the Premier League approximately halfway through the season almost always winds up in the bottom three places of the league by the end of the season. I would tend to attribute this to the fact that the team in last place at Christmas must not be playing particularly well, rather than to any kind of curse. --Metropolitan90 20:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh for fu... delete - it is a football cliche quoted from August until December, NOT an encylopaedic article. End of. Bubba hotep 23:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as above Catchpole 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wow this really is a whole new level of stupid. How did this last nearly a year? I like the way this is attributed as a Premier League thing: did this not happen in the old first division? etc. Morwen - Talk 09:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also nominating Premiership-Football League gulf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the same grounds. Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?) 10:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete ridiculousness. ReverendG 06:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete' - totally trivial. Qwghlm 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge; maybe worth a sentence in FA Premier League. The "curse" usually garners a bit of coverage in the sport media every Christmas, so I don't imagine sourcing would be a problem. Hammer Raccoon 17:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fairly neutral on the fate of the first article, leaning delete. The subject crops up each Christmas as Hammer Raccoon points out, and gained a reasonable amount of coverage when West Brom bucked the trend. Mentioned in passing frequently but rarely in any depth e.g. [74] [75] [76] [77]. The perceived gap between the top two divisions gets more coverage, e.g. [78] [79] so Keep Premiership-Football League gulf, though as it stands the article is horrible. (should be a separate AfD IMO, as there were already eight comments before the second article was added to the nomination) Oldelpaso 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete FA Premier League curse of Christmas and Keep Premiership-Football League gulf (or at least nominate it separately). howcheng {chat} 17:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    N33b[edit]

    N33b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Contested prod; no reason was given for the deprod. This isn't sourced, so there's no way to tell how much notability this might have. It's also bordering on a WP:NFT violation (although not strictly made up at school, it still seems to violate the spirit of the rule.) --ais523 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Speedy Delete No notability, no verification, and also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete, Delete, Delete. Diez2 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete undoc dicdef. Edison 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unword doubleplusungood. (Er... "neologism".) — Haeleth Talk 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Newbie, of course... -Amarkov blahedits 21:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and don't redirect. We shouldn't even have redirects for this kind of junk. --- RockMFR 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncreatedoubleplusremove... errr... Delete :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Gamercruft. ReverendG 06:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. Andre (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete w/o redirect (insufficiently notable). Nothing more than a dicdef. Markovich292 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 12:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Action City[edit]

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

    This article was created back in 2005. It was labeled as a stub. However, since then, almost nothing has been added to the article. It was tagged for importance October 19. Since then, only a little wikifying has occured. I move to delete this article. Diez2 17:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Stub + a link to their website= delete. No independent verification of notability. Edison 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No real assertion of notability. It is a not a major theme park, go carts and bumper cars are the best it has to offer. Maybe transwiki to travel? Dimitrii 05:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Real Deal Bripe Klmun[edit]

    Non-notable wrestler, vanity article / possible hoax (only edits are by User:Bripe Klmun) Dsreyn 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete db-bio. --- RockMFR 18:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. —Cryptic 08:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Colemak[edit]

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

    This is an article on a keyboard layout first released this year. I have doubts as to its notability. Wikipedia doesn't have any guidelines on notability for keyboard layouts, but if the other articles in Category:Keyboard layouts are taken as representative of notable layouts, then Colemak is clearly the odd one out. I'm not aware of any published studies on the Colemak layout in the ergonomics and HCI literature; the author's own web page seems to be the only significant source of information on it. Psychonaut 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. This keyboard layout is less than a year old, and has not had sufficient time to have been the subject of studies or serious reviews. If it takes the world by storm (which, unfortunately, is not likely to happen), the article can always be recreated. Denni talk 21:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as per previous posters. I originally created the article earlier, around when it was first released. It made a slashdot mention, so I decided why not. It certainly hasn't become what the author hoped. --Snaxe920 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Already there are 60 000+ hits on Google for Colemak. The fact that it is a fairly new product does not detract from the usefulness of the information about the product. Or: how about merging this article's content into a subsection of the wiki article Keyboard_layout?leuce 18:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete - notability not established. Yomanganitalk 18:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Space Tree[edit]

    Non-notable flash animation, fails WP:WEB. This was speedied through AfD just a few days ago, but for some inane reason it is somehow not speedy material now. --- RockMFR 18:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous nomination (result was speedy delete): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Tree
    • Keep, but stub This article was only created yesterday. It has passed the db-web test and db-repost test (both removed by admin), and does meet WP:STUB. Diez2 18:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This article should be speedy deleted, it still shows no notability. --Simonkoldyk 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If Bonus Stage doesn't have enough notability for Wikipedia, then Space Tree DEFINITELY doesn't. --FireV 00:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete again, no claim to notability. Sandstein 06:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Talk:Space Tree has raised the issue of the article being speedied before only because someone inserted tons of copyvio from somewhere. I think it might have some merit since the article had existed since February 2005 and no concerns were raised that whole time. This needs to be investigated further IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps an admin can look into prior versions and reveal any references that may be available? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I restored the entire history so folks can look for a good revision in there. I'll admit I haven't looked through it all - I just though the whole situation looked a little odd. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll admit I may have jumped the gun with my deletions with regards to this before now, but I still think it should be deleted as being just another non-notable web cartoon. --humblefool® 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Just wanted it to have a fair chance. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think this article should be kept, as a stub or full article, not sure. It has some note being a keentoon and having a large fan base. 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC) — Blkgor16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete No references to notabilty, lots of time to provide them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It IS a notable flash toon in itself, as it's sponsored by keentoons, of which there are only 5. and as of now, Space Tree is the only cartoon on Keentoons still adding new material, while the 4 other toons are either shut down or haven't updated in a long time. --Joe Somebody 01:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC) — Joe Somebody (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Eyebeam Atelier[edit]

    The result was Keep. Agent 86 19:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fails WP:N, is basically an ad. Was deleted via {{prod}} and then recreated almost word-for-word by the original article creator, so I'm bringing it here. Aaron 18:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neutral This does somewhat sound like an advertisement, but it does have a claim to notability through all the resident artists that it has. Diez2 18:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Whether or not the text reads like an ad, this place is of major importance in the digital arts scene. How about changing the text instead of deleting the entry? I created this entry originally because there are very few places in the United States that host and promote interactive media arts. Eyebeam is one of the most notable institutions in that regard. Do some work and make the entry better, please, instead of removing it all-together. -JustinHall 20:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    okay I put in some time on this page, two article citations, a category, other similar institutions, redacted non-necessary info. Now I think it's even more Wikipedia worthy! -JustinHall 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep But it needs a ton of work. Eyebeam is notable as being one of the few U.S. based institutions dedicated to New media art/Computer art, two categories that need to be expanded anyway. However, as written, it cites no references for its notability and the history section is not neutral. It will need an extensive rewrite and citations. DISCLOSURE: I currently do work with Eyebeam. --Yatta 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Deleted by Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

    Parry Pasricha[edit]

    Contested prod. No relevant Google hits; does not appear to be notable. Geoffrey Spear 19:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Speedy tag was added as I was nominating for AfD. As this was a previously-contested prod, and there seems to be some sort of claim of notability (even if it's not plausible), I think AfD is probably the correct venue for this. Geoffrey Spear 19:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as above. Article creator User:RBath's pattern of edits seems to show a desire to associate people with the homosexual agenda, possibly out of whole cloth. Mytildebang 19:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no verified existance. Punkmorten 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Please avoid personal attacks and comment on the content of the article, not the inferred motivations of the editors, per WP:NPA. Thanks. Edison 20:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Albany Middle School[edit]

    Albany Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article has no claim to notability, and it fails WP:SCHOOL. It was tagged for importance on September 18. Diez2 19:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Directory information only; no stand-out features or claims to fame that show how this differs from any of millions of other middle schools. Claims school is "known for strong academics, including a rigorous physical education program" -- but needless to say there is no citation to back this up, and even if it were true, it only narrows the field down from millions of other schools to hundreds of thousands. — Haeleth Talk 20:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. My kid went there and its a superb school, but not worthy of encyclopedia article. I've added the elementary schools, also. KP Botany 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Primary/middle school with no claim of notability. --- RockMFR 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong redirect to Albany Unified School District. The school has no notability on its own (I could easily go with "delete per Haeleth"), but its school district has an article, so there's no reason not to simply create a redirect (which, as they say, are cheap). -- Kicking222 21:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn school. Eusebeus 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete. Spam is spam, regardless of the emotion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The White Rose Society (student group)[edit]

    The White Rose Society (student group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    non-notable student group --Swpb talk contribs 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete. CSD A7 - group with no assertion of notability. The majority of the article is also a copyvio from the group's website. — Haeleth Talk 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per Haeleth. NeoFreak 21:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoever advocates deletion please contact [email protected] Calling The White Rose Society a non-notable student group is arguably calling its namesake, The White Rose, a non-notable student group. The White Rose Society is a national student organization started at the University of Texas in Austin (UT). It was named the Best Political Organization at UT in 2006 and won the Hillel Foundation's William Haber Award for Excellence. Over 300 members are reported as members. The White Rose Society is the Save Darfur Coalition of Austin, a chapter of Challah for Hunger, a chapter of Students Taking Action Now Darfur, and now a partner of the Sudan Divestment Task Force. The White Rose Society is the leader in the Sudan Divestment Task Force of Texas campaigning the State of Texas to remove investments from companies supporting the government of Sudan. If you think that the HOLOCAUST and GENOCIDE IN DARFUR are not notable then feel free to delete this wikipedia page. Frakk

    Comment This group does not in any way gain notability simply by associating itself with a notable event, or by naming itself after a notable group. According to the proposed policy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources." If you have verifiable information that shows how this group meets notability guidelines, please add it to the article. —Swpb talk contribs 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. CSD G11 is more appropriate (and is so tagged). It is pure pork for a non-notable student group per WP:ORG or WP:CORP. False logic about references to the organisation's remembrance of the holocaust. My support of remembrance of the 911 attacks regrettably does not make me notable. The same is true of white rose. Ohconfucius 05:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Garfield The Third (game)[edit]

    Garfield The Third (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Listing the above article and Garfield: Movin' On Up for deletion per WP:CRYSTAL and possibly WP:HOAX. These are unverifiable future computer game releases. Google returns no hits for either title: "Garfield: Movin' On Up", "Garfield The Third (game)". --Muchness 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Both are just hoaxes and have not been announced. TJ Spyke 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Simply wishful thinking at this point. Tubezone 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete speculation. ReverendG 06:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per hoax. --Wizardman 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Adrienne LaFrance[edit]

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

    Fails WP:BIO. This is about an author of journalism who hasn't received any rewards and has not been the subject of any press. Diez2 19:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge with WBUR and/or relavent publication articles and lose the links. Not yet notable enough for her own article. NeoFreak 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Valrith 21:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect, fails WP:BIO. Sandstein 06:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No evidence presented that she meets WP:BIO. Don't even see enough to justify a redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Quite few articles by her, but none appear to be about her. AFAICT, she is a reporter and not an opinion-former. SO she appears to fail WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 05:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with WBUR and any of the topics of her articles that could use the links. I agree that she's not yet notable enough for her own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.239.132.90 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 12:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Abigail Williams (band)[edit]

    Abigail Williams (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Fails WP:BAND. Has never released an album, and most of the members are in red links. Diez2 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Article fails WP:BAND, not article-worthy. Hello32020 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and Hello32020. Yet another death metal vanity page. NeoFreak 21:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Band has released material. Band created a genre. 21.07, 18 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarrionBirds (talk • contribs) 21:09, November 18, 2006.
    • Delete and also delete Legend E.P., as neither have enough notability to justify articles. -- Kicking222 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and also Keep Legend E.P., there is enough notability to justify keeping. Band has worked with influential musicians. Bands has other records planned for future release. 10.30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarrionBirds (talk • contribs) 11:29, November 19, 2006.
    • Keep Band has toured with notable UK artists and gained much recognition in the UK. -- CarrionBirds 11.32, 19 November 2006. (UTC)
    • Comment How many times are you planning on voting? NeoFreak 14:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As many times as it takes. There's no real reason for deletion. CarrionBirds 16.55, 20 Novermber 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How so? There's a band called Mork Gryning that's not even around anymore. But i don't see you getting an erection over trying to delete it :p CarrionBirds 21.27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Abolhassan Diba[edit]

    Fails WP:BIO. He did "ministerial posts"? Incredibly vague, and should be deleted. Diez2 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Article fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. In desperate need of sources and a rewrite but he meets stub-level notability as a member of the Persian goverment. NeoFreak 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as unsourced (WP:RS), plus we don't know if a "ministerial post" is really a notable high-level government position. Sandstein 06:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. —Xyrael / 10:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Diegueño Middle School[edit]

    Diegueño Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I nominated the page for deletion because of the lack of references. It is likely that this school misses the criteria for notability if there is nothing independently written and published about it. Itsmejudith 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's now listed.--Rmky87 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable primary/middle school. --- RockMFR 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nothing notable in article & I can't find anything notable to add from Google Search -- Windymilla 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Switching to keep having seen latest version of article with references, etc. -- Windymilla 16:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - this what these characters who keep nominating schools should be doing - rewriting or merging thoughtfully rather than forcing us to keep having to keep turning up to vote Albatross2147 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep The school has been recognized twice by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the highest award granted to any school by the United States Department of Education, and one of the strongest claims of notability that an American school can make. The school is also a two-time winner of the California Distinguished School award, the state's highest honor. As such, the school meets and exceeds the retention criteria set by WP:SCHOOL. Failure to find additional information in searches may be the result of the presence of a diacritical mark over the "n" in the school's name. Alansohn 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep article has references and the school has won major awards. It is thus likely that the nominator needs to reconsider this nomination. --JJay 13:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
    • Keep The article needs expanded, but there is more than enough here to identify some degree of notability. Trusilver 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commnet Do you have a reason for finding it notable? Note that exclamation points don't make it more notable. JoshuaZ 04:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. The "Blue Ribbon Schools Program" defense is no defense, see other AfDs. wikipediatrix 02:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you mean that there is a precedent that other deletionists have trivialized the award, you're unfortunately correct. If you're citing precedent to justify deletion, I don't think you can find a single school in which recognition as a Blue Ribbon Schools Program has been cited in both the article and in the AfD, has ever been deleted. The "Blue Ribbon Schools Program" defense seems to have a perfect track record. That this school has been recognized twice by the highest honor in the country only makes your failure to follow precedent more disturbing. Alansohn 03:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I keep bouncing back and forth about the Blue Ribbons. On the one hand they are the highest generic award given to schools. On the other hand, it is a generic award and almost by definition if it doesn't receive any coverage the award shouldn't mean much. On the other hand, if a school is a blue ribbon school such coverage almost certainly does exist if we searched hard enough and the school likely has other notable achievements so we may see that as a reason for temporary reprieves until more investigation can be done. JoshuaZ 04:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep for now per my above Tevye impression. The Blue Ribbon school thing is a claim of notability and I'd rather err somewhat on the side of caution. JoshuaZ 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete more regrettable schoolcruft. Eusebeus 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Multiple major awards demonstrate notability, such as the Blue Ribbon Award (the highest honor that an American school can achieve) and as a repeat California Distinguished School recipient. Yamaguchi先生 03:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Blue Ribbon is the "highest honor" that an apple pie can receive at the county fair, too, but so what? As already deconstructed on other AfDs, the schools nominate themselves for the award. Thousands of schools get them. It's not an especially compelling demonstration of notability. wikipediatrix 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a much different Blue Ribbon award, please do not be so disingenuous. Yamaguchi先生 03:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I know it's a different Blue Ribbon. The point is that the relative value of awards are subjective and that there is no evidence that the Blue Ribbon Schools Program bestows Wikipedia notability on the recipient of said award. (Did you know that not all winners of Oscars, Emmys, and Tonys qualify for their own articles?) wikipediatrix 04:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to run off-topic, but you have aroused my interest: which Academy Award winners are you referring to? You can comment on my user page if you prefer. Yamaguchi先生 04:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Yama the hammer of the skewl deletionists Albatross2147 23:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. —Xyrael / 10:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    U.S. presidential election, 2008 timeline[edit]

    U.S. presidential election, 2008 timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Article has no standards, and it will quickly become unduly cumbersome as the election draws near. Important information largely duplicates U.S. presidential election, 2008; unimportant information need not be included. Zz414 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    The Election page won't be that long, because it will be limited to important events. Candidates' pages will describe what they did; Primary pages will discuss how the primaries shook out. This article is filled with unimportant information, without a standard of what's relevant, and it's already surprisingly long for a race that's barely begun. Zz414 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep It will become necessary to have a list of dates and chronological order of events leading up to the 2008 election, which is not found (or at least easily) in the main article. There is a timetable for 2004, and while some things should not be included that currently are, that is not a reason for deletion.--Folksong 10:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Folksong. --DixiePixie 09:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete vanity spam. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Trafalgar 200 Through the Lens Queen Elizabeth II 80th Birthday Edition[edit]

    Trafalgar 200 Through the Lens Queen Elizabeth II 80th Birthday Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Non-notable, self-published book Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Withdrawn at no consensus. - Francis Tyers · 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ottoman Muslim casualties[edit]

    Ottoman Muslim casualties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. It is important that everyone be civil, especially in heated debate.

    While there were indeed Ottoman Muslim casualties during World War I, I don't think that it would warrant an entire article as if to imply that it was a massacre or genocide. The claim or implication that something such as this happened was created by the government of Turkey as a propaganda tool to promote denial of the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish government is attempting to paint a "new version" of history in which the Turk is the victim of the Armenian (even though Armenians were considered to be a minority in the Ottoman Empire and that they were not in control of the Ottoman government or military at the time). Also note that all of the article's information comes exclusively from Turkish sources. -- Clevelander 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have decided to withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article. -- Clevelander 15:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article is POV and poorly written but these two things alone do not qualify it for deletion. I would recommend a merge to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I but I'm not sure that its info is tranferable without better citations and sources. NeoFreak 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The ottoman statistics was based on Millet (Ottoman Empire)s. Muslims were a millet, like Armenian Millet, Greek millet. The Ottoman Empire statistics were based on its view and hardly a propaganda tool. NeoFreak should not be Freaked out as this was how things were. --OttomanReference 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Completely ignoring your POV concerns, still, why are Ottoman Muslim casualties in World War I notable enough for their own article? -Amarkov blahedits 21:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't they be notable? Is the life of a Turk worth less than of another nationality? Hey! I saw that "oh, yes!" smirk in some people's faces :))))) Baristarim 01:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when are the deaths of Turks and Kurds not notable?? Just because they were Muslim.. Please.. Baristarim 11:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Justin McCarthy is anything but a neutral or credible source. He has long been associated with the government of Turkey and has aided the country in its campaign to deny the Armenian Genocide. Documents recently released even point to this. -- Clevelander 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be, but not neccessarily since many Ottoman Muslims also died during the First WW. Look man, these will be talked about sooner or later, all the nations of Eastern Medi have this victimization sentiment, but none of them are clean either. Some might be dirtier than the rest, but if someone can come up to me and tell me with a straight face (or hand :)) that no Turk was every killed by an Armenian or a Greek, they should go back to the primary school. So let's just work to make the article NPOV and sourced. That's all. Baristarim 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not denying that there were Greeks or Armenians who killed Turks, but all I'm saying is that creation of an article such as this seems to imply that there was some sort of great massacre or genocide against the Turks when there clearly wasn't. Again, this whole idea was the concept of the Turkish government in order to prevent recognition of the Armenian Genocide. -- Clevelander 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look.. I know people in the city I am living in France whose grandparents in Kars told them how Armenian gangs killed Turks in their villages. My family is from Istanbul, so I cannot confirm or deny, but brushing aside their stories as fables of the Turkish government is neither fair nor balanced. There is no implication from the title that they were massacres or genocides, where did that come from? It is clearly titled "Ottoman Muslim casualties", hell, they could even be wartime casualties. It is not titled "Turkish genocide by Armenians". There have been Ottoman Muslim casualties, and Wiki doesn't have a policy against the exploration of such a subject, even though it might put some people at unease. You know, maybe some people should get used to the idea that Turks and Kurds were also killed during the First World War. They were not "untouchables" :)) So the best way forward is not the deletion of the article, but efforts to keep it NPOV and scientific. Baristarim 11:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The information is very vital to understand of the situation during World War One. Elimination of this article will be a POV activity, where other millets have their own articles.--OttomanReference 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I will disagree with Clevelander in the sense that, the question of if there were Ottoman Muslim deaths is not relevant to the Armenian Genocide. The existence or non-existence of Armenian Genocide have nothing do with this, since Ottoman Muslims could have died any Armenian casualties not withstanding. Look, I don't want to offense anyone but, the better course would be to check the article for POV and source it rather than delete it. In any case, it is common knowledge that many Ottoman Muslims also died, what is wrong with exploring that? We should be inclusive and not exclusive. That's all I am saying. You have an extremely inflammatory tone, exploration of the issue of Ottoman Muslim casualties has nothing to do with denial or "Turkish excuses". Please refrain from such blanket accusations, neither of us were alive back then, so let's just chill and relax. I had read a very interesting exchange between you and marshallbagramyan about how you would like to convert people in Eastern Turkey back to Christianity by Armenian missionaries and not American ones since they don't seem to work and what pieces of Turkish land you would like to have the most, a conversation that I had found extremely racist, nationalist, ignorant, orientalist, living-in-the-past and unhelpful. So I would really appreaciate it if some people would show a real constructive approach to matters at hand. People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. So the article should stay, and if people here, especially Armenians and Turks, are interested even a bit in any sort of reconciliation, they should work together with a constructive approach since it is also common knowledge that many Ottoman Muslims died in Eastern Turkey during First World War. I hope that nobody is "denying" those either. Right? Baristarim 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm perfectly calm, my friend. It is you who seems to be the one who needs to "chill and relax" (and why are you parousing my talk page archives to dig up dirt on me in order to detract from the issue?). Again, I don't deny that there were Ottoman Muslim casualties, but I don't think that it would warrant an entire article as if to imply that it was a massacre or genocide. -- Clevelander 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't perusing since I didn't give a precise link. I just remember seeing it more than a month ago and I had only seen it because I was leaving a message to marshall. I was not stalking :)) I have some friends over so, I will reply later, but just think how you would have felt if I was talking with an other Turkish editor how best to convert Armenians to Islam or to atheism or etc and if Turkish or American missionaries were the best for the job, see what I mean? Cheers! Baristarim 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And how do you know that there weren't any massacres? I don't understand why you are taking such an offence at this. I know people from Kars, Turks, who tell me that their grandparents saw Turks getting killed by Armenian gangs. But my family has been living in Istanbul for generations, so I am not in a position to pass a judgement on that one, but I wouldn't dare call their grandparents liars just because I feel like it. AND if you cannot admit the fact that conversing with someone about how best to convert people in Turkey to Christianity is racist and orientalist, don't expect others to assume good faith. Not even Grey Wolves have conversations on how to best convert Armenians, so I find it appaling that you and Marshall were able to talk in such a nationalist, racist and condescending way about people that you don't even know about and passing judgements about how to "show them the light". If you cannot tell all the other contributors here that that conversation was wrong by nature, than I will bring it up all the time, and I will assume that this is a bad faith nomination. As simple as that. Baristarim 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. But do you even know which minority we were discussing? The Hamshenis - Black Sea Christian Armenians who were forced to accept Islam (or to "show them the light" as you would say) under the Ottoman Empire. Like it or not, they exist and they're still there. The concept of re-Christianization is not a new thing, my friend. It's occuring in Georgia with the Muslim Georgians of Adjara (who too who forced to convert under the Ottomans). Please don't act as if you're appalled or as if you have a reason to be appalled. My great-grandfather was in the Armenian Genocide, so please, spare me. By the way, nice try on steering this discussion off-course. -- Clevelander 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So that gives you the right to propose that people you don't even know about should be converted to a particular religion?? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind my friend, just because your great-grandfather was in the genocide, that doesn't give you the right to treat people you have not even met with such a condescending attitude today. So please spare me this condescending and racist attitude by which you even dare to propose that you can even propose that a group of people should be "re-converted" to any religion.Baristarim 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably know more about the Hamshenis and their origins than you do. I have never treated anyone condescendingly nor have I ever expressed any sort of racist sentiment (the way you use the term racist it almost sounds as though you don't even know what it means). Never call me a racist. I hate racism. It was racism that a few months back, triggered neo-Nazis in Russia to launch attacks on innocent Armenian civilians. -- Clevelander 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not steering the discussion off-course, since I have replied as to why this article can be useful.
    You have attempted to steer it off-course by bringing in personal Wikipedia talk page discussions that hold little relevance to the topic just to make me look bad. -- Clevelander 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is also important that people who come here to voice their opinions know that this nomination was made by someone who would dare to suggest that a particular group of people should be converted to a religion just because it is better.
    If the Hamsheni Armenians were Christians once, then what's the harm of bringing them back into the Apostolic Church?
    It is one thing to scientifically criticize religion, but it is one thing to just assume that followers of other faiths are inferior just for no reason like some sort of Nazi assuming that people who are not Aryans are inferior to Aryans. Baristarim 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa. I did not accuse any group of being inferior because they followed a certain relion. I have at least ten friends who are Arabs and devout Muslims as well as friends who are Jewish. In fact, I'm really close to most of them and I accept their beliefs and even have learned about them. Its interesting you bring up the Nazis in this and their pure-Aryan ideology. The Grey Wolves preach the same thing - of a purely Turkic Turkey. No Kurds, no Armenians, no Greeks, no Jews, no Zazas, no Laz, no Georgians, no Assyrians, no Arabs, no Bulgarians, no Serbs. Just Turks. Phase one of the "great plan" has already been executed. The near-annhilation of the Armenian race (what was termed in the Ottoman Empire as the "Armenian Question" - sort of like the "Jewish Question," eh, Baristarim?). You say its a crime for Armenians to re-Christianize fellow Armenians from Islam, but yet your government puts pressure on Christians to convert to Islam (AND to adopt the Turkish language) all the time. -- Clevelander 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick reply: Anyone forcing anybody else to accept a religion is wrong. And if you have any evidence that the Turkish government is forcing people to accept Islam, please take it to the appropriate page. But also keep in mind that more churches have been built in Turkey in the last ten years that mosques in Armenia since 1920. In my native district in Istanbul, a protestant church just opened up a few months ago. So, in today's Turkey, nobody is forcing anyone to accept a religion, that's all I am saying. Baristarim 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Going from your example, just to clear something up about Turkey being the big daddy of nationalism and putting through the sword all non-Turks (!), please have a look at this report by a Kurd that has fled Armenia because of racism and the acts of nationalistic and racist gangs, supported by the government, whose missions was to create an Armenia for Armenians and who killed and pillaged non-Armenians to achieve that as recently as ten years ago [80]. So, there is enough mud to go around. Please let's not have this attitude that Armenia (or any country) is at the helm of some coalition of the "just and righteous". In the light of this article, I think that we can assume that there is a good probability that this article can explore many serious and academic issues of Ottoman Muslim (Kurdish and Turkish) casualties. A much more constructive approach would be to work together to make this article NPOV, instead of simply deleting it. Baristarim 07:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Clearly a POVfork. Hectorian 02:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it a POV fork? I am telling u again, I am not at all knowledgable about the subject, but it is common knowledge that many Ottoman Muslims died, and I don't understand why the exploration of that area of history is so offensive to some people. Baristarim 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not really notable during WW1. Fedayee 02:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are they not "notable"? Just because they were Turks? All I am saying is let's just keep the article, and try to make it NPOV. Baristarim 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Do you have the same position (Merging) regarding Ottoman Armenian casualties, as you did not ask to improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanReference (talk • contribs)
    Mmm, that article seems to run up to 1923, though, which is well past the end of the war. I certainly think at least part of the material there could be moved to World War I casualties—which isn't nearly large enough that it needs to be split up—but I don't really know enough about the topic to come up with a good way of dividing the material cleanly among WWI and post-WWI articles. Kirill Lokshin 04:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will military history take on this issue? If wikipedia leaves this issue hanging out, it will look like promoting Armenian Genocide. There would not be balance (neutrality), as one millet have its page, but the other do not. Maybe an article improvement drive for the WWI casualties? Bring all casualties into single page and see what can be done for the neutrality. Current situation is not good. Favors one side, as can be seen how protectorate that side is. Hope someone like you will take this issue on his/her shoulder! :-))) --OttomanReference 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per clevelander Chaldean 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per baristarim Metb82 06:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - A POVfork to justify the Armenian genocide. --Mardavich 07:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you denying that Ottoman Muslims also died during the First World War? Or do they not count or are they not "notable" "enough", as has been suggested, because they were Muslims? There is a clear scent of systemic bias here. This question has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide. Death of Ottoman Muslims (Kurdish and Turkish) during WWI is a reality, and there is nothing in Wiki policies that state why this subject should not be talked about, even if it might not please some. Wikipedia has to be inclusive, not exclusive.. Baristarim 08:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per OttomanReference. The connection between the two is imaginary. BTW, I have to add that I don't understand how and when casualties are distinguished as "notable". Okan 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - could you explain why you want to keep it? -- Clevelander 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, do you mean that Ottoman Muslims in the WW1 are equivalents of the Nazis of WW2? Is it the case? What a perfect evaluation of the history, terribly fascinating and marvellous indeed! Okan 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ???? How dare you even compare the Turkish and Kurdish civilians that died during the First World War to Nazi soldiers??? The level of hate and racism is simply astounding. i know in the very city I am living in France whose grandparents told them how Armenian gangs killed Turkish civilians in their villages in Kars, even though I am not in a position to deny or confirm those stories, I wouldn't even dare compare them to Nazi soldiers. Isn't it clearly racist to equate "Ottoman Muslims" to "Nazi Germans" as you just did??? Where does this hate come from? The title of the article is clear: Ottoman Muslim casualties. We all know the definition of the words Ottoman, Muslim and casuality. This is a very valid topic even though, as witnessed by certain condescending comparisons taking place, it puts some people at unease. If there are POV issues, they can be addressed, but the idea underlying the article is completely valid and, yes, Ottoman Muslim deaths are notable as well, even though some people do not consider them to be so. Baristarim 11:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I hope that independent and impartial editors who come here to vote peruse the above discussions and take note of some extremely racist, orientalist and condescending statements that have been made. Baristarim 11:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepIt's poor article but usefull. There'a nothing discuss about the historical point of view or Wiki criteria. --Macukali 12:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As an attempt to cut through some of the vitriol on both sides, may I ask those arguing for the article to be kept to explain why an article on the number of casualties of the First World War on a particular side (and bear in mind that the article title doesn't exactly say that), as against inserting a paragraph on this same fact into a broader article on the War itself is a good idea? That Ottoman Muslims died is hardly in question, but surely it would be more useful to add this to an article on the war in which they died. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because casualties in WWI is a global article, its incompleteness would not stop the development of its sub-articles. Because that article covers German, Arab, Greek, Spanish etc. casualties, and as such there should be one or two sentences introducing the Ottoman Muslim casualties in that article and, hop, it should give a "see also" to this article (along with other casualties to their respective articles). That's all.. The incompleteness of the main shouldn't lead to the deletion of its subs. Baristarim 12:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can kind of see where you're coming from here, but surely the table in the main article (and the addition of a footnote or a section explaining it all) is a better way to run things right now? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it depends on the amount of information that can be brought to the sub article. I have not written the article myself, so I cannot be an authoritative source on the (eventual) scope of this article. I also see your point, but, even in its current state, the idea of removing an article that talks about real-world Muslim casualties of the Ottoman Empire whereas much shorter articles about fictional Pokemon or Star Wars characters or planets can stay seems simply not right to me. That's all I am trying to say at the end of the day.. Baristarim 12:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Clevelander.--Euthymios 13:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For what reasons precisely? Are you saying that Ottoman Muslim casualties not "notable enough"? Instead of deleting, why not try to make this article NPOV? For God's sake, there are even shorter articles about Pokemon characters and you want to delete a page about real-life deaths? How racist is that? Are you aware that, at the moment of closure, the number of simple votes don't matter, but it's the arguments that count? Baristarim 13:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamla Bhatt[edit]

    • Delete - This biography article is unsubstantiated. Ed.del.bs 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    Closing admin should note, this account has has 13 edits, all of them votes for the deletions. -- Ganeshk (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article may be slightly overblown, but seems to check out. She works for award-winning and notable publications. Global Voices seems very legit, and she's a major contributor. Are any Indian bloggers going to survive the night un-nominated for deletion? Darkspots 23:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Darkspots 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Darkspots  Doctor Bruno  23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. Ed.del.bs is a single-purpose account. utcursch | talk 06:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Overblown is a milder description! Looks like all these madarasis are having their pals working on their behalf, to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Ed.del.bs 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm not anybody's pal, and I don't know bubkes about Indian bloggers. What caught my eye is that you listed three related articles on AfD without properly tagging the articles in question with the afd1 template, which in good faith I assume that you failed to do because you're a new user, not because you wanted to delete articles without letting the editors that work on them know about the deletion discussion. But it had the effect of not letting those editors contribute, so I tagged the articles and took the additional step of publicizing the discussions. Finding enough notability to realize that your assertions about these articles are biased and unfair was only a couple minutes' worth of research. Darkspots 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking duplicate vote. -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - per ed. Please refrain from racist rants, its not "madrasi" its "Tamil"Bakaman Bakatalk 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Baka, I think you meant speedy keep per utcursch. Ed is the one nominating. :) -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - I was kidding about that, in the mold of Darkspot above.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly see my comments: [81] --Bhadani 05:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Darkspots above. Article could do with some cleanup, but is certainly not a candidate for deletion - subject is well known and notable. AfD is not a substitute for editing. Achitnis 17:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Achitnis is right. --Bhadani 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was DELETE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stan Obal[edit]

    • DeleteThis is not a fucking joke.....this is my private life and please take it down. Im NOT HAPPY about this!!!!!!! Stan— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.71 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 November 2006
    When writing biographies about people on Wikipedia, the approval of the person being written about is not necessary. Also, please try to be civil in your comments on Wikipedia in the futureVeinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Notable. Keep. Unixham 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)— Unixham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Do Not Delete Stan Obal is known internationally for his contributions to the scooter community. There are thousands of people who consider him not only notable but also magnificent.71.56.102.255 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Christina Sacco — 71.56.102.255 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Do Not Delete Notable per WP:BIO. Apparently important both in the vintage scooter community and in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He has had numerous awards named for him at various scooter rallies. Lack of ghits does not make someone un-notable. Qmax 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete - Of course if you live in your mom's basement, and never leave the house, like Hatch68, NeoChaosX, and Veinor, then you've never met Stan. But I fully expect this to be deleted because anytime someone tries to post useful information about scooters or the scooter scene on Wikipedia or Wiktionary the post always gets deleted or reverted by some moron with no actual knowledge on the subject. scooteristi 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personal attacks like that are not necessary. I have no bias here, but simply feel that this person does not merit an entry. You can have as many people come here and make statements as you'd like, but no one has provided firm references and even people coming here to inveigh against deletion are making nonsensical entries to the article like "Stan has big hands." I'm convinced now that there is a certain amount of "sock puppetry" occuring on this discussion page as well.--Hatch68 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree; there's either some sock puppets or meat puppets here. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete - Being involved in the scootering scene for several years and I believe that the scootering community is large enough to support this entry. Once this entry is embraced an abundance of information will be posted. Long live Stan Obal on Wikipedia. (these comments added by Zemzem) — Zemzem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete Fails the notable person test.--Hatch68 21:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be noted here that User:Hillcityjosh is a member of the club mentioned in the Stan Obal article according to this web site so his comments on this page are not neutral.--Hatch68 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete. He is well known and an icon for the entire US east coast scooter community and not Chattanooga only. Trophyes for scooter events of significant size have been named after him. Scooterist community is large and will support him. LP, B'ham, AL — 206.17.145.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete The assertions of notability in terms of scootering are insufficient, and his bands were wholly non-notable. "Stan Obal" gets only 43 unique Google hits, and "Stanley Obal" gets just 25. -- Kicking222 22:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. And "I will establish notability later" is not a reason to keep. You have to do it immediately. -Amarkov blahedits 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Amarkov and Kicking222. The vintage scooter community and Chattanooga aren't large enough to establish actual notability. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do deleteAdasarathy 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as this person fails the WP:BIO test of notability. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 01:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, skoot. Ohconfucius 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete Who are you to say that his bands were non-notable? Timescape Zero was very influential to early 90's Miami-style Hardcore. How many unique google hits does the average person get? That is not a valid argument. The scootering community is quite large. 152.163.100.71
    • Do Not Delete - I think that like many things, scooterists are not particularily involved in posting their victories on the internet. I think that if someone like Archimedes Plutonium deserves a wikipedia page that someone who has actually accomplished something in terms of his musical and driving career deserves an entry. User:Jojo-themonkey --Jojo-themonkey 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) — Jojo-themonkey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • "If article X them article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Your only arguments are sources, sources, sources. Please cite some. Without them, you have effectively made no argument at all. Uncle G 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A number of sources have been cited, including the Scooter Cannonball Run. The issue seems to be whether they provide sufficient evidence of Stan Obal's notability to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Qmax
    • Delete. This one is ultraeasy. 43 Ghits does not a notable person make. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all the above. --TheOtherBob 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Delete I'm wondering what is notable in the current scooter scene. If anyone is listed this guy should be! Syncop8 — Syncop8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • So far, none of the editors claiming that this person has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" have actually cited any such historical records. If you wish to demonstrate that this person satisfies the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, you must cite where this person has been documented in the history of xyr field. Arguments that are not consistent with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, such as "Scooterist community is large and will support him.", do not count. And claiming that this person is part of an enduring historical record and then being unable to point to that record will wholly undermine your argument. Please cite sources. Uncle G 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Winning the Scooter Cannonball race makes it a closer question. However, to pass the bio test for widely recognized contribution in a specific field, there must still be some independent media coverage. All I could find were blogs, clubs and a mention by an advertiser. -Kubigula (ave) 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - pease delete this. stan is a big jerk and i am more popular than him, even if he has big hands and a huge shlong. no, of course i'm not drunk. he is a mean, mean person - i once saw him spit on a jew and kick a retarded kid in his netherregions, just because he had large, deformed ears. i humbly toss my vote into the hat of DELETE!!!!!!!!!! mean, mean man- please! Rob Downs (ave) 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)— robdowns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • DELETE - I am the original author of this page and request it be deleted. Hillcityjosh 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So? You only get to do that if it was mistakenly created, or is in your userspace. And if you're the only contributor. None of those are satisfied. -Amarkov blahedits 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, he is notable.Delete, I mistook irrelevant things for references. Ignore sockpuppets, please. -Amarkov blahedits 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're changing your vote? No reliable sources have been given to meet WP:Bio and most of the sockpuppets have weighed in to keep the article, not delete it.--Hatch68 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changing my vote? What? Also, I don't really care what side socks weigh in on, they should still be ignored. -Amarkov blahedits 22:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and salt, consider action against disruptive SPA's as well - As per excellent arguments by UncleG. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete precisely as per Uncle G. Arm-waving is a waste of time, space and everybody's patience - without sources the article will be deleted. Find them, please, or accept our policies with good grace. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I'm neither a meat-puppet or sock-puppet, and they're Wikipedia's policies, no more so yours than anyone else. He's notable for winning a number of events in the Scootering scene; poor representation on Wikipedia is not a reason against inclusion. Qmax 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      No one accused you of being either one but some SPA's have made a vote in this discussion. Furthermore, in order to pass WP:BIO there must be widely recognized contribution in a specific field of which there is independent media coverage -- and not just blogs and fansites. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails WP:BIO Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete and salt The notability criteria are obviously not met here and it's becoming increasingly obvious that this person's friends just created the article as a joke to embarrass him. Just end the charade now. JChap2007 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:BIO. Most of the Google hits are discussion groups, blogs or Myspace pages. I can't find any mainstream news coverage of the subject. --Metropolitan90 05:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above comments. There's just no sources here for these silly assertions of notability. Sandstein 07:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 12:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Allen Maxwell[edit]

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

    Contested speedy. Bank vice-president who died in 1999. Only claim to notability is that he left money which is being used to found two online universities, that aren't even running yet, and have received absolutely no press coverage([82] and [83]), and won't be accredited anyway. I can't see that the person, or either of the schools (which don't exist yet), can be considered notable. Fan-1967 21:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nomination. I can find no sources that are reliable, or that prove his notability is established. --SunStar Net 21:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. And a slap with a wet fish to the nominator - "Afd or Merge" is possibly the worst recommendation I have seen. It's ON AFD. And if you think it should be merged, go merge it. Be bold! Merges do not need to go through AFD. Proto::type 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ASU Herald[edit]

    Another NN student newspaper; Afd or Merge SkierRMH 22:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I don't know what to do, but if the title is confusing, I made another page called The Herald of Arkansas State University... does that help?PandaRico 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it simply doubles the work. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Proof that it is well known? Well it has received many awards, none of which I can name at the moment. I could, however, in time.PandaRico 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Smerge as per Veinor, but into the correct university as mentioned by PandaRico. Looks like there is now be a second page to AfD. Sigh. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. College newspapers are inherently notable. --- RockMFR 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Every university has one of these free papers. Has this one done anything to make it notable outside the context of Arkansas State University?shotwell 00:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Re-direct one into the other. T1g4h 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Vegaswikian 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not mind if this page is deleted, the other page, which originally started as a clone, contains far more information. It also holds the technical name of the paper.PandaRico 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Califur[edit]

    Califur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    View single debate

    Contested prod. This convention is non-notable outside the furry subculture. Only 434 attendees. Does not meet WP:CORP guidelines for clubs, societies and organizations. BigE1977 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Way too small an event. GhostPirate 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. My daily chance to say "furrycruft". --- RockMFR 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article doesn't claim notability. Shimeru 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Protected after being recreated seven times this month.--Húsönd 01:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    4Fingers[edit]

    4Fingers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    View single debate

    Non notable band. Creator (and band member) keeps removing speedy deletion tag. GhostPirate 22:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Band is not (yet?) notable. Surviving on myspace-song plays doesn't meet the standard of WP:BAND. Google search revealed nothing significant. Darkspots 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. The fact that it survives/survived on myspace-plays probably argues for a lack of notability, rather than the reverse. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As above, the band is not notable enough to be featured here. S-man64 03:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as above. Todd661 04:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no source, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Proto::type 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Gray[edit]

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

    NN 'level designer', in one game. Fails WP:BIO ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - Notable level designer, co-founded Ritual Entertainment. If you want to add sources, a Google for levelord interviews brings up quite a few. - Hahnchen 00:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All I see is blogs, non-notable gaming sites, and the like. I'm sorry, none of this appears to meet WP:BIO.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Hahnchen. Combination 01:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Are you going to fix the article? As it stands, it's unsourced. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment An article being unsourced is no reason for deletion. Tag it and move one. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I am not. - Hahnchen 04:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Hangchen. Levelord is notable and has been quoted in game industry publications. That said, I don't have the sources on hand. --Alan Au 07:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words... someone's 'heard of him' but there's no verifiable notability? dryly Why am I not suprised? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, did you look at my comment, did you look the link? Why am I not surprised? - Hahnchen 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the google results, there were links to Gamespy, IGN, Firing Squad. You're talking about a guy who made his fame in computer games with Duke Nukem 3D, which was years ago, you might have to look deeper. For example, an article retrieved from archive.org from GamaSutra. - Hahnchen 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. —Cryptic 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Todd Berman[edit]

    Todd Berman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    View single debate

    San Francisco Bike Commuter of the Year for 2005 doesn't quite qualify as notability. I'm not sure anything else in that article makes a legitimate claim to be kept on Wikipedia. theProject 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom. Non-encyclopedically notable award with single local art news article. Ran a Factiva search on him - the SF Chronicle local art news piece is the only hit. Only 98 google hits (18 unique) outside wikipedia and the artdontstop website[84] Bwithh 22:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable enough. STTW (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajeev Srinivasan[edit]

    Rajeev Srinivasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Delete - This biography article is unsubstantiated. Ed.del.bs 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing admin should note, this account has has 13 edits, all of them votes for the deletions. -- Ganeshk (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There's a person named Rajeev Srinivasan who writes a regular political column for Rediff.com. Rediff is very notable. There's a very NPOV paragraph on the end of the article that needs to be deleted, but I won't touch it for now. NOTE: there's no AFD tag on the article. Darkspots 23:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - I take it you mean a very non-NPOV paragraph? Grutness...wha? 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You got me! I meant non-NPOV. Thanks! Darkspots 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 01:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Rediff is notable, and he is a fairly prolific columnist.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Bakaman  Doctor Bruno  23:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. Ed.del.bs is a single-purpose account. utcursch | talk 06:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete - Do we need a biography article in Wikipedia, for a right wing fundamentalist with a fascist idealogy who writes some gibberish for a nonsense website?! Ed.del.bs 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC) This user is a single purpose account.
    Note Each editor gets one vote per deletion discussion. Yours was the nomination. Darkspots 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Ed.del.bs an editor? I thought the account has been created to disrupt wikipedia: [85]. --Bhadani 05:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very Strong Speedy Keep-I had read his articles in Outlook Weekly. He is a brilliant,vibrant, and highly notable journalist.See these links too... www.outlookindia.com

    news.indiacurrents.com  Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    • Very Strong Keep Are you kidding?! Rajeev Srinivasan is a very famous journalist. The people who chose to delete are probably Chinese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.81.125 (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. —Cryptic 08:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    State Highway 128 (Oregon)[edit]

    State Highway 128 (Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Appears to be a hoax. Was listed as a speedy, but as there is no speedy category for hoaxes I'm relisting under AfD. If someone disagrees I don't mind being overridden. None of the minor town names check out. StuffOfInterest 22:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete - duplicate of above article (ASU Herald), not a likely search string. Proto::type 15:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Herald of Arkansas State University[edit]

    Marked as speedy but a "hangon" was placed on it by its creator. It was created during the debate on afd for the identical ASU Herald. In its current form, a smerge is probably the best option, though a case could clearly be made for outright deletion. Iff the creator of this can show notability during the course of this afd debate to the point where it's keepable, then so be it. If not, it's definitely a deletion candidate. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's notable (which I don't think it is), then Move to 'Arkansas State University Herald'. Otherwise, Delete. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned before, right now I cannot name the awards because the awards are located in the office. However, I do know that none of the awards came "from the school" since the school has no awards to give to its own student run newspaper. My question to you is, what makes my article less notable than the article on the Daily Sundial or the Fairfield Mirror. Neither of these articles list awards or any other reason to be considered "notable."PandaRico 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks. I added "unreferenced" and "cleanup" tags to the Daily Sundial article. The Fairfield Mirror article has some content and cites a source for its claim of notability, so without further investigation it looks like the former might be due for an Afd as well but not the latter. You should have several days to improve your article by making sure there is a claim of notability with multiple reliable and verifiable sources to back it up. Take a look at some other college papers for examples. As for what to call the article about your paper, what does its masthead say? What is it commonly called on the campus, if different from the above? Redirects can be added. Edison 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to find a brochure with some information in it that I hope should make the article suitable. Please give me your input. I have also included an external link to a website that contains information on contacting the department's chair for confirmation or extra information.
    • delete It's a college newspaper; barring some special claim of notability, a line or two in the university article should suffice. --Brianyoumans 03:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I urge you to look at these Wikipedia college newspaper articles and give them the same attention you have given mine. I realize that my page may be lacking in the amount of content as compared to a few of the articles, but the potential is there, I just need more time to add.PandaRico 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Give it a chance, for crying out loud. It was VFD'd within minutes of creation, let her add some info to prove it's notability. T1g4h 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. The reason it was VFD'd within minutes of creation was because that it's a clone of ASU Herald, which is also up for deletion. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then Delete the clone but Keep the original for aforementioned reasoning of giving it a chance. T1g4h 09:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or, better yet, why not just have one Redirect to the other? T1g4h 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I prefer this page for "The Herald of Arkansas State University" because that -is- the real name of the paper...PandaRico 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine. Same vote made at the other. T1g4h 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge and redirect to San Gregorio Magno Yomanganitalk 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Monastery of Saint Andrew[edit]

    View single debate

    Contributes nothing to the encyclopedia + one-liner = delete. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_17&oldid=1081097212"