Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 10 April 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill knott (poet)[edit]

Notability concerns. No external links or references. Poorly written, and seems to be advertising a website. Retiono Virginian 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. Non-notable biography. Does not meet WP:BIO requirements. --soum (0_o) 13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doing a quick Google test comes up with more than a million hits. Without reading more than a few sources, I believe that this can be cleaned up and sourced, which means that it could be kept. If I have time I can try to make it look a little better, but being a novice at editing, I might need some backup. sumnjim

15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC) talk with me·changes[reply]

  • Keep per Sumnjim. Although the article lacks attribution, the subject seems to be quite notable. I will assist with improving and sourcing this article when I have time. Feeeshboy 16:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is terrible at the moment, but the subject appears to have been a published poet for many years and has been reviewed in mainstream pubs. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable enough, just needs some sourcing and attention. User:Veesicle 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, you all better find sources pretty quick. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article improved significantly and is sourced now. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and improved. Academic Challenger 04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - could probably have got past with a <prod> and achieved its current attribution.--VS talk 07:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Thomas[edit]

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

Little assertion of notability, no references or external links. Retiono Virginian 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: seems to be a notable screenwriter and playwright. She's no Alan Bleasdale, but there's plenty of stuff out there (IMDb page, BBC Q&A). Poor referencing is a reason for improvement, not a reason for deletion. — mholland (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Oh. Can you add these references to the article and it might help you win your dicussion, thanks. Retiono Virginian 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: if the references are added. But need more secondary sources to assert notbility. --soum (0_o) 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm sure sources could be found and the article improved. User:Veesicle 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, source and expand; the reliable sources mholland found do seem to confirm her notability. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources and BBC coverage above should be included in the article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but definetely source and expand. Had this article had no real notability, I don't doubt that it would have been deleted, but a Google search brought up 2 Million + articles, and judging from the number possibly pertaining to this person on the 1st page, perhaps 10-12% could be pertaining to her in total. Mastrchf91 02:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but plenty of fleshing out available here for those interested.--VS talk 07:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Joseph Harrington[edit]

Matthew Joseph Harrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author: sole output appears to be two short stories in the shared-universe anthology Man-Kzin Wars XI Tearlach 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Notability not asserted. MSJapan 00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of notability and no sources. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable author. This article needs sources. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The author is known to and has to some degree influenced thousands of people, and a point was made of including no unverifiable information no matter how interesting it was. (There's a Wikipedia article on Sylvia Plath, for pity's sake, and everyone whose thinking was significantly influenced by her work is ipso facto dead.) Matthew Joseph Harrington 05:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This user is the article creator as well as the subject of the article. MSJapan 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user is the original vandal of this article. Matthew Joseph Harrington 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the records, there were no vandalistic edits. All edits were good faith, and as far as I can tell, were made to make the article more encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: agreed. This presumably refers to the removal of a section of aphorisms from the stories [1] that would be unusual to include even with a major author. Tearlach 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The addition of false information and perversion of phrasing to destroy meaning may be through mere ignorance or incompetent writing skills, but that does not make the term Good Faith applicable. Of course, if someone who does such things actually can write clearly enough to be able to judge professional-grade work, the only possible motive is malice.Matthew Joseph Harrington 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What false information? The COI tag? It is obvious you have a COI here. The removal of the quotes? that is not the addition of false information, that is removal of unencylopedic content. Nothing wrong with that? What false information was added, please, back up these assertions, otherwise it is just blowing smoke. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously: The term Naval Base was replaced by Naval Air Station, a term not yet in use in 1960, which is when I was born at the US Naval Base in Yokosuka. It is a falsehood, of precisely the same character as referring to a WWII Army Air Corps veteran as belonging to the US Air Force-- which did not then exist. This kind of disregard for accuracy is surely not appropriate for anything calling itself an encyclopedia. Matthew Joseph Harrington 23:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - so provide reliable published sources about what it was called then, and we'll include them Tearlach 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop stalking me. Matthew Joseph Harrington 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking. Whatever it was called at the time, it was still linked to the correct article, it was still located in the same place, and it was still a Navy base. It's not like I changed it to read "Ft. Bragg, North Carolina Army base"; I simply used the title I was familiar with, and as a note, it's not called the Naval Air Station anymore, either, but I don't see a complaint from the author about that, probably because that factual change doesn't affect him somehow. In any case, it's not grounds for vandalism claims (all he had to do was change that one item and explain it, rather than reverting on the grounds of "vandalism" and "factual inaccuracy", and then accusing WP of total inaccuracy based on the one item), it's not grounds for closing the AfD (which is the author's intent with this protracted argument ("I'm right, so you need to keep my article")), and it's not an excuse for this argument at all. What it is is an excuse for the author of this article to not admit COI and NN by spinning the blame off onto others. Frankly, this doesn't even merit the response I gave it, and I'm not going to comment further. With a 15-2 (maybe) vote in favor of deletion, where he was born isn't going to matter. MSJapan 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you were the one who decided to pick a fight over your mistakes being corrected, it's ever so big of you to stop keeping the wounds open. Matthew Joseph Harrington 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not notability I don't know what that guy on but he crazy this is a very notable Man-Kzin Wars. There no way that this should be deleted the person who request deletion must have some sort of grudge against the creator and should not be taken seriously.(AG)(Anothergirl The Original And Best 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))(note: first edit from newly-created account Tearlach 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, fails to pass WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, that's a notable anthology in SF circles. Rhinoracer 08:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as that does seem to be a notable anthology. Abeg92contribs 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per failing WP:BIO Retiono Virginian 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes, the anthology's notable, but it already has its own article. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the best argument even the subject of the article can make for keeping this is WP:WAX this is unsalvageable. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per same reasons as Iridescenti and Retiono Virginian.--Vidkun 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity bio. No good reliable third party/external sources to back any assertsions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO and is (obviously) a COI. User:Veesicle 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhinoracer. COI violation is not a valid reason for deletion. Subject should refrain from editing article and allow others to work out the content. Jefferson Anderson 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO not to mention WP:COI. If that work is indeed notable, there are no sources to prove it. Amazon rank is 315,412. There are a few GHits for the author's full name, but certainly don't prove notability (if anything, the opposite, judging by the top ranked return). EliminatorJR Talk 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tubalcain. Matthew Joseph Harrington 05:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who you? Matthew Joseph Harrington 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable author, no reliable sources and fails the G-test Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk
  • Comment - CLosing admin, Currently, User:Matthew Joseph Harrington has almost an identical copy of this article on his userpage. This may be a problem being his name is so similar to the article. You may also want to remove the copy from the userspace as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - actually, isn't his user page precisely the correct location for it? Jefferson Anderson 19:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - if it conforms to userpage standards. However, it is just a copy of this, qith quotes and all. My only concern is that his name is the same as the article. If it is trying to get publicity through this, a google search will still bring up his userpage, because wikipedia pages get such high rankings. I just want to make sure it is not used to promote the author in question. I have chosen not to delete it or be involved in this in any administrative manner, however request the closing admin to take it into account. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, there's no warrants currently out on me, so I didn't think to conceal my identity when I signed up; and if I now understand the definition correctly, coming up with another ID is called "sockpuppeting"? Some of the stuff on my userpage is a LOT more colorful than the article, and was intended for the people who already know my work and wonder who I am, so I don't have to keep writing the same email over and over. I used the stuff from the article because it was available, and already written. By now, the userpage would also have material about my work in preventing concealment of maternal child abuse if I hadn't been otherwise diverted. --Not just by stuff here, I hasten to add. It's been some week. --And it keeps going on. See you whenever. Matthew Joseph Harrington 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. dcandeto 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chtirrell 01:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NN - vanity bio - Alison☺ 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Man-Kzin books are amateur fanfic. No article. Herostratus 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per WP:NN--VS talk 07:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and Redirect to Fiction Factory. EliminatorJR Talk 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chic Medley[edit]

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

played guitar in a One Hit Wonder-Band. Not relevant elsewhere, one sentence stub, maybe a redirect would do Orangenpuppe 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ifdown[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux command. Wikipedia is not the Linux Documentation Project. greenrd 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for much the same reason:

Ifup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regarding the second article, I don't know how to properly link to it, other than by pasting the URL, because the article title begins with a slash - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//etc/network/interfaces - If anyone can get this to work properly, please be bold and fix this paragraph for me.
  • Merge and redirect all to somewhere else appropriate. Unfortunately I don't have any good suggestion, so I can't really object to Delete if no good ideas come up. Incidentally, the problem with linking to articles with a leading slash only occurs outside the main namespaces (i.e. in places where the "subpages" feature is enabled), because the leading / makes it interpret the link as a subpage of the current page. It works fine, for example, in Ifup. This old enhancement request from bugzilla.wikimedia.org might shed a bit more light on the issue [2]. I guess you can hack it as e.g. [[:en:/etc/network/interfaces|/etc/network/interfaces]], which gives /etc/network/interfaces. If you do {{la|en:/etc/network/interfaces}}, it sorta works, except that the Talk page link is still broken. cab 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Not a repository of all human knowledge about every possible thing. ➪HiDrNick! 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm appalled and confused. First two related commands I thought to test for are both articles. And okay, gawk is important, but split? There are many Unix/Linux program articles, e.g. Category:Standard Unix programs. And if Category:Unix software can have anacron in it, I don't know what the appropriate criteria are. Will someone explain how to judge this and other software articles? Shenme 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically, we don't have good notability criteria for these (so far WP:SOFTWARE says: "subject to multiple independent publications", heck yes; "included in prominent OS distributions", heck YES... but should we still have articles about each of them individually?) and the *nix command articles are, lightly put, a giant mess. Someone should start up a giant big bulldozer and merge these together - we absolutely don't need articles on each and every *nix command. Some are remarkable (gawk(1) clearly is as it's a programming language and a GNU package in its own right, anacron(8) is a software package in its own right as well, but split(1), heck no - a mention in GNU Core Utilities might be adequate, as that package is what I install if I want to use that thing anyway). I hope this gets done without shoving each and every one of them to the AfD! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugh, someone deprecated WP:SOFTWARE while I was not looking. Anyway, I hope my point stands - I was just pointing out the problems we have with the current criteria =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. Not significan enough in their own right; should be covered in detail if someone makes an article on GNU/Linux network utilities, but definitely not individually. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all per cab. CloudNine 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three appear to be in danger of reaching if not already in the territory of breaching - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--VS talk 07:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Fiction Factory. EliminatorJR Talk 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham McGregor[edit]

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

played bass in a One Hit Wonder-Band. Not relevant elsewhere, one sentence stub, maybe a redirect would do Orangenpuppe 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect is what we normally do here, I see no reason not to now. Don't need AfD for that, by the way. --W.marsh 01:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Pilgrim[edit]

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

youth players not yet notable Matthew_hk tc 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated

  • Delete All, though I suspect Moses (at least) will play for the first team very shortly and thereby become notable. EliminatorJR Talk 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all same reason, reading about Victor Moses it does look as though he may well become notable eventually, but right now he simply isn't. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. No assertion of current notability. Resolute 04:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per a million other AfDs on youth team players, delete until such time as they play for the first team of this or any other professional club, or at worst are added to the recognised first team squad (I'm thinking of creating a template to save having to type this all in each time :-) ChrisTheDude 06:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, fails WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 08:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for failing WP:BIO, no prejudice against recreation of any individual article in the future, if that player has become a first-team professional. Qwghlm 08:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom User:KRBN 13:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Victor Moses, Delete the others. I say keep simply on the strength of signing his contract infront of 15,000 fans. If that isn't special-case notability then I don't know what is. aLii 10:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 15,000 fans hadn't turned up to see his contract signing though, in fact given that it was half time most of them were probably at the snack bar or in the toilet anyway :-) ..... ChrisTheDude 10:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all- If they are youth players they shouldn't be notable at the minute only when they come professional, delete the lot. Retiono Virginian 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Waste of space. ffm ✎talk 13:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Fails notability criterion as mandated by WP:BIO; and per User:Qwghlm. --soum (0_o) 13:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per nom. DaveApter 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; votes seem to be piling on but I'll throw my support in. Goodnightmush 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three - Not notable now and breaching WP:Crystal otherwise.--VS talk 07:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Fiction Factory as per Chic Medley. EliminatorJR Talk 11:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Jordan (Artist)[edit]

Eddie Jordan (Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

played keyboards in a One Hit Wonder-Band. Not relevant elsewhere, one sentence stub, maybe a redirect would do Orangenpuppe 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Hampshire (Area 1)[edit]

List of schools in Hampshire (Area 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is NOT a directory. Nothing but lists of HUNDREDS of Yellow Pages style entries with telephone numbers and external links. I am also listing the following phonebook articles for the same reason: List of schools in Hampshire (Area 2), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 3), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 4), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 5), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 6), List of schools in Hampshire (Area 7), List of schools in Hampshire, List of independent schools in Hampshire, List of schools in Hampshire (Southampton area). Saikokira 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG 05:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per DGG's reason, although U.S. school district articles should be more than just lists, they are useful as aggregations of encyclopedic information on schools. Are all British schools simply controlled by the ministry of education, or are there local authorities that supervise and make policy for schools in certain geographic areas, as in the United States and Canada? If so, those are your best units for articles and these lists should be transformed into lists based on those units. Noroton 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with the sentiment that this is analogous to school districts, which are large institutions encompassing the bulk of education in an area. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'em all per nom and WP:NOT#DIR. NN list of mostly NN schools. If people are consulting WP for lists of nonnotable schools in a given state, we need to change our policies. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 08:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There is already an existing List of schools in the South East of England. The Hampshire schools should be merged into this existing list retaining only the name of the school (using black not red links) and removing all directory style information. We do have local education authorities but they have limited powers and they are not normally something which you could write an article about. The OFSTED information is readily available on the OFSTED website and I see no need to repeat it here. If the sheer numbers of schools listed in Hampshire make the SE England list unmanageable then it would be logical to create a separate list of Hampshire schools but only if it is organised in the same way as the existing lists (ie without all the postcodes and telephone numbers). Dahliarose 09:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The List of schools in the South East of England is an even more useless list as it's only partial as it admits itself. A complete list of schools would leave a page of a completely unmanageable size. Surely this is what categories are for? We already have "Schools in county" categories set up.EliminatorJR Talk 10:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The List of schools in the South East of England is one of a number of other similar lists. English schools are currently only categorised by county rather than by LEA. I suppose they could also by categorised by LEA too but the school lists have been existence for some time now and it would be quite a job removing them all and adding the appropriate LEA category to every single school. Is this something that can be done automatically by a bot? The list of schools in the South East of England might only be partial but it is constantly being updated so it is feasible that it will be completed. Dahliarose 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the majority of cases , the LEA (more precisely LA these days) is congruent with the county anyway (e.g. all state schools in Northamptonshire come under Northamptonshire LA). However, independent schools throw a spanner into that particular works, so it may be better to categorise by county anyway. EliminatorJR Talk 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berkshire schools are split into three different education authorities: West Berkshire, Wokingham and Windsor. As you say, independent schools are a law unto themselves and it is more logical to categorise them by county. Dahliarose 15:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrcx[edit]

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

Originally tagged as speedy spam. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article was created by the programmer himself. Other than the fact that Pyrcx is already mentioned in IRCX, I cannot find any independent sources that can establish the software's notability, other than download locations for the client. JRHorse 01:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the website for discussing pyrcx's development is located at www.pyrcx.com, chrisjw/cyborg is the original programmer for the software

just because you havent heard of pyrcx doesnt mean it doesnt exist, and it isnt just a simple spam for an irc server. on top of that, pyrcx is more than just another ircx server

    • To note, just because it exists is not a qualifier to be included on Wikipedia. JRHorse (below) gives some links that will provide what we are looking for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the way the admin are around here im surprised anything with a link ever gets posted [xsu|c|desn0wmanx - former pyrcx developer] The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.162.35.14 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2007

    • Comment - "pyrcx is more than just another ircx server" is one point of view, whereas Wikipedia's point of view must be neutral. In any case, are there any reliable sources that justify pyrcx's notability, besides its own website? See Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources and the official policy on Notability and Verifiability. JRHorse 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on account that we are not sourceforge or freshmeat. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - corrected my own sigs. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability is made in the article. There are also conflict of interest issues as well. According to the talk page, the developer created the article. Also, the article appears to be nothing more than spam. --Cyrus Andiron 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert. Fail WP:SOFT, WP:WEB. Also, WP:COI. ffm ✎talk 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable IRC client [3], no assertion of notability, possible WP:COI and per nom already mentioned in IRCX.--Dakota 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable and unsourced. ➪HiDrNick! 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White guilt[edit]

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

Completely lacks sources; seems to be entirely OR. Op-ed piece. Fails WP:ATT. Jtrainor 01:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR. ➪HiDrNick! 01:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might actually be a real topic [4]. But this current article might not be that useful. --W.marsh 01:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a link to a journal article that (I think) verifies the first paragraph. Will try to expand a bit if I can. For now, mark me down as a keep, or redirect to White privilege (sociology) as a related concept (according to the source). --W.marsh 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have a look at ISBN 0275960544, page 133 et seq. of ISBN 1841690457, page 277 of ISBN 0415903661, page 110 of ISBN 0742529274, and pages 357 et seq. of ISBN 0415949645 (which discusses the subject in relation to Australian politics). Uncle G 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is probably a real topic, but the question returns of whether this is the right name. DGG 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete canonical original research. As noted above, a proper topic might be lurking underneath, but it's deep underneath. Very very deep. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, I've heard of this term many times before, I'd be surprised if there's not reliable sources on it. But it's definitely at the wrong title (with that underscore). Lankiveil 12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the underscore is actually a part of the page title, see White guilt with a space points to this article. It was just put into the AfD title. --W.marsh 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woah, my mistake. In that case, I change my opinion to Keep. Lankiveil 11:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as a definite real topic but the article definitely needs work.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, without sufficient citations, doubts about original research cannot be satisfied. --soum (0_o) 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The use as a title in the book by Shelby Steele suggests that the phrase is meaningful, although I'm more familiar with liberal guilt as a concept. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this topic is so interesting and noteable, why has no attempt ever been made to fix it and source it properly since it was created in 2004? Jtrainor 14:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who knows? It's obscure and tends to attract POV-pushing editors more than unbiased ones. Nevertheless the references show it's a real topic... the fact that the article isn't good yet isn't a reason to delete it. --W.marsh 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR as noted above. There is potentially a good article hidden under the name, but again, as stated previously, it's hidden way down there and the article that exists is not a proper framework for such an article. No one is suggesting protection, so if a potential topic exists those who feel it's out there somewhere are free to track it down and start anew - but I see no reason to keep this content and history. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The definition has been sourced since the AfD began. The article in general is poorly sourced, but defining the definition is sufficient to pass WP:OR for now. I am pleased someone cared enough to cite the definition. The page needs further work. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per TonyTheTiger. hateless 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. From the comments, I gather the nominator is looking for WP:CLEANUP? WilyD 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-encyclopedic pseudo-scholarship and textbook OR. --Lee Vonce 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A poor start to an important topic. The motivation to keep is the value the article could have. Shenme 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup now that a couple reliable sources have been found. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a real, notable, important topic in society. --Candy-Panda 11:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR, concentrates on few topics visible in the US (and not or less in Europe), role of media is missing, etc. Pavel Vozenilek 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't write about stuff that occurs mostly/only in America now? --W.marsh 18:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is a very important topic in society just like "white privilege."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.77.134 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per "I've heard of this before seeing it on Wikipedia", and per recent citations. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Presence in a psychology journal shoots down the original research claims. It can probably be sourced more extensively, but the topic has been discussed outside of wikipedia. —Ocatecir Talk 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bands named after gruesome events[edit]

Bands named after gruesome events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV needed to decide what is "gruesome" enough to be included. Indiscriminate (Jonbenét Ramsey and the bubonic plague?!). And just plain silly. Saikokira 01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. POV and rather indiscriminate. bibliomaniac15 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO Orderinchaos 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subjective, indiscriminate criteria. --Haemo 04:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --LaraLove 04:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Define gruesome. There is no encyclopaedic topic "band named after a gruesome event", so a list supporting that is almost by definition listcruft. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate list that is completely WP:OR --Cyrus Andiron 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy ffm ✎talk 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gruesome failure of WP:NOT, indiscriminate list with arbitrary inclusion criteria, trivial information, so on. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can think of some gruesome bands, and bands that play gruesomly: but no reasons for keeping this article! Rgds, - Trident13 15:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and burn, and possibly salt to keep any of this crap from popping up again? 164.116.253.7 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant View Junior High School[edit]

Pleasant View Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school; "Pleasant View" Junior High School "north york" gives 10k ghits, many of which are about people who went there. Veinor (talk to me) 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 06:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notable alumni are notable people, not an indication that their junior high schools are notable schools. I would agree that a school with an unusually large proportion of notable alumni may be notable as a result. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Butseriouslyfolks ffm ✎talk 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Earth is littered with thousands of junior high schools. Non-notable and un-sourced. ➪HiDrNick! 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Baristarim 08:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS--Sefringle 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Chairboy. MER-C 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz songs[edit]

List of jazz songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Potentially never-ending list which could run into several thousand titles, and impossible to maintain. Jazz songs by performer, listed alphabetically; it's already up to hundreds of entries but still only on the letter "A" (the creator appears to have given up, which is understandable).

List was previously deleted in 2005 for the same reasons. The list may have been different then, but any list with this title is going to have the same problems. Saikokira 02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Seems to be a fairly obvious CSD G4. So tagged. Mwelch 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't tell if it's a repost of the same material deleted 2 years ago, or just a different article with the same name, otherwise I would have nominated it for speedy myself. Saikokira 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, fails the WP:NN test. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckle club[edit]

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

Non-notable comedy club. Possibly spamvertisement. Prod tag removed by creator. Delete DMG413 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be thinly veiled advertisement to promote the club. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mr.Z-man. dcandeto 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability. Also, no references listed in the article. --Cyrus Andiron 12:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above ffm ✎talk 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - its actually the London School of Economics "Chuckle Club", and some of Britains favourite comedians started out there on their early gig's - like Eddy Izzard and Al Murray, let alone the two already named on the present article. It needs a decent re-write from what is a poor article/adver-blog to something more appropriate, but a few thousand hits on Google can't be wrong. Rgds, - Trident13 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it might be in the LSE but it's still just a minor club night in a bar. A few thousand hits on Google can be wrong"; "sticking pencils up my bum" gets 202,000 Ghits. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google search for "sticking pencils up my bum" with quotes round, only gets 2 Ghits. Anthony Appleyard 07:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think some of you are judging the quality of the article instead of the article's worthiness. I wrote the article and I agree, it's rubbish. I had sometime to kill and I was suprised it didn't already have an article so I did a quick one for it.

My arguement for worthiness hinges on these points: 1. Many of the big names in British Comedy started out doing this night. Would you argue the venue or night where major music band played when they first started or club where a major sports persons started should be deleted. 2. The night has already got recongition for a non-minor event. It has several thousand hits in Google. It is very different for an organisation with a specific name to get several thousand hits in Google than a random expression as "sticking pencil up my bum." Also, it got an anniversary article in the Metro, a very widely read paper in London. It is not easy to get an article in the Metro. 3. Chuckle Club is 21 years old. This is not a proof of worth by itself but it does give an indication that it may have some significance if could continue for so long.

Also to set the record straight; I'm not connected to the night in anyway (expect for attending it a few times) and the article was not an advertisement. Pete bot 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is not the comedy equivalent of "the venue or night where major music band played when they first started or club where a major sports persons started". This is a club night at a venue, not the place itself. Since we don't have a separate entry even for Manumission, the biggest (appr 10000 per night) club night in the world which has notable acts on every night, that kind of WP:WAX argument doesn't apply here. This article may be appropriate for a section in an article on the venue, but only if the venue itself can be shown N for other reasons; as it stands, it would be the equivalent of an article on the school team David Beckham played for before he joined Man U. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment I accept what the above comment is saying but Chuckle Club is separate to an individual venue. It has always been located in the west end of London but the venue has changed over time. So Chuckle Club is a seperate entity from the venue (this case the Tuns). Pete bot 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Clearly one link away from notable comedian figures (compare with band members and bands on notability), and, if it has moved, clearly a separate entity from the venues where it is held. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Agree it definitely needs a cleanup. I feel there should have been some discussion before an AfD tag was placed on it.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kath and Kim. Daniel Bryant 08:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kath And Kim U.S Version[edit]

Kath And Kim U.S Version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page created un-necessarily with information already provided on the Kath & Kim page. Page should not be created until the show has unique information and the series is about to commence in the US. Lakeyboy 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Kath and Kim until a separate US version appears on TV. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete- clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. Wikipedia is not censored. However, none of the keep opinions have addressed the lack of reliable sources to confirm notability. WjBscribe 17:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Lin[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic actress. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO standards. No awards, no unique trends or contributions to pornography, no suitable mainstream media exposure. —Ocatecir Talk 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment First, that can't possibly be true, there are plenty of chinese porn stars. Second, no source exists to back that statement up. —Ocatecir Talk 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThis actress is supposed to be an up and coming performer so it takes time to win awards, etc. Actress is rare or unique as being a Chinese actress in the US adult film industry (just like an American would be rare in the Japanese adult film industry, I would guess). Actress is also notable in being a college student, not a bum that does adult films and/or sex related work. Suggest reconsidering AfD in 6 months. Article can be improved but using a work computer so can't look up porno stuff now to help out.A880M 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evelyn Lin is one of kind of adult starlets. She started in 2006 and already has over 20 DVDs available, not to mention her internet content while studying in CSU. She is a perfect example that Adult industry is also for young motivated, smart girls, not only desperate ones. We should encourage more girls like her to represent the adult industry, and help her along the way. This is in no way encouragement to every girl out there to join the adult business but it should serve as recognition to those who find their way to it. If lack of content is the reason for this AfD that is easy to fix. As others mentioned she is also one of few actresses that is of true Chinese origins. Explorateur 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)— Explorateur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, not every porn star is notable. Arguments above make no attempt to prove notability within WP:BIO. 66.90.27.133 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has improved lately. I will work on it if it is kept. If deleted there will be only 4 porn stars in the Category: Asian porn stars ! Clearly, this is lopsided and unfair.Vectorsap 07:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC) — Vectorsap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Article isn't bad but it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage or do porn films.RevAEdwards 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC) — RevAEdwards (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Delete Article has more details than some porn stars but this is why it is bad. Mention of creampie and ejaculation is wicked. Selling your body is a sin. We should not have anything porno related on wikipedia. I STRONGLY PROTEST ALL PORN STARS ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA AND THINK ALL OF THEM SHOULD BE DELETED YESTERDAY NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR HOW NOTABLE. That's why I am for "Strong Delete"UTAFA 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evelyn is only unknown because she is young and the laws only allowed her to 'work' when she turned 18. She is a marketing genius and will become a powerhouse in the industry if/when she decides to 'work' behind the camera instead of on it by promoting new stars. Other new porn stars should learn from her on how to approach the industry and market themselves. Evelyn sets a standard in the modern media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.71.67.80 (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.67.80 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete But not due to idiotic ideological insanity. Saraid 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic and cartoon characters by age[edit]

List of comic and cartoon characters by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Impossible to maintain accurately since so few cartoon characters actually specify their age, a problem which the list clearly demonstrates; only 4 out of the 70-odd characters here actually have their age listed. The rest of them just have vague descriptions such as "Children" or "Elderly". Saikokira 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unmaintainable and per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, why do people keep creating lists of everything? This list is unmaintainable, and I cannot honestly see anyone actually using it for anything. Dr bab 09:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete As per Saikokira. DBZROCKS 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 14:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:NOT. Unverifiable for all intents and purposes, as well. The blanket categorizations (child, teenager, etc) is pretty useless, at that. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as impossible to maintain or verify. 23skidoo 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly suitable material to be added to each cartoon character's article.A880M 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Notability criteria established both in article and in discussion; the two cleanup templates should remain until stylistic issues are resolved. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loring d. dewey[edit]

Loring d. dewey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-encyclopedic essay; Delete --Mhking 03:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this article has been cut down and follows an encyclopedia format. Also, there are not many great written works on this man; what has been found has been used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatguy2320 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, going with a lack of decent attributions and WP:ESSAY. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ESSAY. Loring Dewey does have a number of a few scholarly journal articles written about him, but this really does fall under WP:ESSAY and isn't focused enough. dcandeto 04:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if he does have a number of scholarly articles written about him, that totally fullfills the WPO requirements for N and ATT. It's the subject that has to be notable, not the article that has to be well written. The article is not encyclopedic by our standards, and the solution is to edit it. DGG 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment By "a number" I really just meant that his name gets some hits on Google that are on JStor. The total number of combined Google hits for "Loring Dewey" and "Loring D. Dewey" is still less than 25. dcandeto 08:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note page has been moved to the correct form, Loring D. Dewey
  • Weak keep Needs to be trimmed down a bit, and some WP:CLEANUP, but it seems that the subject IS notible. ffm ✎talk 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment a JStor hit usually means an article about the person or thing, while plain google hits are of course usually mentions. There appear to be about 12 articles all or partially about this individual. That is historical notability. It's not finding them on Google that matters, it's that they turn out to be publications in scholarly journals. JStor or Muse are just collections of online scholarly journals--the important part is the article in the journal. They are valuable resources here because the articles in them are listed in goggle and Google Scholar, and thus everyone can see the article exists and, usually, read the abstract. In the past, it was necessary to use a library's print on online paid resources to find out even if an article existed. 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is definitely notable per multiple results in JSTOR. I have deleted much of the content that made the article essay-like and am currently working on improving it. Already I have added another source from an academic journal. -- Black Falcon 23:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to merge it into MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic totalitarianism[edit]

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

This is one of those unfortunate articles which are doomed to have the dread POV tag at the top of the article forever. In addition, there is barely any content here. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I see no justification for this POV article. Instead, the material about the term and the manifesto can be merged into Islamism (might not be appropriate there either, I'm not sure) or Salman Rushdie (who apparently coined the term) if deemed significant, as the material here pertains to that political ideology, rather than Islam in specific. Also the article on MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism already exists, which is basically a copy of this article about the very same issue. Khorshid 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a sock of Patchouli (talk · contribs). The Behnam 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems clear, and the POV obvious and not harmful.DGG 06:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a redirect with MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism. But I'm not sure which name should survive. Why do we have two almost identical articles with different names? This is what redirects are for. The article should be about the manifesto and anyone who wants to add content about Islamism should add content at Islamism. That article is 47 KB long, so it's probably inappropriate to merge content into it.Noroton 06:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Noroton, the other title makes the source evident, which goes some way to allaying the neutrality concerns. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Norton. The MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism should be there. If Islamic totalitarianism survives, it needs to be about that term, not about the Manifesto. Perhaps rather than a redirect, it could be a disambig page pointing people to Islamism for the term and the Manifesto page for the manifesto. (But that would require the Islamism page to refer to the term and the manifesto.) BobFromBrockley 10:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Norton. Will work better as a redirect. ffm ✎talk 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Noroton's excellent reasoning. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Norton.RaveenS 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely a neologism... basically a term used by Rushdie and his friends (perhaps a few polemics as well). The Behnam 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and invoke WP:SNOW to close. As mentioned, majority notice they are basically same article. SNOW due to redirect cannot work until AFD is close. George Leung 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 1) neologism and therefore not Wiki-suitable; 2) if coined by Rushdie, as cited above, then fails 9and will always fail) NPOV as being a species of attack-page phrase. Burn and salt. -- 62.25.109.196 08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism and most content is already in MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism --Webkami 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Clearly a notable term. recognized by BBC News.--Sefringle 21:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a collection of contemporary political epithets. That many similar articles have been allowed to persist is unfortunate, and speaks to the chronic dysfunction of a community which is only intermittently willing to enforce its own policies. I am glad to see that this one, at least, appears headed to the dustbin.Proabivouac 21:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one of Patchouli (talk · contribs)'s articles. I think it should be deleted per Proabivouac.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should be kept but expanded upon. CDMS 09:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless evidence that this term has widespread use and meaning outside of aforementioned manifesto. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacAmp[edit]

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

This article claims that MacAmp preceded Winamp. The article states: The MacAmp player was first released on April 13, 1997 by Dmitry Boldyrev. The problem is, Winamp premiered in 1996 so unless Mr. Boldyrev has a time machine, that surely isn't the case. By the way, the article is authored by Dmitry Boldyrev as is his vanity article Dmitry Boldyrev, both of which have been repeatedly deleted and recreated. Only Dmitry himself and his websites corroborate any of these articles. IrishGuy talk 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that MacAmp preceeded WinAmp, but also WinAmp was a result of port of MacAmp to Windows under Dmitry Boldyrev's initiation. Please consider a research first before challanging authenticity. For quick verification, please go to PlayMedia Systems' website www.playmediasystems.com, the owner of AMP trademark and check for yourself. If you'd like me to provide lawsuite paperwork which resulted from Justin Frankel's attempt to cover up the story I can surely do so. Dmitry Boldyrev is currently licensing GUI and logo to AOL, Nullsoft and Justin Frankel.

Dmitry Boldyrev, inventor of WinAmp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewse (talk • contribs)

What the playmediasystems.com site says is that you licensed AMP in 1997...after Winamp had been released. IrishGuy talk 04:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm voting delete for this per WP:ATT --Haemo 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well all of this doesn't really have any bearing on whether we keep the article or not. Software gets a smattering of coverage [5] but I'm not sure if it's enough to build an article with. --W.marsh 04:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all the above is an editing question. its a notable project, with coverage in the specialized press. DGG 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the MacAmp may have some degree of notability, this article is nonsense. Nothing independent of Dmitry Boldyrev confirms any of it. Boldyrev is attempting to use Wikipedia to rewrite history. IrishGuy talk 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verify Mr. Boldyrev's statement. If what he say is true, keep, for now. George Leung 09:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verify per George Leung ffm ✎talk 13:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup. I'm not sure what is meant by the above "verify" !votes but I assume they are meant as a conditional keep if verifiable? Anyway, this article is full of a bunch of unverified claims, these should all be tagged for citations and subsequently excised if they cannot be verified, but as mentioned by W.marsh and DGG the subject has some at least week notability independent of these claims and should be kept. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep once all the uncited claims are removed, which will probably leave a stub. Complete revisionist history, but the program does seem to at least exist. Comment: Is this Dmitry Boldyrev guy some flake or is he for real? I noticed he is mentioned in the Winamp article, and has been there for some time. --Bongwarrior 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was put in February of this year. It just appeared without sources and there was no mention in any previous incarnation of the article. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I was under the impression it was there longer. --Bongwarrior 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to this discussion: Quoting PlayMedia Systems Website:

"1997.02.01: Dmitry Boldyrev, co-creator of WinAMP, becomes the first licensee of the AMP® 0.7-series MP3 decoder for his "MacAMP" MP3 player for the Macintosh® operating platform. MacAMP™ was the first Application to use AMP®.

Note: It was Boldyrev who introduced MP3 technology and the AMP® decoder itself to fellow University of Utah student Justin Frankel. Boldyrev and Frankel subsequently formed Nullsoft (now a unit of AOL). In mid-1997, the Boldyrev/Frankel partnership released WinAMP to the general public using a GUI bitmap design by Boldyrev."

I should have the rights to state what is true, or is this not allowed anymore? In addition to that, MacAmp is my product and who knows history better than I do, uh? What's the reason for me lying?heh


why you guys even thinking about deleting this? just ask the millions of macamp users what was first and still the best, they will all say MACAMP and those that botherd to read the about box will say "thank you Dmitry", now come on just cos you wernt aware of things doesn't make them not happen ;)

Just because you claim something (with no coroborating evidence at all) doesn't mean it happened. :) IrishGuy talk 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment but the question of the priority of an invention is an editing question, not for AfD. DGG 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy, no offense, but I've provided evidence for you. Why are you constantly ignoring the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewse (talk • contribs)

Because you haven't. You have not provided any verifiable independent sources to back up any of your claims. IrishGuy talk 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayMedia Systems is not a verifiable source? They own the AMP trademark. They *are* the WinAmp, MacAmp, and everything that has "AMP" in the word of it. Go on trademark search and lookup AMP trademark, verify this yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.173.100 (talk • contribs)

As I noted above, what the playmediasystems.com site says is that you licensed AMP in 1997...after Winamp had been released. Dmitry is trying to use Wikipedia to rewrite history and give himself credit for things that are not corroborated by anyone outside of himself. IrishGuy talk 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- To Iris guy you really need to do your research Dmitry released macamp way before winamp. Check your facts 1997.02.01: Dmitry Boldyrev, co-creator of WinAMP, becomes the first licensee of the AMP® 0.7-series MP3 decoder for his "MacAMP" MP3 player for the Macintosh® operating platform. MacAMP™ was the first Application to use AMP®.

Note: It was Boldyrev who introduced MP3 technology and the AMP® decoder itself to fellow University of Utah student Justin Frankel. Boldyrev and Frankel subsequently formed Nullsoft (now a unit of AOL). In mid-1997, the Boldyrev/Frankel partnership released WinAMP to the general public using a GUI bitmap design by Boldyrev. http://playmediasystems.com/index.php?cat=news&ID=2

  • Speedy close to avoid edit-war snowball -- 62.25.109.196 08:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article, close debate as per above. Subject of article is undisputably notable so the article should be kept and that is the only thing that should be debated here. Accuracy of article is a matter for the article's talk page. A1octopus 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly userfied since this is plainly a resume and an autobiography but we don't want to WP:BITE the fellow; if DGG wants to write a neutral article from independent sources then more power to him, but I expect we don't need to know about "awards and honors" like the American Psychiatric Association Certificate of Continuing Excellence. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Hooper[edit]

James F. Hooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Resume, autobiographical vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a resume service. Contested prod. MER-C 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The awards seem to demonstrate notability. --Eastmain 04:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The awards seem to demonstrate notability--though not all of those listed are important. So do the papers. I'll do a WebofScience Analysis on them tomorrow. So do the positions--Chair of Psychiatry at a major medical school. Whyshouldwe attempt to outguess the committees that gave him the position and made the awards and accepted the papers? DGG 06:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Blame it on days of dealing with vanity prods. Orderinchaos 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Learning[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP, notability not asserted (the Unabomber and Youtube references seem an excuse rather than a reason for having this article) Orderinchaos 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is one of those where it ju-u-ust crosses the line on self-touted notability, if not merely straddles it, for simple reason of sheer exposure. You look around, you'll find them. The Unabomber mentioning them may be more trivia than anything. This looks like something that can be kept and cleaned up though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CORP. This is a well-known company and there is no doubt in my mind that enough sources could be found to make this a good article. 12,500 Google News Archive hits [6]; over 1 million Google Web hits [7]. --Metropolitan90 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close per WP:CORP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, major corporate training provider, the only route to the dreaded MCSE, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep uh, listed on NASDAQ is an assertion of notability. --W.marsh 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, speedy close. The fact that it has many commercials on major TV channels, and high google hit, AND numerous center make it notable. George Leung 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NASDAQ listing is enough for me. Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is an after-school tutor that grosses $350M/yr. They are a major player. It's hard to place them in the industry as their two biggest competitors are privately held (Kaplan and Kulmon) and have no financials available, but from what I can find they are the larges public company in this industry. Someone please snowball this one. --Selket Talk 05:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by RyanGerbil10. Reason given was "CSD A7". -- Selket Talk 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Admirals[edit]

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

Non-notable (as in no evidence of third party sources) vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiya High School[edit]

Hibiya High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's just some random public school in Tokyo, pretty sure it's not notable. --awh (Talk) 04:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 125+ years old and 6 alumni with articles... seems likely to be notable. Even an english-language search returns some useful looking news results [8], seems to have been covered by the Western press as an example of a great Japanese school during the boom years, in 2005 it was called "The best public High School in Japan" [9]. So uh, Keep. --W.marsh 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's at least 7 alumni with articles. I just added Susumu Tonegawa, who mentions it in his Nobel bio ([10]). Stammer 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it needs to be expanded. --LaraLove 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per W.marsh. I have expanded it based on the news article he posted. cab 04:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 04:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, W.marsh has it on the money here. This one's good. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per W.marsh. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep founded 1878--a very early date for western-style education in Japan. "assuming just a random school"
  • Speedy keep per above, and WP:SNOWBALL - Neier 12:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous monsters[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list, for example; Godzilla, Satan, Bigfoot, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Cookie Monster. Jack and the beanstalk, The X-Files, The Myth of Perseus, and Pokémon. This list proves the term "Monsters" is just too broad to try and list all of them together. Saikokira 04:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - this seems too indiscriminate to be a list; and what's with the OTHER lists on the page? Those have definitely got to go. --Haemo 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, wouldn't technically all 493 Pokèmon have to be listed since Pokèmon is short for "Pocket Monsters"? TJ Spyke 04:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an impractical list. Diabloman 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete define "famous". Define "monster". Define "listcruft". Guy (Help!) 09:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subjective.--WaltCip 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy ffm ✎talk 13:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly, as redundant to List of Monsters, which is less complete but shows better organization. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Undefined inclusion criteria famous + undefined inclusion criteria monsters = WP:NOT. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Monsters, that page indeed exhibits the right way to do this, but it would be a good idea to check the notable monsters from here into that page before deleting. Eldar 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Eldar, to make sure nothing is lost. Then let this sink into the seas. Shenme 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a good try by article creators but as per Eldar Merge into List of Monsters.--VS talk 07:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. First, this list appears not to have been included in the mass AfD in early 2007 as it was created after closure of that discussion. Second, the mass AfD was closed as a keep all, but should have been listed as closer to keep all — no consensus as there was substantial discussion both for and against retention. Finally, the primary arguments in the prior mass AfD that resonate for me are those around understanding the place of the airline in society, which is also a justification for inclusion of historical destinations for functioning airlines (dropouts are historical facts related to the evolving service of the airline and can have significant impact on locales). The status of the current list here is an artifact of the time of closure of the airline and should effectively be titled 'list of destinations at time of closure'. The arguments below and those put forth in the mass AfD combine to suggest that the fate of the present list should be merger into Aeroperú. However no source is provided for the information, which is a fatal flaw; as such the information is not verifiable. If a source is in fact available, I would encourage recovery of the article via WP:DRV (to recover the History), content merger to Aeroperú and conversion of the list to a redirect. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroperú destinations[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic and largely unverifiable list of former destinations of defunct airline. dcandeto 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Aeroperú -- Selket Talk 05:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Aeroperu, and let somebody who has a paper schedule verify the content. Flying people from A to B is what an airline does for a living, so telling people what A and B are is highly relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a defunct airline that hasn't flown anywhere since 1999. Keeping a list of where the airline flew eight years ago borders on listcruft, which Wikipedia is not for. dcandeto 08:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Encyclopedic validity does not age. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It's still unencyclopedic. See WP:Airports. dcandeto 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where in WP:AIRPORTS does it say anything about airline lists? Airline lists were subject to a mass AFD nom some months ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations) which ended with a "keep". Why do you think this article is different? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those were lists of current destinations. This one is a list of former destinations. Former destinations are not, by themselves, notable or encyclopedic, unless they are important to the history of the airline, in which case the ones that are noteworthy (if any) would be mentioned in the section on the airline's history. dcandeto 09:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If any of these destinations are important to the history of this airline then they can be placed in the article about the airline, but are not encyclopedic on their own. Wikipedia is not a directory. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the proper location for information that may change offsite is offsite. duh!? People can link from airline's page to the airline for current information. Wait, it's a dead airline? Merge into the tombstone article and delete. Shenme 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Worthy of Aeroperu's article.A880M 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft, in line with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Former routes, former airline routes are also unencyclopediadic. --Matt 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that the list is so short and that a section exists in the Aeroperu article makes this article an ideal candidate for merging. However, as the information is unverified, I do not think a merge and the subsequent addition of an {{unreferenced}} tag is desirable. -- Black Falcon 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ecuatoriana de Aviación. WjBscribe 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuatoriana Destinations[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic and largely unverifiable list of former destinations of defunct airline. dcandeto 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Ecuatoriana --Selket Talk 05:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Although I cannot fathom how this information could be used for anything. Ever. It's a defunct airline, not like the destinations matter anymore. You can't get where you're going by hitching a ride on one of their planes. --Cyrus Andiron 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT#DIR. If any of these destinations are somehow historically important to the airline they can be placed in the airline's article, otherwise they have no encyclopedic value. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge by inscribing on airline's tombstone article and delete. Shenme 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - worthy information on Ecuatoriana's article A880M 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Friday Shield[edit]

The Good Friday Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This sporting event is not notable; a Google search turns up three hits, two of which are Wikipedia. Article was prodded, but creator removed tag. Might be speedy-able. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, and it appears extremely likely that no sources exist. JavaTenor 06:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JavaTenor. For all the limitations of the "Google test", it's not a good sign when the only Google hits are Wikipedia and a forum comment bragging that the subject is on Wikipedia. —Celithemis 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - competition between two secondary schools' ex-pupil's sides is patently non-notable. Qwghlm 08:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. -- Mattythewhite 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Sporting event. ffm ✎talk 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable sporting event. --Cyrus Andiron 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kurotsuchi mayuri 10:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and watch for white flakes from above 89.213.8.161 13:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The purpose of an encyclopedia from a user's viewpoint is to discover interesting things you weren't expecting. Stuff everyone already knows is dull. I would not expect an article entitled "The Sky Is Blue" to attract interest-- at least, not from people you'd be interested in. Matthew Joseph Harrington 23:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT! Tearlach 11:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straw man. Please stop stalking me. Matthew Joseph Harrington 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepif someone put this much effort into an article inc.pictures and an info box etc, you would expect the article to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk • contribs)
    • The issue is not whether or not the article is true, the issue is whether the information is verifiable (it isn't) and whether, even if it is verifiable, it's notable (general consensus is it isn't). Also, just because a lot of work has gone into an article doesn't automatically mean it isn't a hoax, I've seen some very in-depth hoax articles before now ChrisTheDude 11:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a hoax. This is the first article i have put on wikipedia. can you tell me is there a way to verify this? i know this event takes place, i have been at it for three years and help organise it. Over 60 people attended it this year. there were two serious injuries and an ambulance had to be called. would getting a staement off the ambulance service count as verifying? look i understand that if you are going to delete it theres not an awful lot i can do but your assistance or hints on how to keep this article would be greatly appreciated. Legoman17
I'm not sure there is much you can do. The first main requirement, WP:Verifiability, is possible: you'd need to find third-party published references up to the standard of WP:Reliable sources, like newspaper reports, that confirm *everything* said in the article. But the second one is notability: and as others have said, an alumni sports match just isn't going to cut it. Tearlach 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • cant substantiate YET. as much as you all want this to be deleted, i am working on getting some info. how long do i have? Legoman17
Well, you might substantiate, but the only way you're going get notability is if some factor turns up completely outside the parameters of "alumnni football match" - e.g. both teams wiped out in mid-game by a meteorite strike or the first outbreak of a worldwide bird flu pandemic. Tearlach 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, lacks notability. IMO it just lacks the level of notability to keep. It's not that I question its authenticity, it is just simply not notable. By the authors own admission approximately 60 people attend once a year. If 6000 attended, I bet you would find more info on it. Jokerst44 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. KFP (talk | contribs) 08:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ituriaga[edit]

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

Non notable person, unverified, unsourced claims Empyrycal 05:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:BIO and WP:AB. -- Selket Talk 05:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now this could have been a speedy-. Ordinary guy who says he's ordinary.DGG 06:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Now it is. MER-C 06:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, renaming to GMT Watch per discussion. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"GMT Watch"[edit]

"GMT Watch" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't assert notability, doesn't cite any sources. Delete Empyrycal 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep well known type of watch - most major manufacturers produce them. Needs to be moved to GMT Watch per naming conventions. EliminatorJR Talk 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is a real term in the... watch industry, or whatever it's called. [11] shows this seems to be a feature some people really want in watches, and the term is commonly used. But get rid of the quotation marks in the title. --W.marsh 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but develop and source - gotta respect Zulu time. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page is very new (2 days old) to be deleted for lack of sources. Needs to be sourced though. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to the existing article, 24 hour watch. (Which should probably itself be renamed to 24-hour watch, but maybe there's a good reason not to.) --Quuxplusone 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per notability of the subject, which may not be asserted. A source should not be difficult to find. I also like Quux.'s idea of speedy redirect to 24 hour watch, of course, given that the creator of this article would not disagree that the GMT Watch is essentially a " 24 hour watch " . Jamesowen237 13:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but if it is not redirected, at least move it to a title without the quotation marks. SGGH 10:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as A7 by User:JzG. EliminatorJR Talk 10:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Maitland-Lewis[edit]

Ben Maitland-Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was a speedy, editor contested, non notable fails WP:NOTE, WP:MUSIC[12] Dakota 05:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Users are free to insert information from here into the article on the battle if they so desire. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Wood (British army officer)[edit]

David A. Wood (British army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination for 203.10.224.58 (talk · contribs). I have no opinion yet. MER-C 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN army officer, fails WP:BIO. Only reference quoted does not work. Could not find any outside articles on him. Davewild 07:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Officer is only notable for having died in combat. Does not meet the requirements.--Looper5920 09:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Goose Green was an important battle in an important recent conflict, the Falklands War. I've added a couple of references to the article, showing the important role that Wood played in a battle which is famous in Britain and pivotal in winning the Falklands War. The official RAF site history of the war, now quoted and referenced in the article, states that the death of Captain Wood and two of his colleagues led to the abandonment of the initial attack on a crucial Argentinian position. This led Colonel H. Jones to change his tactics and launch a different, flanking attack, in which he was himself killed. H Jones won the Victoria Cross for his action, which would not have happened in the way if did without the death of Captain Wood. After a fourteen hour battle over 1,000 Argentinian troops surrendered to the heavily outnumbered Parachute Regiment, who had lost 17 men including Captain Wood. This essentially won the War for Britain. How is this not notable when Wicket W. Warrick, a cartoon character from the Star Wars: Ewoks cartoon is? Davidwild could not have looked very far if he didn't find any relevant articles, it took me 10 seconds. He is not only notable for only having 'died in combat', as if that in itself is of no account. Nick mallory 09:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the importance of Goose Green is not in doubt. The lack of multiple non-trivial indpendent sources about this individual is the issue. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The RAF history of the battle of Goose Green is trivial is it? Have you read it? Wood's death led to H. Jones's action. His action led to victory at Goose Green and therefore in the Falklands War. His action, its significance and his death is not trivial. Is the South Atlantic Medal Association a trivial organisation? Nick mallory 10:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another good source here and the ones that Nick mallory has recently added to the article (especially the SAMA one) look good to me. Note that the SAMA link does appear to be a bit flaky - I had to refresh a few times.EliminatorJR Talk 10:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the above source said is that he died in combat. What was his importance? We have deleted articles on other service personnel with much more available info on the net then this guy. No where does it state that his actions led to the victory at Goose Green. No one is doubting the significance of Gooses Green, just the significance of this individual. Millions of people die in combat. They don't all deserve pages here.--Looper5920 11:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "As they moved forward, Captain Chris Dent, A Company's 2IC, Captain David Wood, the Battalion Adjutant, and Corporal David Hardiman were shot and killed, and the attempt was abandoned in the face of overwhelming firepower. The details of the next attack are confused, but it is certain that 'H' decided to lead by example, and issued orders at around 1000 hrs, now in broad daylight but covered by the smoke of the burning vegetation, for a flanking attack on the command trench on the hill above him." This is from the official RAF history of the battle and I don't see what better source you could have. Wood's death led to H. Jones leading the next attack himself, which led to a Victoria Cross and victory at Goose Green and therefore in the war. Woods did not die in in insignificant way, if such a thing is possible. Nick mallory 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and without wishing to invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, there are dozens of articles about people whose only notable action was to have died in combat, as a quick browse through a category like Category:Military_personnel_of_the_Vietnam_War will show. EliminatorJR Talk 12:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on this one. Having gone through the list...which I can see you failed to do. of the 86 names, 76 of them have recieved the Medal of Honor. Of the remaining 10...2 are there for there actions at My Lai, 1 recieved the Bronze Medal in boxing at the 1964 Olympics, 2 were awarded the Navy Cross, 1 was a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, 1 was a collegiate All-American for football, 1 was a professional football player, another has a shipped named after him (this one is questionable and could be redirected to the ship itself) and finally another is a recipient of the Air Force Cross and was the youngest pilot to shoot down a MIG in Vietnam. Of the 86 names only 2 are questionable and they are the last two mentioned and arguments could go either way for them. Please find a better list to use for comparison.--203.10.224.60 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better still is Category:Killed in action - covers the whole world and all of history. In case anyone is interested, as of 11/04/2007, we have 1662 articles on people Killed in Action. It would be interesting to see how many of them are notable for anything other than their wartime deeds and medals? I would be interested in separating out the young soldiers who died and got medals, from those who were already famous, or would be famous later, or who were high-ranking officers and generals (or even Roman emperors in one subcategory). You might indeed be able to successfully invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (before anyone objects, I know what it means) - or at least show that this issue desrves a wider debate than an article-by-article approach. Carcharoth 12:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 5-minute scan through that section reveals (to begin with) around 20 articles on US personnel KIA in Iraq that don't appear to have any notability other than that. Now I don't see that as a problem, compared to the amount of popular-culture-cruft that we let slip through (again, hopefully other editors will see that isn't an argument purely based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).EliminatorJR Talk 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wider discussion needed - I see no harm in keeping this article until said wider discussion has concluded. Carcharoth 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that a machinegun bullet killed him that caused someone else to try a different attack route. This one source just does not show enough significance on his part, other than as cannon fodder, to justify an article. Edison 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm unconvinced that this death was particularly notable outside of the context of this one battle. Was Wood decorated posthumously with an important medal? That would change my vote. But his death "leading" to somebody else's medal seems to be stretching heavily into not-a-memorial territory. --Dhartung | Talk 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However it could be argued that his was a defining moment in what was the defining battle of that particular war. EliminatorJR Talk 14:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - notability well explained at the military history project talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.48.81.98 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep - his actions and example influenced the course of the battle and justify his inclusion. Buckshot06 16:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Forward into the article on the battle for Goose Green. Firstly a brave guy, but why does he have an article and yet Captain Chris Dent and Corporal David Hardiman who died with him at the same time in the same action not have articles? None of them received medals, and I can't find references to them outside any article which mentions actions at Goose Green. Rgds, - Trident13 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to (and possibly merge very selectively into) Battle of Goose Green per Trident13. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep - why is this even an issue? The article has been expanded and notability is not in dispute.139.48.81.98 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Jones' role at Goose Green was highly significant in the conflict and, debateably, controversial and was impacted by what happened to Wood.Scoop100 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as general consensus above, and particularly in light of this year being 25th anniversary of the conflict. Strongly suggest some stronger referencing, however. (I have Max Hastings award-winning book, might look into it this weekend). Emoscopes Talk 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) In hindsight, after re-reviewing WP:BIO, I think a better solution would be to redirect to Battle of Goose Green, and mention that Wood was killed in this article, he is notable for this, but not the rather minor and trivial life story in the article. Emoscopes Talk 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established in the article.ALR 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefereably Keep, but if consencus not achieved, Merge and redirect to Battle of Goose Green. 89.213.8.161 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Battle of Goose Green and mention there in less detail. I'm sorry, but I go with the non-notability and not-a-memorial arguments. It needs stiff editing whatever happens: part of the article is very POV (typical, jovial self ... typical, courageous self, wise-cracking and encouraging others) and also is copyvio from 1039online.org. Tearlach 14:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There has been no explanation why he is more notable than the other two paras killed, and the logic that this was a "pivotal" moment in the battle would argue more for having an article on the Argentine machine gunner who cut them down. After all, it was his ability with his weapon that led to their deaths - all Wood did was walk into his bullets. However, it is hardly unusual for commanders to attempt flanking maneuvers after running into stout resistance. Wikipedia can't have articles on every soldier whose death inspired a flanking attempt, and if the Argentine position was strong, Jones might have been equally or more likely to be killed continuing with his original assault. Also, after reading the article on Goose Green, I'm not so sure that this was such a "pivotal" event in the battle anyway. Jones is killed around 10:30AM, the British attack "petered out," and then successfully resumed near noon, "inspired by [Jones'] sacrifice." However, if he hadn't been killed, the paras might have been "inspired by his personal leadership" to accomplish the same thing, or the advance might have continued without such a long pause, leading to victory sooner. Or the elite paras might have carried the day even without any special "inspiration." The case for notability is built on a very tenuous series of assumptions. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Redirect to battle page. Lead paragraph does not make any assertion of notability, you must dig for it towards the end of the article and even then it is insignificant. —Ocatecir Talk 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Falkowitz[edit]

Max Falkowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • This article fundamentally mischaracterizes the "work" of Ferenc Torkenzy. He is not an ornithologist, as he has no specialized training in ornithology and he makes no claims which are specific to birds. Rather, he is an evolutionary biologist who rejects standard taxonomy; specifically, he believes we should classify species according to commonality with regards to the selective pressures that caused them to evolve, rather than according to commonality with regards to genetic lineage. This is perhaps interesting, but it makes taxonomy useless because we have imperfect knowledge of what selective pressures (if any) led to what species, and because it produces absurd results, such as, most infamously humans being classified with central European wildflowers. Torkenzy talks about magpies, yes, but only because this is one area where his theories produce results which are not completely absurd.
  • A search for his mentioned Hungarian mentor Ferenc Torkenzy does appear on a search of hu.wiki; this should be perhaps checked out as evidence of further vandalism (by someone more educated than I; I don't speak magyar) or even evidence of Falkowitz' validity.--Jedimaster898 07:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC) — Jedimaster898 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Max Falkowitz is certainly a professor in the University of Chicago biology department. It seems that some of his students at the university have decided to hi-jack his page by placing their photos on his page. This is a great shame as Falkowitz is a frequently cited expert in the field of ornithology.--Williamdix 06:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC) — Williamdix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - A search of the University of Chicago failed to find a listing for this individual. Furthermore he is not listed on the Biological Sciences Collegiate Division Faculty and Staff Ronbo76 06:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- This does seem to be pretty damning evidence, but the laziness and inefficiency of the tech staff should not be underestimated. It seems that as Falkowitz is neither tenured nor a long-present member of the faculty, his page on the BCSD page may have not yet been added. Or, for the sake of privacy, he may have chosen not to include one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.155.217 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC). — 128.135.155.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This is not a speedy, because it includes statments which claim, and if true probably establish, notability. However i strongly suspect this is a hoax. All google searches for "Max Falkowitz" appear to refer to a High School student, and the image seems to be that of a person much younger than the person described. The article is, at present, unsourced.
  • Delete as nominator. DES (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No GScholar hits. Appears to be a hoax. Stammer 09:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Ronbo76 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Hoax ffm ✎talk 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:PN. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hoaxes are not speedy candidates, for good reason -- it takes more than one or two sets of eyes to reliablly confirm a hoax. And this is not an example of patent nonsense in the wikipedia sense -- there is no trouble tellign what this means, it just happens to be (as far as anyone can tell to date) completely inaccurate. If sources had been cited on this that looked plausible, and the picture were of a man of around 50, I would never have nominated it. That isn't PN. So this isn't a speedy. But it is unsourced, and quite likely to be a haox. 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not verified. The world-famous Joshua Knox has flown the coop. And I must admit that when the very first mention of his claim to fame is misspelled orinthologist I just have to wonder. Shenme 02:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a hoax. Gimme danger 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references and no claim to notability (has he published anything?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, no asseriton of notability, WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanza (Drinking Game)[edit]

Bonanza (Drinking Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded twice, and removed by author. WP:NFT - drinking game, unsourced. I'd recommend speedy, if someone could suggest a category. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, it is a recreation of a speedily deleted article. There's a warning on the Creator's talk page. Perhaps it needs some WP:SALT. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom. Unfortunately, dunno if it could be speedied, since WP:NOT is explicitly mentioned as not being a speedy criterion. Calling it an A7 (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content) might be a stretch, since there's no specific people/group. G4 won't apply either since the last deletion wasn't an AfD. cab 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi project[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 06:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks much like a organization's webpage entry, and is similar, though not identical, to the page on their website. Malawi Project is such a generic name that using Google to search for information on this organization is almost impossible, but I cannot see much evidence of passing WP:ORG guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Copyviolation. ffm ✎talk 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content of this article was abstracted from http://www.malawiproject.org/. The article contains no other sources or references to substantiate the text and doesn't describe the organisation in a manner sufficient to pass the NGO section of WP:ORG. (aeropagitica) 08:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. KFP (talk | contribs) 08:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany stamm[edit]

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

Notability not established. All tags to this article have been removed without serious article improvement. Fails WP:N. Ronbo76 06:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - unremarkable animal. Why are we even debating this? MER-C 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christoff Johnson[edit]

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

Looks like a non notable artist. Gets two google hits,and it doesn't look sourced Empyrycal 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An artist with a small cult following and some indie-radio charting hits ought to leave some trace on Google, so I'm suspicious of the accuracy of this article. Lack of sources makes it unverifiable. —Celithemis 07:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Christoff's supposed label Sketch-case Records gets no Google hits at all. —Celithemis 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(NPOV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantra101 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-11T03:36:25

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC ... despite numerous edits, the author has failed to provide any WP:SOURCE to substantiate WP:N ... suggest deletion of same author's Sketch-case Records as well (if it does not get CSD A7 before this closes) ... and since the author has repeatedly removed tags (db-bio, unreferenced, prod) without comment, we should probably salt this article to prevent recreation. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of these two articles, Tantra101 (talk · contribs), has been engaging in very disruptive edits, including blanking this page and removing tags from the articles under discussion ... some admin needs to give them a time-out. --68.239.79.97 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MUSIC, and I've just removed some vandalism to this AfD page by the author, who's not doing themselves any favours. EliminatorJR Talk 11:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and given this diff, can I suggest Salt as well? EliminatorJR Talk 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin - Please don't forget to delete Image:Nothin 2 say sml.JPG, Image:Summertime small.JPG, and Image:Summertime.JPG ... they were also uploaded by the author of this article. --68.239.79.97 16:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I believe those need to be listed individually, or included in the deletion debate to begin with. In any case, they'll be deleted eventually as orphaned images. --Sigma 7 04:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no salt required. This article does not have any attributions, and any information could easily be pulled from the artist's web site, if any. --Sigma 7 04:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 08:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitsumaru[edit]

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

Article is nonsense. User keeps undoing deletion requests. Marcellinus 07:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under any of a number of criteria (non-notable, nonsensical, insufficient context, likely meant as an attack... did I miss any?) So tagged. —Celithemis 07:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help. Marcellinus 05:58, 11 April 2007 (AEST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BizAutomation CRM[edit]

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

Contested prod. No notability established. For a $2 million company it also seems unlikely that it can be established. S.K. 07:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lack of independent sources Guy (Help!) 10:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy ffm ✎talk 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:CSD G11 spam. Also, it's full of empty buzzwords (software as a service) and many parts, including the entire opening paragraph, are not written in complete sentences. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lene Alexandra[edit]

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

Non-noteable person, orphaned page, one contributor. -- vidarlo 08:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative Keep. She gets 157.000 Ghits. The Gsearch "Lene Alexandra"+"My Boobs are OK" gets 30.000. That points to some notability. No hits on Google Scholar, but oh well ... . Stammer 09:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My name does get 28400Ghits. I'm still non-noteable. vidarlo 09:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep-I am REALLY tired of this woman and wish she would disappear from the media forever. Unfortunately, she probably passes WP:N, as she has been the subject of articles in several norwegian tabloids for several years, dating back to her appearance on norwegian survivor. She has also been on the cover of FHM. Appearantly this new "song" of hers has become popular also, don't know about any chart positions. Dr bab 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Looks like she passes notability. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A7 by RyanGerbil10. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shanzo[edit]

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

Unsourced, probably fake martial art. Google gives 0 hits for "Shanzo" "martial art" Ashenai 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no useful info and 1st verison read like an ad --Nate 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Hoax. ffm ✎talk 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former Airlines and Routes of San Francisco International Airport[edit]

Former Airlines and Routes of San Francisco International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic listcruft; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. dcandeto 08:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Indiscriminate list. What argument could possibly be made for a list of former airlines and routes of one city's airport? What is the context? Why is it needed? --Cyrus Andiron 13:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Matt 14:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failure of WP:NOT. If any of this information is important to the history of the airport that info can be placed there, but no reason to keep this article. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there's anything relevant to an encyclopedia it should be included in either the airport's article or the airlines' articles. Carlossuarez46 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Change is interesting and encyclopedic. This may be too arcane for the main article on the airport, but if not, I'm happy with merge. Fg2 04:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified and unsourced original research. The subject could be informative, but this form is not the best way (as only a list). Tinlinkin 10:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep but needs citations. If merged to San Francisco airport, you'll see an immediate delete because some editors don't like a big list. That airport is historic enough to have a museum inside the airport and there have been big changes over the years. A880M 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wild foods[edit]

List of wild foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A frankly bizarre article. It consists of a curious hybrid of mainstream non-domesticated animals and non-cultivated plants, and "unexplored, here be dragons" stuff about the need to carefulyl identify before consumption. Here's an example: under fish, you have a number of freshwater fish, but many of these are either farmed or carefully managed game stocks. Game is also often not wild - for example, grouse are generally managed and shot on well-tended grouse moors, nothing wild about them. Ditto pheasant. Ar molluscs wild? Not round here. Oyster beds are also managed. Not farmed, but managed. And that's the fundamental problem with the list; it is founded on an original research definition of what constitues wild food, and the foods are then added by more original research. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The referencing is not nearly sufficient, and the nature of the subject (no pun intended) promotes original research. YechielMan 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Insufficient sourcing, largely WP:OR and most of it doesn't make any sense. Virtually any source of food can be found in the wild as well. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably one of the funniest articles I have had the pleasure of reading recently. However, weird, wonderful and entertaining doesn't make it encyclopedic. Rgds, - Trident13 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of nightclubs[edit]

List of nightclubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list of nightclubs, most of which do not have articles and never should. WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete As constituted it fails WP:NOT, but an article by this title could be useful in a streamlined form. YechielMan 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate list. Also, completely unsourced information. What is the criteria for inclusion in the article? --Cyrus Andiron 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable, no clear objective inclusion criteria given, so fails WP:V. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above - the list is unsourced, unmaintainable, lacks inclusion criteria, but above all, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jakerforever 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; way too broad a topic that fails WP:NOT. 23skidoo 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, not enough consensus to merge but that option can be discussed on the talk page. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birinci Lig 2005-06[edit]

Birinci Lig 2005-06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is about a very low level league (at level of Cyprus 3rd division) of a non-recognized country. I think if it is going to be in wikipedia, it is not important to have about every season of that weak league.

user:KRBN 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If most of the teams are deemed notable, then I think league results are ok. Perhaps try deleting the teams first? aLii 10:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a de facto national league. I can understand POV issues when referring to various TRNC articles, but this one appears fine to me. - fchd 11:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep de facto nation top league. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus differ from Sealand. Matthew_hk tc 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a national top flight league. Yes, TRNC's unrecognised, but so are Taiwan, Palestine & Kosovo - for all practical purposes, it's a real country. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as above, it is the top flight league in Northern Cyprus. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created this page, so I won't put any kind of opinion in bold at the start. What I will say, is that I wouldn't lose sleep over it being deleted, but I don't see why it should be. As said above, it is a de facto national league. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 20:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dear Cream, do u care so much about Turkish Cypriot League? Is it important to have about every year? May be yes, there must be an information about their league as general to know that such football exist, however except the fact that the level is extremely weak (Cyprus Second Division is better). Of course user:Iridescenti's examples are very irrelevant, since Palestine and Taiwan are recognized by FIFA. Just imagine, if we allow every season of Turkish Cypriot competitions, since 1955 when began existing, all the cups, and if we allow all the competitions of 200 countries of FIFA and many others which are not recognized, we are talking for many thousand articles about season, most of them by very weak regions!!!!!

>User:KRBN 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment With respect, it appears to be you that cares more about the league, and your wish that it is removed from wikipedia. Cream147 said, and I quote, "I won't put any kind of opinion in bold at the start", and "I wouldn't lose sleep over it being deleted". There are local, regional leagues on wikipedia that are far less notable than this league which is after all a National league. And in my opinion there is no need for this league to be removed. As for other leagues, try these which are not affiliated to FIFA - Coca Cola GM Greenland Football league. Also the Gibraltar Football Association, and perhaps most relevant to the Turkish Cypriot situation in that they are not from an officially recognized country Tibet national football team. Whilst I believe that the Birinci Lig should retain a presence on wikipedia, it might be the best way forward, as alluded to in the original comment, to change the page title to Birinci Lig with details of each season on that one page only. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with you Tangerines. I am not opposing to have an article such as Birinci Lig. My problem- and that's why i commented the level and the fact that is not recognized country- is to have an article of every season. I didn't support the remove of article Birinci Lig but Birinci Lig 2005-06. Also Gibraltar and Greenland have no articles for every season.

User:KRBN 02:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentAgreed. To be honest I did completely miss the article, Birinci Lig, so my apologies. Could the article about the 2005-06 season be merged into the main article on the league?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's why I put it under deletion. Yes, I believe it must be merge to the article Birinci Lig. User:KRBN 11:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be fine with merging the seasons into a single article - just don't think the info should be deleted altogether. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that would be by far the best option, rather than deleting the information. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the general feel I'm getting from this discussion. I think that it would be fine to merge it. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - all other national leagues have a seperate page for each season, with the final league table etc. This one, even though it is for a generally unrecognised state, should have as well. - fchd 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice someone has deleted this season's Birinci Lig...that was once here as well. Is there anyway to resurface it, so we can add it to this merge we plan to do? Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 18:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Agree with User:Iridescenti and User:Tangerines. CanbekEsen 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestyle[edit]

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

Tagged for speedy but asserts notability, albeit weakly. Is this site the subject of multiple non-trivial external coverage? Guy (Help!) 10:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Krayze[edit]

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

Page of a person who does not meet biographical notability requirements. Nothing on his webpage shows anything but selfpromotion ( nice webpage in places though), no news articles or reliable source interest. Article has been speedied a number of times for different reasons Peripitus (Talk) 10:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Though he has some notability, a Google Test does not bring up very many hits. His myspace page, his official website are basically all I could find, other than odds and ends stuff. If he become more notable in the future due to more widespread exposure, then I'd support recreating with sources, but there just isn't enough information on him for a page yet, at least IMHO. sumnjim

17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC) talk with me·changes[reply]

  • Delete vanity page. JuJube 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the Radio Disney page, at a brief glance, seems to be created by the station and thus notable (mass syndication). May be a vanity page, but it is nonetheless valid (the source is affirmatively notable). Google hits are a measure of popularity and essentially have no part in determining an article's notability; see my Unforgivable Trilogy article, which concerns a widely popular series (four million YouTube views, t-shirts, a DVD, etc.) but, to my admission, has no genuine sources and thus, given the Wiki guidelines, should be deleted (of course, it's informative, interesting, and should not be deleted as per any other rationale). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropod[edit]

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

Why is this incredibly obscure set of alien races in some game here? These are non-noteable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merechriolus (talk • contribs) 2007/04/10 15:15:56

  • Delete as indiscriminate: a minor detail in a video game. The whole category of minor characters in this game deserves attention. YechielMan 15:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fénian Druid[edit]

The result was speedy delete. Harryboyles 12:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason the page should be deleted Slip an slide 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of war 2[edit]

Gears_of_war_2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

It should not be deleted. This article is based on factual information which is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A9l8e7n (talk • contribs) 2007/04/10 22:56:40

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until there is news from a reliable source about the game it is not true. Most of the page only talks about marketing strategies not about the game itself. DBZROCKS 11:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it has been announced then source it properly. Right now, it is definitely crystal looking. What is the rush to create the article, it's not like we have a deadline or anything. Let's wait a few months until something definitive is shown or released, then we can start the article. There is no prize for being the first to create a Gears of War 2 article. --Cyrus Andiron 13:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. ffm ✎talk 13:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while it is true that a sequel will be made, we have no information when it will be available, any content, or even if its in the works, or any info. Without any confirmed info, the article, its pure speculation, which makes it suited for deletion. --soum (0_o) 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or cite some specific sources. WP is not a crystal ball. --Dariusk 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Along with the previous posts, I recommend finding some reputable sources to confirm information about the game. If you can source it well and provide information, then I will vote Keep, but until then, I vote Delete. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject has not been shown to fulfill the notability guideline. There does not seem to be enough verifiable information to sustain a separate Gears of War 2 page at this time. Any credible, verifiable information would probably best belong in Gears of War for now. Dancter 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Can't get to discussion page; so I will say this here. Gears of War 2 should not be deleted because it has been said by the creators that the game was being made. Therefore this article is about a upcoming game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.9.116 (talk • contribs) and moved comment

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 15:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hewitt[edit]

Jeff_Hewitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Keep - Perhaps at the lower end of the notability spectrum the subject has been acknowledged and/or won some worthy contests and there is valid documentation to verify this. I think the article should be left and see what the year brings, whilst he is still active in his field.Fancyfootwork 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The awards may or may not be worth notability. The link to myspace certainly falls short. YechielMan 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Eastmain 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:BIO, With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions - this would include the comedy festivals mentioned in the article.Garrie 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as a copyright violation.--Isotope23 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeweed[edit]

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

This article reads like spam.--Alex 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete not only spam but a copyvio of this and so tagged. EliminatorJR Talk 11:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Spam, copyvio, no assertion of notability. --soum (0_o) 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Davidson[edit]

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

This was apparently inserted by a paid PR firm (according to Private Eye 13 April 07 kaswa is Ka**** Sw****, an employee of V**** Communications [a PR firm] who has been "bigging up" their clients on WikiPedia NBeale 11:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He's a CEO. He's a headhunter. But not notable. (incidentally, I can't find the referenced books in an ISBN search). EliminatorJR Talk 12:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The on-page red links say it all. Almost A7, as there's no real claim of encyclopedic notability (as opposed to him being a "successful guy"). --kingboyk 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Kingboyk. PRcruft ffm ✎talk 13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable person, fails WP:BIO.-- danntm T C 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This page serves no other purpose than being redunant to a category. Linking to a ridiculous amount of webpages advertising gay porn actors is not a good idea. Wikipedia is neither a link farm, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information (most of the performers listed on the page are not notable enough to have an article on themselves). As to the question of controversial classification, this page runs into the risk of violating WP:LIVING more often than not and is easily susceptible to libellous editing, which wouldn't be a problem with the more notable porn stars listed in a category, as much of the needed information would be available about the subjects on the internet. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of male performers in gay porn films[edit]

List of male performers in gay porn films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previous noms: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay porn stars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay porn stars (second nomination)

There's so many problems with this article it's hard to know where to start. OK, deep breath:

  • The only info it contains are names (redundant to a category) and external URLs (WP:NOT a link farm)
  • It contains a massive self reference (editing instructions)
  • The primary purpose of the list - i.e. the only useful function it serves which a category couldn't - is that it allows the tracking of needed articles. This seems to be a main motivation on the talk page certainly. Per WP:LIST, maintenance lists should be in project space.

Putting it in the less friendly way, I believe this is pure listcruft and recommend we delete it. --kingboyk 12:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • On one other point. Whilst I'm not a conneisour of this form of entertainment :), I am led to believe that this industry churns over stars at a phenomenal rate. As such, the list will be difficult to complete and will become very large - another argument in favour of using a category instead. --kingboyk 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - it looks like based on the edit history that User:Chidom is the person putting the most work in on this, so if he wants it, put it in his space. Otherwise delete. Otto4711 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommendeded moving to WikiProject space, but the folks on the talk page weren't interested. Of course, should it be deleted and they change their mind about that, an admin can always "userfy" it to WikiProject space or user space if requested. --kingboyk 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edison 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - An exceptionally useful list. One of the things it contains that a category couldn't possibly is the "AKA" info. This poor list has gone through so much negativity - does the List of female porn stars by decade go through the same harassment? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keep, and I hope you're not accusing me of bias! I wasn't aware of the list other you mentioned; it's not as messy as this one but nonetheless it does seem to be redundant to a category so I've nominated that one too. --kingboyk 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflicted with the next post)[reply]
To clarify the two main points noted in the nom, a) The AKA info alone is extremely useful, as well as containing info on articles not yet written, so it's not redundant to a category. b) The external URLs are *REQUIRED* per BLP. They're called "References" - we do like to have those in an encyclopedia. c) The self referencing can probably be cut down, but that's no reason to delete. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're not references, or at least certainly not formatted as such. --kingboyk 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have quite a few lists of pornograpy actors. See Category:Lists of porn stars. I don't see any reason given which indicates why this one should be deleted in particular. It is fully sourced and serves a purpose that a category could not: tracking the many stage names of the actors. I agree that the self-references should be removed, but that's not a reason to delete the article. -Will Beback · † · 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not going to cast a vote on keep or delete, but if kept, this has to be renamed as the current title is redundant. By definition gay porn features male performers. 23skidoo 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The name isn't redundant; gay porn films also have females in them at times. The list is of male performers. The article was renamed after a lengthy discussion regarding changing the article name from "List of gay porn stars". The former title resulted in frequent comments that the list was claiming that the men listed were gay (despite the explicit comment that the men listed "may or may not be gay" and a reference to Gay for pay. Another consideration was that names of men who were appearing only on websites (which can sometimes open and close in a matter of days) were being added; finding reliable sources for those names would have been a nightmare, so the list is limited to men performing in films.—Chidom talk  05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for better or worse, porn is notable and actors in porn films are notable, and WP has lots of lists of porn actors (stars?), which is perfectly OK. Carlossuarez46 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is the third nomination for the article. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, this article fulfills the functions of a list as defined by Wikipedia: (colored text with a different type face is used for my editorial emphasis; all other formatting is as it appears on the article page.
Information
The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
Navigation
Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists....If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).
Development
Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimised for readers and not editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space.
CharlotteWebb, closer of the most recent Afd prior to this one:
"The arguments presented for deleting this list are accompanied by the suggestion of dumping everything into a category, which would darken the situation from imperfect to incurable. Remember that it is not possible to add footnotes to an automatically generated category page, which, in isolation and at face value, may be interpreted as libelous. Controversial classifications, especially of people, should be handled by properly cited lists, rather than by categories."
Any bias here may not be with regard to sexual orientation, but perhaps the subject of pornography is bothersome? Otherwise, why not nominate every list on Wikipedia?
Why have List of American composers? Couldn't that be served by a category as well? The article actually references Category:American composers. The difference with the list is that it is annotated; that's not possible with the category.
Shouldn't the List of 00 ZIP codes (and related articles) be a category, as its purpose seems to be grouping towns by ZIP code? The answer is no, since not all the towns in a ZIP code group have articles yet.
I'm not trying to say that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions isn't applicable here. I just find it interesting that this is again a target for deletion when it's been demonstrated twice before to be a valid resource for Wikipedians and well within Wikipedia guidelines for lists, while other lists are never questioned.
The same issues keep arising with regard to the article. Here are the issues and responses:
Each name on the list wasn't individually sourced; only links to a few searchable websites were listed as being references for the entire list.
Individual sources are being provided.
The format of the references is an issue.
In-line links are an appropriate format for references.
The references link to commercial websites.
Anyone is welcome to find another easily-referenced and accessible reliable source for gay porn and change the links. Commercial websites offering porn films for sale in which the performer listed appears are unquestionably reliable.
The individual sources were being added as invisible comments; the links have to be available to everyone reading the article without editing the article.
The references were being added as invisible comments to avoid any question of motives in linking to commercial websites, that was ruled to be inadequate; the links are now visible.
The articles that need to be written aren't displayed as red links.
When they were wikilinked, articles created for non-porn performers with the same names were written and were linking back to the list. For that reason, there is an invisible comment to editors at the beginning of each section of the list to forego wikilinking the name until there is an article for the person as a porn performer.
The article contains self-references.
The remaining self-references have been marked as such with the {{selfref}} template. The Inclusion or removal section is not a self-reference; it has been specifically worded to avoid being just that. It is designed to explain how the list is compiled, not how to edit it. It is also designed to serve as notice to editors here as to the composition of the list to try and minimize inappropriate additions.
The list will be difficult to maintain.
All lists containing dynamic information are difficult to maintain; whatever solutions are found for other lists of this type can be applied here. At the moment, it's a non-issue. Remember, too, that it's not meant to be a list of every gay porn performer on the planet.
The list is a maintenance list and belongs in project or user space.
That is true for lists whose primary purpose is to list needed articles; that is not the case here. The primary purpose is to serve as an index/table of contents of articles cross-referenced to each performer's pseudonyms.
Brevity is not among my talents. I've made many of these arguments over and over in many different places, here they are again along with my responses to some newer objections.—Chidom talk  05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Chidom. This one's a no-brainer. SirSam972 05:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it was the #94 most viewed page of the month of April so far: [13] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.88.17 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • That's an interesting statistic indeed, but not at all relevent to the debate. --kingboyk 10:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. I don't think Chidom has missed anything, so I won't belabor those points. If there's any serious challenge to Chidom's analysis, let me know on my talk page so I can consider it. — coelacan — 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chidom. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow, chidom really wants to keep this. Fortunately his evidence is strong. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do, however, think it could do with a cleanup. The introduction section, with the exception of the last sentence, should be deleted entirely. All the instructions, for example, should be invisible - this is an encyclopedia, not a DIY manual. Although Chidom says it has been carefully worded not to give that appearance, it seems obvious to me, as I'm sure it does to many people, that it has been written to fend off other Wikipedians, not to add to the article. A paragraph on criteria in the lead would suffice for readers - anything else can be moved to talk or deleted. Similarly, the self-ref links in the see also section should be removed under WP:SELF. I get why you probably added them, but I think writing a form message to people who attack the article would better than writing a below-par article. All the external links should be turned into references, and ideally the entire article should be in table format - Celithemis has a script which can autmatically convert lists into tables, should you wish to contact her. I really appreciate the work that has gone into this list, but it needs a little more polish. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a major rewrite of the opening portion of the article, largely in part to quiet the continuing dissatisfaction with what are perceived to be self-references. My attempt was to have only the link to the talk page and the links to the other Wikipedia articles be the remaining self-references on the page. There is a template {{selfref}} to be used on self-references that allows other users of this information to omit them from versions published elsewhere; it was employed on all of those. The guideline says they are to be avoided, not that they should never be used. There's nothing wrong with stating for the reader what was required in order for a name to be included on the list—and doing so in detail isn't the crime some apparently think it is.
Much of the introduction comes from my experience here with regard to editors who insist on reading this as a list of gay men even though the information that it's not has been at the top of the article since August 2005. That's the biggest reason the article was renamed. Another issue to arise recently has been the attempt to include performers who have never been in a porn film; only on websites or in magazines.
The rest of the verbiage was a direct result of the decison reached by consensus about sourcing names individually, a decision I still disagree with. Part of the reason for the expanding lead section was to inform those who had missed (or skipped) the long debate about the new requirements for adding a name to the list.
As for "fending off" other Wikipedians, I don't think you can possibly imagine the amount of vandalism done to this article (mostly by non-registered users, but requests to have it permanently semi-protected have been denied). On one particular day, there were 23 separate "attacks" that had to be reverted; it couldn't be done automatically as legitimate additions were mixed in with the vandalism. Since the addition/revision of the introduction to the article, there has been less vandalism. Every addition that isn't obvious vandalism still has to be checked, with or without a linked source (gee, some people add bogus links!). If the verification isn't done, an edit war may ensue with their addition/removal. Names of valid performers who don't merit articles are being retained in the list in invisible comments to document the validation. Hopefully one of the results of the new requirement for sourcing will be a permanent reduction in the amount of vandalism.
The article is being converted into a table behind the scenes. The links aren't in a list of references because that would result in a list of references literally thousands of lines long. The references would be too far removed from the performer's listing to be useful or relevant. The links will be in their own column headed "References" in the table version; that should make it more obvious what the links are for and have them remain useful. Thanks.—Chidom talk  06:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The porn industry is only (ahem) getting bigger and having accurate information will help in tracking these actors as their fame and influence grows. I feel we should have this echo what is going on in the mainstream movie stars sections. It's a shame that vandalism happens at all and kinda sad that sex is seen as something other than a vital part of life and worthy of negative actions.Benjiboi 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Please keep this info available in this format. As has been stated before, the AKA is really useful, the URL info provides the references needed. Of course it is not complete - nothing of this sort will ever be complete, but neither will Wikipedia. There is too little of this type of information available and, unfortunately, you would be very hard pushed to find it in the standard mainstream works. Brian UK 02:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. The category is enough. If its purpose is to cross-reference performer's pseudonyms, this can be better done by redirecting pseudonyms to the performer's article. Epbr123 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes to better understand why this needs to be a list and not a category. They are not redundant; the information here cannot be displayed in a category—only existing articles can be categorized, and this list's secondary purpose is to provide a list of articles that need to be written, per Wikipedia:Lists.—Chidom talk  07:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should be moved to WikiProject space. Epbr123 08:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely masked advertising and link spam. Futurix 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone is welcome to replace the links to the commercial sites with other reliable sources. The links were originally invisible comments to avoid any accusations of "link spam"; the consensus was that they needed to be visible. Reliable sources for this topic are difficult to come by, these were the most expedient and were never meant to be advertising, only links to information about a performer. If you follow the links, they are to videographies, not to individual products.—Chidom talk  07:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No matter how you will twist the intent of the article - the fact will remain that it is effectively a giant advertising and link spam. Your admission of earlier invisibility of the links makes it even worse - hidden links are typical of link spam. As for the "videographies" - they all are lists of the products, and in many cases individual products can be bought with just one additional click. Futurix 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would like to know, why many of your links are for the affiliate 2301 in the TLA shop? Do you make any profit from that or would you like to pretend it was honest mistake? Futurix 08:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I was hiding the links to avoid cluttering up the page and my intent was to not have them be accessible by the vast majority of users. When they were invisible comments, in order for them to be of use they had to be copied and pasted in the user's browser; I argued against making them visible and live.
As for the affiliate numbers—it is an honest mistake, I do not have an affiliate account with tla. I'm sure the proliferation is because I use one of the existing links in the article to open the tla site in another window to search in. The urls that I find apparently have the number embedded in them. to access the site to search for videographies and the number is propagated in every link I copy thereafter. I was totally unaware that there were affiliate numbers embedded in the links; I will remove them all.—Chidom talk  21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether link is visible or hidden does not matter for the purposes of link spamming. Besides - hiding link spam from human readers is such a common thing at spam websites, that obviously it is very suspicious. Futurix 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to see the discussion about this here.—Chidom talk  06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this, and I'm amazed at your continuous refusal to understand that tlavideo profiteers from your linking. And your allegations of homophobia are stupid. Futurix 09:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have decided against categories "films by actor" and against templates with actor filmographies. Lists are the most advisable alternative (in most of the deletion discussions) and create the least clutter. Hoverfish Talk 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you propose deleting the gay porn star category then? Epbr123 08:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it is a cat crossing of films by actor, yes, as there is such a decision at WP:Films. But I am not sure about videos that have never been released in theaters. We are currently trying to clear out what comes under our project and what not. If we decide that videos are not part of Films, then it's out of my field to say. Hoverfish Talk 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove all non-notable pornstars from the list. Persons on it should either have their own article or have reliable sources confirming their notability. We should not indiscriminately list all gay porn stars. WjBscribe 15:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm arbitrarily basing the inclusion of the performers on the size of their videographies, which isn't an accurate yardstick at all, but it's something. The guideline is that there is a "reasonable expectation" that there will be an article in the future. It is not unreasonable to expect that someone with a lengthy videography will meet notability requirements. There is an article on a performer here who was in exactly one film—his notability stems from the fact that he was well-known for having won a bodybuilding title beforehand. Once again an attempt is being made to apply a more stringent standard to a porn-related article than to those with less controversial subjects.—Chidom talk  21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a good yardstick for inclusion of pornstars on Wikipedia. Its called WP:PORNBIO. I don't think performers who don't meet that standard belong on the list. WjBscribe 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere is it required that any name on any list be proven to meet notability standards before they're put on the list; the guideline for a list is that there is a reasonable expectation that they will qualify for an article. A robust videography is an indicator that there is a reasonable expectation that the person will qualify. WP:PORNBIO is applicable to articles, not to lists. If it turns out that an article meeting notability requirements can't be written about a performer on the list, they can be removed. The amount of research required to evaluate the performer with regard to WP:PORNBIO or other notability guidelines is not a requirement for them to be listed; if that were the case, there would never be any lists. When that much reasearch is done, a stub article can be written. (Very carefully, by the way—gay porn stubs are summarily deleted while still being actively edited just because the first thing on the page wasn't the information establishing their notability.) One point of having the list is so that the research and drafting of articles can be divided among many editors.—Chidom talk  05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on LinkSpam: Can anyone recommend a better WP:RS for providing a reference to the fact that a particular performer was in a gay porn film? As has been discussed on the list's talk page, vendors are the only ones we've found so far. If anyone can provide a better one, I'll be happy to change the links to that. Until then, this is the only way we have of avoiding BLP and providing a reliable citation. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or Delete) - who cares anymore? When I first discovered the 'List of Gay Porn Stars' it was a useful link to the articles. It's now become 'who can be more wiki than the other'. The articles are still there on a general search so who really needs this page. I had been tempted to add some articles (especially as some of the more notable, prolific and longer-lasting actors weren't included)but can't be bothered in getting into a turf-war with people more interested in style than substance.

PS To satyrTN - yes, plenty of other reliable sources - you've been given some, I could be one but you seem determined that we only have commercial sources. I feel sorry for Chidom who seems to have been forced to do things against his better judgment just to keep the page going. Cannonmc 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm really undecided about this. Most of the concerns that have been raised about this list can be easily remedied, but others can't. Most of the references point to the same web site. We should try to diversify our sources as much as possible. My own concern is (since a lot of the actors are known by several different names, and we may never know the real name for many of them), is that any two lines on the list could contain separate sets of pseudonyms for the same actor, possibly making the population of the list seem much greater than it actually is. Thoughts? — CharlotteWebb 13:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monoliths in popular culture[edit]

Monoliths in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The title says it all, really. Appearantly the article attempts to list different monoliths that can be seen in popular work. As of now, it deals mainly with the monoliths from Space Oddysey. Appears to be original research, has no references and has been tagged for these shortcomings for about a month Dr bab 12:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per [[WP:OR ffm ✎talk 13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR ffm ✎talk 13:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only if merged back to monolith, else keep. This was apparently broken out of the article in chief in January as part of the "popular culture" pogrom; see Talk:Monolith. Since the 2001: A Space Odyssey monolith is surely worthy of mention in the article in chief whether there is a separate popular culture monolith article or not, and this deals almost exclusively with that monolith, it should be moved back. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need to merge to monolith. This article is almost exclusively about The Monolith and not monoliths in general, and that monolith has its own article. At best, replace the "see also" link to this article with one to The Monolith. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. FWIW, the text now here reads better, to me, than the text that is at The Monolith. At minimum, the see also link should indicate what The Monolith is about; it is not obvious from the title that The Monolith is about the 2001 monolith. In that case, perhaps the relevant majority of this article should move to either The Monolith or Monolith (2001: A Space Odyssey), the see-also link pointed to that one, and The Monolith redirected there. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no merger - no need for this article to exist, no need for the information in it to be merged anywhere. The article is largely serving as a disambiguation page for things named "Monolith." There is a Monolith (disambiguation) page already so those items in this article with articles of their own can be entered there. Otto4711 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; This seems like it's a fork of List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is huge. Pufnstuf 05:56, 12 April 2007 (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. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Footballers Playing Abroad[edit]

Irish Footballers Playing Abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems like an indiscriminate and pointless list to me. Criteria for inclusion are foggy at best, and could potentially include anyone from Ireland playing any grade or quality of football. Lankiveil 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yet another indiscriminate list that has no sources listed. Also, no context to the article or explanation for inclusion. --Cyrus Andiron 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless list, and not even kept up-to-date, it's been several months since Darren Randolph's loan spell at Gillingham ended.... ChrisTheDude 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. Punkmorten 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete, I made it, spent a lot of time on it, and I know quite a few people who use it when trying to see how Irish people did over the weekend. Honestly, what harm can this article do? theworm2345 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well for one thing it contains incorrect/misleading information, such as the reference to Darren Randolph being on loan at Gillingham, which is seven months out of date ChrisTheDude 16:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are 212 countries in the world, are we going to have a similar piece of listcruft for all of them? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete- Don't delete it, but make it into a category rather than an article.DmanDmythDledge 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry but it is a pointless list, as per iridescenti above. Plus it is fair enough having done a lot of work originally on the article, but it has not been kept up to date. Also, a very quick glance brought up two players who should not even be listed. The category states it is a list of "Irish players playing abroad". Paul Tierney who plays for Blackpool F.C. was born in Salford, England. He is listed as being an English born Irish footballer, but he can hardly be classed as "playing abroad", considering that he was born, brought up in, and lived all his life in the UK. The same with another Blackpool player, Ben Burgess for exactly the same reasons. In addition, Gareth Farrelly is included as playing for Blackpool, yet he now plays for Cork City in Ireland. And that is just looking at one club. Should the consensue end up being to keep, then a lot more work needs to be done on it to ensure the information is 100% correct. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Wait a second, many footballer's pages are not up to the second (with caps and goals), and those are fine, as long as they have the little thing about when it was updated at the bottom. Couldn't we just do that with this? (write at the top, "Correct as of") theworm2345 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area 10 Project Space Peckham[edit]

Area 10 Project Space Peckham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:ORG. Article also has WP:COI issues.RJASE1 Talk 12:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable; no external sources; unlikely to be of interest outside the local area. YechielMan 15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at present but it needs a cleanup as it currently reads like an advert. Eagle Wharf is a major project; this would probably be better as part of a single Eagle Wharf article. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a quick Google search turned up just 26 hits, none of them appearing to meet the Reliable Source and Notability Guidelines' requirements. I'm willing to overlook conflict of interest issues and reconsider if notability is demonstrated. --A. B. (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless sourced. --RaiderAspect 05:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :: 1) the subject itself lacks general notability; 2) the article as is, has been padded with peripheral text not strictly relevant to the supposed subject; 3) reads as advertising copy. -- 62.25.109.196 08:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources, and the significance of this operation is impossible to determine without them. EdJohnston 17:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin - Even if this gets deleted can I request it not be salted, as per the conversation on my talk page regarding a possible recreation of this in a valid form. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Salting is extremely rare, so I dont think there's much risk of that. --RaiderAspect 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although this AFD has been open for a full week, there have no edits to the article other than bots and COI until my own small edit a few minutes ago. — Athænara ✉ 06:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respite[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just a dictionary definition, basically. It's already been transwikied to Wiktionary, so no need to do that again. Xyzzyplugh 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. Orderinchaos 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr St Clair Johnson[edit]

Mr St Clair Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article nominally about a character on an Australian TV series, I Got You Babe, which I cannot find. Is more likely an attack/joke/hoax page about a schoolteacher, see this diff by the creator. All significant edits are by anons or new accounts. Unreferenced. Not specific enough for a db-attack, and a contested prod. Mr Stephen 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete TV series does not exist, looks like a joke page about a teacher. --Canley 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Check the staff list for Brighton Secondary School - it has to be a joke page about the teacher in question. The article changed completely after I'd nominated it for speedy deletion. Before the speedy tag it looked like this. --Bonadea 13:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. As an avid consumer of the Australian TV arts, I have never heard of or seen such a show, let alone the name of the charachter. Thewinchester (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously fake, but I do imagine it has provided much amusement for the students at Brighton Secondary School. Bandwagonman 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bonadea. — Pious7TalkContribs 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an Australian, I have not heard of this show or its claimed star. No sources are provided to support the article. Further, a search of Google News [14] and Google News Archive [15] fails to come up with any evidence verifying the claims in the article. Possible speedy delete as hoax given the circumstances. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sarah 07:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (personal attacks removed)
  • Delete, I might be ignorant, but at least I can spell "you" properly. Lankiveil 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, probably a CSD A7 candidate, but certainly no evidence of notability. --- Deville (Talk) 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Francis[edit]

Non notable person. Deputy Chairman/Deputy Head? Pally01 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Pillar of the community, I'm sure, but Deputy Chairman of an orchestra and Deputy Headteacher at a high school aren't even claims to notability. Pan Dan 19:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarna Jayanti Swarozgar Yojana[edit]

Swarna Jayanti Swarozgar Yojana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is almost completely empty, and has been for over a month. Robinson weijman 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note: If this article is kept, its name should probably be changed to "Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana", according to a quick Google search (see e.g. MAVIM). Robinson weijman 13:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beuningse Boys[edit]

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

amateur football club Matthew_hk tc 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: amateur club without highlights or notability throughout its sixty years history. Fram 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This club - Chicago Magic was also recently deleted and they had a similar claim to being notable because of their achievements and history etc. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BHFPodmladak[edit]

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

Unknown fans group of football club Matthew_hk tc 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i also nominated

BH Female Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Matthew_hk tc 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete both per CSD A7, no assertion of notability. YechielMan 15:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the parent club doesn't warrant an entry, the youth team surely doesn't deserve one. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This isn't the youth team of a club, it's the youth "section" of some sort of fan club/ultra group ChrisTheDude 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
even more reason then - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isigqumo[edit]

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

This doesn't meet Wikipedia:Attribution, no sources appear to exist on this at all. The article pretty much comes out and admits this. There are various links at the end of the article, none of which are about this language. We have no way of knowing if this even exists. Xyzzyplugh 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:ATT. There are zero hits on Google Scholar [16], and something just raises my hackles when we read about a hitherto-unknown and -unnamed cant that's exclusively about explicit homosexual sex amongst blacks; I suspect hoax.  RGTraynor  13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - not one of the sources cited uses the term once. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Martinez Middle School[edit]

Bob Martinez Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school, prod removed without comment by anon IP. Part of a flurry of over a hundred Tampa Bay-area middle and elementary school stubs created 14 months ago, no edits of any kind from February 2006 until article prodded. Completely fails WP:ATT, fails WP:NN as well, no reason to believe that the article will ever be sourced or substantively improved.  Ravenswing  13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, mm, good point, the prod was removed on the sixth day, but I'll take a deletion decision here instead.  Ravenswing  18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to School District 34 Abbotsford. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matsqui Elementary School[edit]

Matsqui Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school, single sentence stub created in May 2006, no substantive edits made since then and infobox likely out of date. Completely fails WP:ATT, fails WP:NN, no assertion of notability, no reason to believe this article will ever be sourced or improved.  RGTraynor  13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 34 Abbotsford. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that would mess things up, as anybody clicking on this school's link at School District 34 Abbotsford would be bounced back to School District 34 Abbotsford. I guess this should just be Deleteed to leave a red link at School District 34 Abbotsford. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Would be better as part of a school district article, appears to not be notable enough for own article. Camaron1 | Chris 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one-sentence stub that fails to establish notability.--Wizardman 02:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and unlink the school at School District 34 Abbotsford. Wikipedia is not a directory. This article contains only directory information that is not worth merging into the school district article. The only thing potentially worth merging is the name of the principal and the # of students enrolled. However, as both of those entries are unverified, it doesn't make much sense to merge for just those two. -- Black Falcon 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeware[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism and dictionary definition. I looked for sources, but the most I could find were things like blog posts and discussions -- people using the word colloquially, but without anything reliable to assert its widespread use. Compare the Google results for hopeware definition with other "ware" terms like shareware definition and spyware definition. Those terms have reached widespread acceptance in technology vocabulary, and are defined by many reliable sources. Hopeware has not achieved that kind of distinction. Leebo T/C 13:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdous Azam Khan[edit]

Ferdous Azam Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, appears to be a non-notable CEO of a non-notable company, nothing more than a passing mention in a few google results. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: Vanity bio of a non-notable person. The person is not AT ALL notable in any circle in Bangladesh. --Ragib 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 05:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth.sg[edit]

Youth.sg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB.RJASE1 Talk 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteas non notable website. Also, there appear to be conflict of interest issues judging by the name of the editor that started the article. --Cyrus Andiron 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. YechielMan 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an article on a website which fails to assert notability, or corporate vanity. MER-C 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoadingReadyRun[edit]

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

Previously deleted per this AfD, it was recently created again, speedy tagged as a repost, and contested. You can see the article talkpage for the reason it was contested. None of the reasoning there meets WP:WEB though and overall I don't see any greater case for keeping this now than when it was originally deleted as an AfD. It isn't an exact repost though, and IMO, wasn't close enough for a speedy. Regardless I think this is a pretty clear delete. Isotope23 14:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete under WP:CSD#G4. It had an AFD that ran its course. The page cannot be recreated before taking it through deletion review.--Cyrus Andiron 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Ah... Not an exact repost, with exact repost being the optimum words. In that case delete as non notable website. --Cyrus Andiron 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I would like to see the page kept it does lack the definition of notability. Fair enough delete it. Also it was created in December and not noticed until now. Korandder 20:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 05:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cúchullain t/c 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of female porn stars by decade[edit]

List of female porn stars by decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is redundant to a category of porn stars by decade. kingboyk 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree. YechielMan 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are no categories of porn stars by decade, hence no redundancy. And a list can handle this sort of organization much better than a category can. Dekkappai 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, this sort of chronological listing (unlike a category) lends its self to a narrative thread, placing these isolated articles in a historical context. In fact, when I get time, I think I'll work up little decade summaries for the Japanese porn industry, and I encourage other editors to do the same for the U.S. and whatever other countries are represented. Dekkappai 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Dekkapai's statement, it can hardly be redundant to something that doesn't exist. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because it's redundant to any category (it isn't), but due to the arbitrary, rough criteria of "by decade." What objective criteria defines someone as a "1990s porn star" vs. a "2000s porn star"? Jenna Jameson, for example, is categorized under "2000s," but according to her article she rose to prominence in 1993. Additionally, unless a reliable source can be found for every single person on this list confirming that she was most prominent during that decade, it's also original research. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is totally arbitrary at present; a single list sorted by date of first appearance, maybe, but "decade" is meaningless and "star" is a weasel word. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekkapai. This list is an excellent nonredundant way of presenting its subject matter. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'll grant that a decade is an arbitrary grouping of years by ten, because we arbitrarily use the decimal system, probably because humans have ten digits... And a year is an arbitrary grouping of days into 365 (not counting leap-year) due to the earth's rotation around the sun, and a day is an arbitrary grouping of hours into 24, etc... However, to imply that grouping by decade is original research by the porn cabal is a bit of a stretch. I daresay that if you look around Wikipedia you'll find other groupings by decade. Proposing the deletion of this list for using the arbitrary decade listing sets up an interesting precedent. As for the quibbling with the term "porn star," whether you call them pornographic actors, erotic performers, whatever, I think you'll admit that the occupation does exist. If it's the term "porn star" that is objectionable, we can debate whether to use another term. A rose by any other name, etc... I'd hardly propose deleting an article on American Indians/Native Americans/Indigenous peoples of the Americas or whatever, just because some disagree over which term to use to designate the group. Dekkappai 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep could be redundant isn't synonymous with redundant, and lists aren't redundant with categories. WilyD 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Difficult if not impossible to verify, yet alone maintain, given the nature of the business in which decades-old footage is continually repackaged. I agree with Krimpet that it's a challenge to objectively categorize people in this way. For example, Christy Canyon remains a notable porn star today- yet I don't think she's made any films since 2000. So do we list her as a 2000s star or not? The Jameson example is a good one. She's been around since the early 90s but never really became big in the mainstream until the 2000s. A better list article of this sort might be a "by decades" survey of porn stars who have become mainstream celebrities (i.e. Linda Lovelace, Jameson, Tera Patrick) which is slightly easier to verify. 23skidoo 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The success of this "Decades are unverifiable/original research" argument absolutely flabbergasts me. Debut dates are verifiable. Nearly every name on the list is blue-linked. Presumably all the sourcing is at the article. If it is not, that article will be deleted, red-linked on this list, and then removed from it. If a particular name is in the wrong decade, correct it. I believe this is how errors are dealt with in other articles. Since when has chronological order been banned from Wikipedia? Imagine, for a second, that this reasoning were applied to other subjects, 1970s in film for one. And think of the fall-out it would have on historical articles. I mentioned above that I'd write decade summaries of the Japanese industry. But since so many editors claim that decades, when they relate to porn anyway, are imaginary, unverifiable, original researchy sorts of things, I'll hold off to see if this Kafkaesque reasoning wins out. No use wasting the effort. Dekkappai 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons on the male porn actors above. Carlossuarez46 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful. bd2412 T 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Most porn stars don't have their careers entirely within one decade. Keep with modifications per User:Ceyockey. Epbr123 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepPotentially useful for some older man or woman who wants to read on porn stars of the time that they watched porn. Otherwise, a long list would be so long with so many unfamiliar names. Recommend delete only if wikipedia is against all mention of porn.A880M 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lists and categories are not always redundant. This stuff is generally better in a list form.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with modifications. I was going to close this as Keep - no consensus or Keep with following mods but instead decided to articulate an opinion rather than imposing one. I think this article should be first renamed to List of notable erotic actors by decade; 'actor' can refer to a man or a woman and using 'notable' and 'erotic' rather than 'star' and 'porn' better articulate the desired content. Second, the article content should be expanded to include both male and female actors (actors and actresses) without reference to their sexual orientation; this would, for instance, allow notable content from the recently deleted List of male performers in gay porn films to be recovered into this article, allow inclusion of actors that might have switched their on screen sexuality during their career, and generally keep down the proliferation of subtopical lists. Third, the article should start with the statement that actors are listed by the decade in which they debuted; this addresses the repeated concerns above about trying to map an actor to the decade of their prominence. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Masi Strain[edit]

The result was speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. Appears to be a hoax, as there are no Google hits for "Masi Strain". It's unsourced as well. Leebo T/C 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ugh, you're right. I can't see pictures when I'm on this computer (due to filters), so I didn't notice the fact that the article targets a person. Tagged as an attack page. Leebo T/C 16:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virvint Capital Management[edit]

Virvint Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a contested deletion. The article is about a recent startup and has no sources other than the company's own website, and I believe it is unsourceable. If this were a recently created article, it probably would have been shot on sight. I was told to come to you guys, and the following conversation ensued:

If I go to afd, how will you vote? Maybe we could just skip that step .. I don't want to get into some deletion process if there is a good reason to keep these after all.[17]
Well there are rules that state no original research. but there is also a rule that states if a source can be referenced, it should not be deleted. so I will vote no for delete. Remember we are trying to create an encyclopedia i.e. the sum of all human knowledge. [18]
Do you mean that you think we can reference a source? Which one(s)?[19]

No response. Oh well. Better safe than sorry. You know what to do. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete {{db-advert}}. I'm shocked this has stayed up for more than a year. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete fails WP:CORP and its more or less an advertisement. Montco 04:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteOnly the first 2 sentences are worthy of wikipedia. The rest is unsubstantiated and possibly not true (unless you say I have ties to Harvard and Stanford because I've seen the place). Even more reason to delete because it has been around for a year with no improvement. If it was there only a week, then there's a chance that the editor will improve it.A880M 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - probably should have been speedied. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAT International[edit]

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

This is a contested deletion. The article has no sources other than the company's own website, and I believe it is unsourceable, and reads like an advert. If this were a recently created article, it probably would have been shot on sight. I was told to come to you guys, and the following conversation ensued:

If I go to afd, how will you vote? Maybe we could just skip that step .. I don't want to get into some deletion process if there is a good reason to keep these after all.[20]
Well there are rules that state no original research. but there is also a rule that states if a source can be referenced, it should not be deleted. so I will vote no for delete. Remember we are trying to create an encyclopedia i.e. the sum of all human knowledge. [21]
Do you mean that you think we can reference a source? Which one(s)?[22]

No response. Oh well. Better safe than sorry. You know what to do. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM--Greatestrowerever 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to keep it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anjel[edit]

Anjel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, band released no CDs whatsovever, requests for assertion of notability and references were removed without addressing issues. Delete. Jefferson Anderson 15:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one, don't edit here mostly, but I am tired of people flaunting the rules whenever. While the group may not have released an album, they did release a song. But more importsntly, they are an IMPORTANT part of the history of Destiny's Child that doesn't fit neatly within the articles of DC, LeToya or LaTavia alone. The girls left and created there new group. It was a part of LeToya, Natividia and LaTavia's history (all three successful musicians). KEEP' 69.180.28.17 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)— 69.180.28.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Yes i agree because of one person being confused dose n ot mean delete KEEP 162.84s.175.221 00:a27, 14 April 2007e (UTC)— 162.84s.175.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep it Anjels does have a Cd it just Was never released,and they have a history just like every other Girl Group.KEEP 69.114.197.41 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)— 69.114.197.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak reluctant KEEP - although it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, in light of the notability of its members I think this probably warrants invoking WP:IAR. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Jefferson seems to have some campaign against what HE thinks is "notable", "reliable", and/or "worthy" of inclusion into Wikipedia (despite WP:MUSIC and the other Wikipedia pages he quotes are GUIDELINES and not POLICIES. I tire of his egotistical antics. -Eep² 08:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted - spam, no evidence of notability, possible scam (see history). - Mike Rosoft 12:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explore Talent[edit]

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

Non-notable company, advert Rich257 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike weapons & equipment[edit]

Counter-Strike weapons & equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

same reasons as for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Counter-Strike_equipment ("Clear violation of WP:NOT as information only useful in the successful execution of a video game. There is no value to this entry beyond the scope of being helpful in playing Counter-Strike. It's a game guide folks") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike weapons ("unencylcopedic fancruft" Jestix 16:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fans of this game seem to be very cyber-aggressive ;-) Its quite naturally that fans of XY try to expand the theme XY in wikipedia as much as possible... --Jestix 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of literature on political science[edit]

List of literature on political science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had initially typed a {{prod}} rationale for this article but decided, upon reading it, to bring to AFD instead. Better safe than sorry, and all that.

This seems to be the only list of its kind ("literature on [subject]") and it is a hopelessly incomplete one at that ("literature" includes both books and articles). However, those aren't really reasons to delete an article. Arguably, this might be better handled by a category, but that too is largely a personal preference on which I'm loathe to base deletion. I think this list violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:NOT#DIR. The best way to express my sentiment is this: Wikipedia is not a syllabus.

For the sake of avoiding instruction creep, please do not add syllabi to WP:NOT. Like I wrote, this is the only such article I was able to find; there's no need to create a separate rule to cover just one article. -- Black Falcon 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I just now realised that my request itself violates the essay I've linked to. :-| -- Black Falcon 05:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See Category:Lists of publications in science. --- RockMFR 06:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I don't know why I missed that. The articles in that category differ from this one. They ony list publications that are central to the discipline; the books listed in this article are textbooks for public administration and American government, but are not the most central ones (at least in the latter category, I know little about public administration). A List of important publications in political science may be a viable article, but it would not gain much from this existing article. I will see if I can start that article today or tomorrow. Thanks again, Black Falcon 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and put the important publications in and change the title if necessary. All editing decisions. DGG 02:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think a literature list for political science is comparable to lists in Category:Lists of publications in science. The central publications for subjects like mathematics or physics are essentially the same across the world. Euclid and Newton will be studied in every mathematics and physics program, respectively, but the content of "political science" programs differs from country to country. Political science programs in every country include their own "Country government" subfields (e.g., Canadian government, Indian government, Zimbabwean government). Any "list of literature on political science" could not plausibly include all of those. If the subfield of "national governments" is dropped, we are left with "political theory", "international studies", and "comparative politics". A list could be made for these three, but it could use nothing from this existing article. Again, a List of important publications in political science would not use the items noted in the existing article. Cleanup and renaming are possible, but it would involve rewriting the article in its entirety; it would be no different than starting a new article. -- Black Falcon 22:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the title would include the word important, as each item in the list would only be included if it were notable. In any case, I lean towards deletion of this list per a rewrite would be no different than starting a new article. That is unless someone (perhaps from the poli sci wikiproject) wanted to clean it up. By the way, as for a list of publications in the social sciences, there are often published bibliographies on subjects from which we could cite notability of books. There are also statistics of most cited works, which would also allow us to say certain works are notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Delete, and kill it with fire. No hate towards the subject, but I'm pretty much against the whole "List Of" thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.253.7 (talk • contribs).
  • delete as overbroad, by the topic itself it ought to include several thousand entries at minimum, everything from Plato's "Republic" to my political science 411 textbook. I don't see how this could ever be comprehensive list, or even address a modest part of the topic. perhaps a list of *notable* or 'influential' works could be made, if referencing could be found for the importance of the topics (IE lists of influential works that have been published or the comments of notable political scientists) that would be different, but as is it's indiscriminate and far far too broad. Wintermut3 06:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad, unmaintainable unlike lists of hard science books. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep' Other such lists referrrd to here have clear criteria for inclusion; this does not. for a meaningful article, it should--but that is really an editing question, because it is possible to do so.DGG 23:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Laity[edit]

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

No assertion of notability and Mr. Laity doesn't appear to be notable. Article was already prodded, creator removed tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He appeared on a stamp, but the criteria for this seems to have been being just another Aussie. Along with the other 26 people in this stamp series, may be the only people pictured on postage stamps to not be notable enough for WP entries. I'm sure someone will start a list.--killing sparrows 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article on "Face of Australia" stamp sheet in general, with a list of all those depicted, but probably no further information about any of them, if this article is not to be kept. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, That's actually a pretty good idea, I may even do it myself. --killing sparrows 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge → Australia Post Stamps and Products, which would require extending the listing back to 2000 and treating the Laity stamp as part of the Face of Australia issue. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the Face of Australia stamp sheet article is created, then this should redirect to that article. Otherwise, it should be deleted as there is no evidence that he is notable enough to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Sarah 07:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the whole point of these stamps was that the people depicted were not notable. Lankiveil 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and no independent sources (the Australia Post website is something of a self-reference). Orderinchaos 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comment above by Capitalistroadster. Euryalus 09:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the keep arguments are not convincing. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democrazy (film)[edit]

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

This is a no-budget straight-to-video B movie (actually not even that, B movies were actually shown in movie theatres, this never has been as far as we can tell) written, produced, directed and acted by Michael Legge, whose notability seems not to spread much beyond his immediate circle despite prolific and protracted attempts to boost his profile through Wikipedia. This article asserts that it won a B Movie Festival awar. Maybe it did, but there is no evidence this is considered significant. The sources cited are trivial, and not provably independent. At least one takes its text from IMDB, which is, of course, user edited (and indie films are usually added by their producers). It was previously deleted by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democrazy, which was created by Legge's fans before the film was even released. The primary notability criterion is: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works. Such sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. I see no evidence that this film has been the primary subject of any such non-trivial independent sources. There are notably bad films, often made by Ed Wood. There are (subjectively) bad notable films, <cough>Waterworld</cough>. This does not appear to be either. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Strictly of course based on the fact that the film doesn't yet have enough notability sources. From Googling things like Democrazy Legge film -Albarn -wikipedia (dropping Damon Albarn who seems to have an album of the same name), I can't see the notability yet. Maybe in time... redirect to the Michael Legge article for this. No harm in his films that don't pass notability on their own for an article to not redirect back to him, as he does pass notability, and people could likely search for those terms/films. - Denny (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a whole other can of worms. His Sideshow Cinema article is a gathering-ground for deleted non-notable actors, a one-article end-run round dozens of deletions. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the official policy on redirecting marginally notable, possibly searched-for things like this? Please let me know what policy controls this? Thanks! - Denny (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see any possible reason for a redirect from a disambiguated title. —Cryptic 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • People may search for the film title. - Denny (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The existence of this article, and presumeably a redirect from it, won't help searching anyway. Go ahead, try it. Though there might be an argument for a dablink from Democrazy. (This article is about the actually-sort-of-notable album. For the direct-to-video zero-budget film Democrazy, see Michael Legge.)... —Cryptic 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The speculation concerning a conspiracy to keep the article can be ignored as irrelevant to this AfD. The article gives grounds for significance (an award), and I can see no good grounds for deleting it. The further demand that the article give grounds for the significance of the award is unprecedented, so far as I'm aware. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That only works if the award is in some way significant. Apparently Fairy dishwasher liquid was awarded "dishwasher product of the year" - does that in and of itself make the product notable? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who gave the award or whether the award is notable? --Minderbinder 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is no evidence that the award is worth anything; he mailed a copy of his movie in with $40.00 and got an award. Its not of the same meaning as the Sundance Film Festival. Badlydrawnjeff, you haven't given any proof for your claims. Arbustoo 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. Article is certainly a subpage of the works of Legge, and notability is clearly established by winning awards, which is typically enough. I struggle if we can't find anything, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost total lack of reliable, independent sources. The only possible argument for notability is an award from B-Movie Film Festival, which barely squeaks past our article inclusion standards itself. (Consult its Google results, for example.) —Cryptic 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User talk:Mel Etitis. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any arguments for keep on that page. Perhaps you could be more specific. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Nothing's changed since the original deletion, as it's still a minor film -- essentially home movie -- and recreating it without benefit of review by those other than its original creators is a bad idea, whatever handwaving Mel Etitis does about it being "successfully argued for" when he undeleted it. And as for The speculation concerning a conspiracy to keep the article can be ignored as irrelevant to this AfD -- deliberately and misdirecting pejorative language aside, nooo, it's exactly relevant, as it's part of a years-long pattern of one or two editors to use Wikipedia to promote the noncareers of a couple of aggressive non-notable actors/filmmakers and their friends, including insertion of the principals and their images into other barely related or unrelated articles. This is merely another brick in the wall of an extensive walled garden. I was hoping to have the time to gather all the metastasized portions up into one big nomination, but if piecemeal is what it takes, it's a good start. --Calton | Talk 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, it simply doesn't meet the speedy deletion criterion: it makes a claim to significance. Secondly, you seem to have misunderstood my comments, but let that pass. Thirdly, your sarcasm and aggression here sit uneasily with your finger-wagging over the "pejorative tone" of my comment. I'm doing what we're all supposed to do: treating each article on its own merits. Many of the articles to which you refer I either had nothing to do with or argued against; I think that this one meets the criteria. I'm neither part of the cabal of walled-gardeners nor part of the self-appointed task force of garden destroyers; I'm neither committed to rescuing all the articles nor to destroying them root and branch (though I realise that the mentality of such groups means that I'm bound to be lumped in with the "enemy"). I hold both approaches to be anti-Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, what part of my {{db-repost}} tag was unclear? I even included the LINK TO THE AFD in the edit summary: yeah, it fails the "makes no claim to significance" portion, but perhaps you missed that there are other criteria for CSD? Second, I think I understood your comments enough to know that your phrase "successfully argued for" seems to be essentially meaningless, but perhaps there are subtleties that I'm missing. Certainly I understand the meta-message of language like "conspiracy theory" -- and I'm sure you do, too. Third, your threats to block anyone disagreeing with your wheel-warring makes you an odd choice for a complainant about aggression, not to mention a wee bit hypocritical to complain about sarcasm given the characterization of other comments as being "conspiracy theories". Fourth, treating the articles on their merits means examining them in toto and their apparent reasons for existence, given their linkages -- which makes no difference, really, since even examined individually they're failures due to being un- or badly sourced advertising-like and vanity treatments of unnotable personalities and their works. I've certainly never suggested you were the "enemy" -- God knows WHAT made you bring THAT up -- but now that you mention it you seem to be making some kind of point about God-knows-what principle at the expense of actual encyclopedic standards and purposes. --Calton | Talk 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't demonstrate notability, lack of non-trivial sources. --Minderbinder 13:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've improved the B-Movie Film Festival article a fair bit. Michael Legge has won 3 awards there, but it's not quite a "walled garden", other winners include Rhonda Shear, Billy Zane, and Thomas Edward Seymour, people appearing at the awards include Debbie Rochon and Michael Berryman... it's a niche genre, no one involved would even object to having it be called a cult genre, but it is notable. Winning an award there is certainly an assertion of notability, we were able to convince Tregoweth to un-speedy-delete it based on that. Is it sufficient for inclusion? I tend to think yes, but then that's what we're here for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually it won one award, but was nominated for three. Again, what's the significance. According to its website, currently the festival is hosting Syracuse Teen Idol for $5 a ticket, and anyone can submit their films as long as they pay $30-40.00. Arbustoo 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award has borderline notability (I'm inclinded to see it as not notable) and we have no useful non-trivial reliable sources to write about this film. If non-trivial, indpendent reliable sources show up I'll be happy to change my mind then. JoshuaZ 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no notability. Unless WP:RS appear and demonstrate importance, delete. Also how is the film maker notable? He won some award for a B movie a few years ago? That doesn't quite cut it for WP:BIO. Arbustoo 07:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legge and his films are written about in books, all over the internet, and have been shown in many many film festivals. "Hate campaign" is not a strong enough a description for Guy and the gang "obsession" might be closer to the mark. Plank 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plank has editted on the articles in question before as early as 2004.[23] Since registering he is a non-regular contributor with interest in the articles that surround Michael Legge's "movies"/cast. Arbustoo 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is the case then it should be easy to provide a reliable, secondary source for even a single one of your articles, something which despite being posted and reposted on Wikipedia for 'years has never been done. —Cryptic 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plank's edit history shows very little activity outside the promotion of Legge's work. The assertion that these films are written about "all over the internet" may be true, but it seems to be Plank and Pitchka (now renamed) who are doing the writing. And actually this [24] suggests that "all over the internet" is something of an overstatement: around 300 unique Googles, including Wikipedia. Add to that two previous deletions and a clearly out-process re-creation by Mel Etitis, who is just about the only editor on this article who is not a Legge SPA. I think we are being had. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse. --JJay 18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I corrected AnonEMouse who had a WEAK vote and misread part of the article, please tell us the what winning that award means. According to its website, currently the festival is hosting Syracuse Teen Idol for $5 a ticket, and anyone can submit their films as long as they pay $30-40.00. What's its signifiance to the world of B Movies?Arbustoo 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this is a notable film, I don't see why a review from an independent publication can't be linked or referenced in my mind winning an award at a board line film festival does not establish notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The filmmaker and his other movies are up for afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Legge (filmmaker) (third nomination). Arbustoo 23:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite all of the passionate arguments above, the simple fact is that the film is not notable enough to meet our guidelines. If it was there would be lots of non-trivial coverage, and there isn't. A1octopus 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only claim to notability was the award, and now it appears the notability of that is questionable as well. Doesn't meet notability for inclusion. --Minderbinder 16:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per ... there doesn't seem to be anything written about this film. "Weak" due to the fact that it won an award of unknown significance. -- Black Falcon 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed to provide any backing of notability twice in the past. This is already a valid Speedy G4 deletion. Still fails to adequately provide any proof this article passes any criteria for inclusion. Every single actor involved in this movie fails WP:BIO and should be deleted as well. Hell I've got a bigger movie profile than most of these actors... and I was only an extra in Empire Falls!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in the deletion history.

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid[edit]

Allegations of apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted at its second AfD nomination as violating WP:SYNT. DRV overturned, citing insufficient evidence of consensus on that crucial point in the debate. The matter is returned to AfD for further consideration. Please consult the AfD and DRV before commenting. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Nearly every statement in this article is sourced. This article does not constitute an original synthesis as there is plenty of coverage and discussion of "Allegations of apartheid". The fact that it discusses mentions of allegations in multiple countries is simply a matter of content organisation: this page (on the main topic of allegations of apartheid) serves as a gateway to the country-specific articles. Moreover, the allegation (pun intended) that this article exists "to advance a position", which is a condition of WP:SYNT, is dubious at best. -- Black Falcon 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Falcon RaveenS 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - that such accusations are made is a matter of fact, and that they play an important role in the political rhetoric should be self-evident. We probably need better guidelines for articles about political rhetoric, but that's another discussion. --Leifern 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete Rightly deleted the first time as a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. The sections on numerous different disparate topics on the same page are linked only by a rhetorical word, rather than by subject matter, makes it WP:SYNTH. Meaning that it is original research to combine and link these disparate topics, as they had never been studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. It means that wikipedia had effectively created and collectively studied a topic, "allegations of apartheid", that didn't exist in the outside world, and elevated a rhetorical descriptive term used in passing to the status of a topic in itself, which in reality it isn't. Individually, "tourist apartheid" in Cuba stems from a wider programme of policies initiated after Cuba's economic collapse of the early 1990s, "social apartheid" in Brazil relates to years of economic disparities in Brazil that can be traced back to the time of slavery, "Israeli apartheid" refers to a particular dispute in the middle east. None of these have any connection to each other other than one rhetorical term used in passing, and have never been associated or studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. Because they do not form a single topic or subject. Whatsmore, the surrounding activities on this and other apartheid articles, including Israel, Brazil and Cuba have been attempts by partisans to game the consensus system and utilise strategies regarding WP:ALLORNOTHING that go wholly against the ethos and spirit of the site. Many parties are guilty of continuing this unsavoury farce and these games should not be allowed to hijack content anymore. -- Zleitzen(talk) 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete While I don't think the synthesis argument holds in this case, this article is unrescueable. All this is is a long list of countries, which I'm fairly sure anyone with time on their hands could expand to cover every country in the world. The single "general" paragraph consists entirely of a dicdef and a very misleading claim (yes, the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid was technically passed by the UN, but no major country other than the USSR ever ratified it, while most major countries - including the US, Russia & China - don't recognise the International Criminal Court). "Apartheid" in the criminal sense ("inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime") also bears no relation to virtually all of the examples cited in this article and its walled garden - "gender apartheid", "the apartheid of the rich", "tourist apartheid" et al (even "apartheid for terrorists" in the UK entry). Although, I would love to hear more on "Canada & New Zealand's well-known support for the practice of slavery". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The people who allege that a country is practicing apartheid do so for a reason; either they seriously believe that the country in question has practices that resemble apartheid, or they do so for rhetorical effect that they know their listener will understand. In either case, the accusations are often made by notable people, and the phenomenon itself is both widespread and notable. If this article shouldn't exist, then neither should the sub-articles, such as Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Yet those arguing vociferously for the deletion of the main arguably unfathomably argue that the sub-articles be kept; it's as if they imagine that the people using the term "apartheid" have no idea what it means, and that those hearing it similarly have no idea what it means. People use the term "apartheid" because it actually means a very specific thing. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do imagine that the people using the term "apartheid" on this page are using it incorrectly. Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a keep because it's using it correctly ("inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime"), whilst almost every other entry on this list is using it as a synonym for "any kind of social divide" - tourist apartheid, financial apartheid, gender apartheid etc etc etc. I don't accept that use of it in the vernacular sense of "two groups of people being treated different for whatever reason" is an acceptable use of the phrase on this page, given that the page says from the start that it is using the term in its legal sense. And, as I say above, if the article is using the word in its broadest sense, I'm pretty certain I could write a plausible "Allegations of apartheid" page about any country in the world. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have it exactly wrong: Israelis and Palestinians are not different "racial" groups; on the contrary, genetic research indicates that they are closely related. In reality the article the term best applies to is Allegations of Brazilian apartheid; I recommend reading it. As for writing an article about "any country in the world", it's not as easy as you suggest; you'd have to quote reliable sources for a start. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong easy keep - uhm, 73 sources? Well written? Encyclopaedic? ... I'm hard pressed to imagine how anyone could think this is appropriate for deletion. WilyD 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only that, the sub-articles have an additional 143 references. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is only half as well referenced as the sub articles? Maybe I was wrong - why have this if it's daughter articles are better??? WilyD 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The daughter articles are much, much longer. In some cases, absurdly long - Allegations of Israeli apartheid is almost 60k and has 89 references. This article was used for the Allegations that didn't necessarily merit their own articles. The longest one should be summarized and restored to this article, it's a shameful polemic. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Abundance of references does not make an article more worthy. We could source "Allegations of fascism" all night if we wanted to.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure if you could get together a movement to delete all the related "Allegations of apartheid" articles, you might have more success. As it is, though, people who insist that the Allegations listed here are merely "ephemeral", "neologisms", and (my favorite) "invoked rhetorically" also vote Strong Keep when their own favorite rhetoric is put up for AfD. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As the sole author of all your favorite phrases, I'll take a quick bow and then politely point out how you've misunderstood them. I like rhetoric and neologisms as much as the next girl, and have no problem with well-sourced articles about or including such things. And if reliable sources house such rhetorical ephemera alongside sustained historical comparisons under the roof of a single rubric, then who am I as a Wikipedian to argue with them. But no such reliable sources have been provided in the present case, and I don't believe they exist. Again, WP:SYNTH is the relevant policy. It is gross misreading of that policy to argue that if a synthesis of topics X, Y, and Z must be eliminated, then individual articles on X, Y, and Z must also be eliminated, but this is exactly what you keep saying.--G-Dett 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Articles should be a study of the topic, not the rhetorical neologism and its use. There is nothing wrong with including such a neologism in an article, but making it the basis of the article is unhelpful in all cases. If we start doing that, then we may as well start creating articles called Allegations that certain people are moonbats, which could be sourced to nines but be of little value.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the sub-articles exist. I find it puzzling how the arguments made for deleting this entry are withheld regarding some of its subarticles - lets try to maintain a consistent approach to the lot of them. TewfikTalk 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither puzzling nor inconsistent. I have argued repeatedly for the deletion of all the subarticles as well, while you have argued for the deletion of one article here and here, but have argued to keep others here and here. How's that for consistency?-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Delete" votes were many months ago, the "Keep" votes were very recent. Obviously he has come to realize that Wikipedia is the kind of encyclopedia that takes Allegations of apartheid seriously. Given that's the case, it shouldn't be favoring some Allegations over others. Of course, if Wikipedia were to come to consensus that these kinds of Allegations are not encyclopedic after all, I'm sure he'd apply that consistently as well. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is exactly right. Since we've decided that this sort of subject matter is encyclopaedic, which I didn't initially think it was, we must be consistent, as indeed you (Zleitzen) were. TewfikTalk 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete per Zleitzen. Those who invoke the need for "a consistent approach" and maintain that "if this article shouldn't exist, then neither should the sub-articles," etc. – need to review WP:SYNTH. There is not a single source – much less "73 sources" – for this article's brazen conflation of disparate subject matter and unrelated materials. The miscellany google-gathered here is united only by the use of a single word, sometimes invoked rhetorically and in passing, sometimes as part of a catchy ephemeral neologism ("water apartheid," "nuclear apartheid"), and sometimes, though only rarely, as the basis of an extended historical comparison. The "topic" that supposedly comprises all these things exists only in the minds of Wikipedians, and even then only Wikipedians bent on making a WP:POINT. It is as absurd as having an article on "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and including therein the Janjaweed's campaign in the Sudan, the aftermath of the Katrina disaster,[25] [26], Israel's military campaign in South Lebanon last summer,[27], and the gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District.[28][29] Enough already; let's get it out of there.--G-Dett 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone who was truly interested in getting rid of "brazen conflations of disparate subject matter", "catchy ephemeral neologisms", and "rhetoric" wouldn't have voted this way. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no, G-Dett. In my mind, your vote demonstrates rather well (to me, in any event) that what you think are justifiable accusations against Israel should not be leveled against any other country, no matter what the facts are. --Leifern 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your mind indeed. In reality, however I have not voiced any objections whatsoever, here or anywhere else, to anyone's invocation of "apartheid" in various human-rights contexts. What I've voiced an objection to is the invention, on the part of Wikipedians in a gross violation of WP:SYNTH, of a single topic with no RS-backing whatsoever conflating these disparate things.--G-Dett 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Black Falcon, Leifern, WilyD, Jayjg, Tewfik. The term seems to be used by politicians/propagandists (rightly or wrongly, like it or not), so why not systematize that usege in an encyclopedic way. OTOH, if it is a proven neologism, delete the entire series. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The allegations are a growing phenomenon. Keep per Jayjg, Humus sapiens, WilyD, Tewfik, Black Falcon, and Leifern. --Shamir1 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The allegations" are a growing phenomenon in the minds of Wikipedians, not any reliable sources.--G-Dett 14:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the usage of apartheid as rhetorical device in recent political discourse was coined or discovered by wikipedians, the article should be deleted. Else, it depicts a political phenomenon as encyclopaedically relevant as others, whether its use is appropriate or not. --tickle me 22:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strawman argument. The usage of the term has not been coined by wikipedians and no one said it had been. It is just one of many terms used to describe various disparate situations that have no connecting thread, in fact, in many cases it only forms part of the occasionally used rhetorical device - see "tourist apartheid". To connect them has been an invention of wikipedians, that is the original research. Why not Allegations of fascism which carries every instance a person or group has been described as fascist? Allegations that nations are Police States? Allegations of Stalinism? Allegations of Nazism? Allegations that some nations are evil? All these are equally as worthy as this article.-- Zleitzen(talk) 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is merely a content organisation issue. There is no "Allegations of fascism" article because there are no individual country articles of the type "Allegations of fascism in Burkina Faso". Would you consider Category:1975 births an original synthesis? I'm sure that no one outside of Wikipedia has thought to lump together Salvatore Amitrano, an Italian Olympic rower, and Ramin Bahrani, an Iranian-American filmmaker. -- Black Falcon 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) There are no Allegations of fascism articles, yet. But by supporting this article, editors are hastening the time when that article appears. 2)A category isn't an article, it is not a study of a subject.-- Zleitzen(talk) 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is the people who use the allegation of "apartheid" who make the connection. It obviously means something both in their minds, and in the minds of their audiences. As for similar kinds of articles, see 9/11 conspiracy theories, AIDS conspiracy theories, Racism by country. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Racism is a defined topic. The study of "racism by country" has a legitimate background in academia and the media, "allegations of apartheid" in this instance is not a topic and has no precedent. The term "apartheid wall" or similar is used to refer to Israeli policies, or the term "tourist apartheid" is used in reference to Cuba, but there is no connection between the two concepts, and they have never been studied as a general subject. In contrast, your examples have been linked and studied in the real world (Although I haven't a clue what that AIDS articles is all about).-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zleitzen on 11 April 2007: "Strawman argument. The usage of the term has not been coined by wikipedians and no one said it had been". Thank you. I think it has been said:
Zleitzen on 17:58, 11 April 2007: "Obvious Delete [...] It means that wikipedia had effectively created and collectively studied a topic, "allegations of apartheid", that didn't exist in the outside world, and elevated a rhetorical descriptive term used in passing to the status of a topic in itself, which in reality it isn't."
G-Dett on 21:50, 11 April 2007: "The 'topic' that supposedly comprises all these things exists only in the minds of Wikipedians, and even then only Wikipedians bent on making a WP:POINT."
--tickle me 00:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are badly misunderstanding this. Individuals describing various unconnected situations and using the term "apartheid" among others was not invented by wikipedia editors. Linking these completely different subjects and turning them into a general topic worthy of an article called "Allegations of apartheid" was created solely by wikipedia editors. This topic does not exist in the wider world.-- Zleitzen(talk) 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely concur with Zleitzen's point above. The info in the article is sourced yes, but the title and its implication is not and is OR + the whole nine yards. Baristarim 02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Jayjg, Humus sapiens, WilyD, Tewfik, and others. The use of the term as a political tool is notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Falcon, JayJg, et al. Unless all the various "allegations of apartheid" per geographic region are likewise brought up for deletion simultaneously, it seems disingenuous and non-neutral to be picking out particular "apartheids" articles that don't match with one's ideological preference. --LeflymanTalk 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move the relevant information into "Human Rights in X" under a better and more serious encyclopedic format. The fact that the article is sourced doesn't mean much: the same sourced info can be in HR in X articles, that is not a valid argument for keep. It is time Wikipedia got more serious covering issues, really. There is no reason to keep this article except to give an opportunity to people to push POV and OR (OR since there is no concensus as to how those mentioned qualify as "apartheid", following the description of the word - they are sourced, yes, but the interpretation given to them is dangerously streaking on thin ice). Just because someone "alleged" something, that doesn't make it so - therefore the WP:WEASEL argument. I am aware that this is not a scientific topic therefore there will never be an absolute concensus on definitions, nevertheless it is better to cover these under the "HR in X" titles, for which there is a near absolute concensus on what they are.
    As for the "others" argument - that argument is seriously bordering on disruption per WP:POINT: just because one thief got away, that doesn't mean another should also be set free. If there are other similar articles, bring them to AfD and I will also vote for a merge to HR in XYZ article and defend that position. Nevertheless, I am sensing that some people are voting keep because another article they wanted deleted was kept - that's WP:POINT. user:Leflyman's comments above is a prime example: no analysis de fond as to why this article should be kept, but rather "well, the other one got away, so this should stay" - that's a false a contrario argument.. This article is weasel, violates WP:SYNT and WP:OR (per my point about this above) and is nothing but an invitation to people to push a POV about someone they have got a beef with - move the relevant info to "HR in X" articles, and bring the rest of the articles to the AfD as well so that they can also be merged with their parallel HR articles. Baristarim 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's a mischaracterisation of my position; and I'd ask that you refrain from making such straw man argumentations. It's clear that the formerly South African-specific term "apartheid" has taken on a generic meaning as applied to numerous political/economic situations. This article does a good job documenting this usage phenomenon with appropriate references. The fact that certain "allegation of apartheid" articles by geography have been deemed notable enough makes this umbrella article similarly notable. If the consensus changes and decides that other articles are no longer fitting for Wikipedia, then this article would similarly not be. If you wish to see all such articles brought to AfD, please feel free to do a mass-nomination.--LeflymanTalk 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I apologize - I didn't want to target only person in particular. I do understand your position, but I was only trying to give an example of the type of keep argument that was used, it was nothing personal. cheers! Baristarim 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reform, or keep and reform the template that is currently undergoing an AfD. --GHcool 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no serious prior research linking the quotes, which is why the sections are placed alphabetically rather than in order of importance. WP:SYNT forbids advancing new arguments even from well-verified raw data; the new argument here is that Israel has plenty of company. My impression that this article is a pawn in the battle over articles on Israel is bolstered by arguments here to keep this article because of the continued existence of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I sympathize with the pro-Israel editors for having had to deal with some maddening WP:POINT violations, however countering with your own WP:POINT violation is not the way to go. In addition to the WP:OR and WP:POINT problems, the individual sections of the article are each in blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Kla'quot 06:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Two, three or more wrongs don't make a right. This article should go, then the Israel article should be properly challenged and dispersed into appropriate articles, then others should follow. The Israel article can be covered in a paragraph or so elsewhere: Reading "Some people have described the situation as being similar to Apartheid in South Africa, others have rejected the analogy" etc. That's pretty much the crux of it and all we need to know, "apartheid" here is merely a description of events already covered in Wikipedia. Something like "Tourist apartheid in Cuba" is somewhat different as it is describing a particular set of policies initiated in the 1990s rather than a general overview of society. The present format of the allegations page doesn't really do it a proper service and the details should be covered in Tourism in Cuba, which they pretty much are already and which covers various other interconnected policies brought in during that time. At present these articles are content forks of other articles which serve to illustrate a WP:POINT, not the issues themselves. -- Zleitzen(talk) 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep this or Delete all "Allegations of XXXXXX Apartheid" It is either encyclopædic or it is not, but we cannot start splitting hairs about various countries. -- Avi 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SYNTH is the relevant policy. It's a gross misreading of that policy to argue that if a synthesis of topics X, Y, and Z is to be eliminated, then individual articles on X, Y, and Z must also be eliminated. Individual articles are to be debated on their individual merits (including the depth and range of their source materials), not on the merits of an umbrella topic invented by Wikipedians.--G-Dett 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ALLORNOTHING Kla'quot 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - WP:ALLORNOTHING is at best a slogan, but certainly isn't a policy and not even a guideline in Wikipedia.
  • Strong Keep - good article and organization tool for other similar articles. Racism by country is a similar one, it is not on AfD at the moment. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is an actual established topic such as "racism", which is studied in the real world, similar and on a par with a rhetorical device such as "allegations of apartheid" which isn't studied in the real world, only here? Apartheid (outside South Africa) is not a topic, it is a rhetorical description of wildly disparate unrelated situations. Racism by country is what it says on the box and describes the established, defined topic of racism.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Needs some work but shouldn't be deleted. --Rayis 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep this or Delete all "Allegations of XXXXXX Apartheid" It is either encyclopædic or it is not, but we cannot start splitting hairs about various countries. Precisely. Gzuckier 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The issue of sourcing is not, in my opinion, the definitive issue here. No one is disputing that the word "apartheid" is being used in each of these contexts. The problem is in deciding which uses are appropriate to list in this article. The opening paragraph of the page even says that "its meaning has been extended to include any wholesale cultural, intellectual, religious, economic, or gender based discrimination." Apartheid has become so widely used as an epithet that we are left to determine for ourselves which uses really qualify and which are mere rhetoric. That's the original research problem. I don't see how that problem could be solved. Rossami (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I added that sentence; I don't believe it is OR, I believe it is calling a spade a spade, whereas the definition from the U.N. is politicized. The sentence I added truly reflects how the term is used on a daily basis. i.e. in the real world, which the sources in the rest of the article make clear. Some of these examples (cultural apartheid and gender apartheid) do apear in the dictionary definition of apartheid. By the UN definition, if you round up a group by genetics (i.e. race) and ghettoize them behind a wall, it's apartheid and a crime against humanity, but if you do it be someother definable characteristic, it's AOK. It completely contrasts with their definition of genocide, which can be commited on a wide range of characteristics beyond race/genetics. -- Kendrick7talk 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no issue in deciding which uses to list beyond textbook everyday WP:RS usage. If reliable sources make the allegation, you list it. If not, you don't. There's no wiggle room. WilyD 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If your only standard is whether someone can be quoted as using the word, then you've turned the list into a mere usage guide, which Wikipedia is not. Rossami (talk)
  • Delete. The article is a collection of miscellaneous allegations connected only by the use or misuse of the term "apartheid". There is not a single reliable source supporting any connection between the various usages of that term. That's why the article is an original synthesis. It's the same as if we had an article called Allegations of murder, in which were listed Son of Sam, O.J. Simpson, John Wilkes Booth, "Vegetarian activists sometimes use the slogan 'Meat is murder.'", "Some pro-life activists consider doctors who provide abortions murderers.", and "My Aunt Tilly once said she could murder a good steak dinner." All allegations, all using the word "murder", mostly reliably sourceable... but there's no source showing any connection, and placing them all together into a single article, at the least, strongly implies one. Treating these situations as if they're the same ("allegations of murder") in the absence of any sources claiming that is original synthesis. Allegations of apartheid has the same problem. It's weasel-ish and equates (and oversimplifies) a variety of different situations, even though it has no basis for doing so -- it's Wikipedia equating these usages, not any reliable source. Shimeru 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't think murder vs. apartheid is a good comparison because murder is far too general. Allegations of murder would be more like Allegations of human rights violations. The connection is the comparison/accusation of a specific form of human rights violation. <<-armon->> 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right -- I don't think anyone is accusing Shimeru's Aunt Tilly of committing apartheid either. It's much more like claiming we can't have an article on history of genocide because no one's exactly sure how many people you have to kill for it to be called a genocide. These things require a dose of WP:COMMON. -- Kendrick7talk 02:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History of Genocide is a bad comparison, Kendrick. An appropriate comparison would be an article called Allegations of Genocide, gathering together various discussions of the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, the "bloodless genocide" of the Pitcairn Islanders,[30] the genocide of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories,[31] the genocide of Tibet's indigenous culture by China[32] (and that of Cornish coastal towns by the United Kingdom[33]), the "cultural genocide" of the Welsh in the 19th century who were punished by the Brits for speaking their native tongue,[34], and the genocide of 8000 men in Srebrenica.--G-Dett 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly. But the murder comparison is also appropriate, because, while "apartheid" has a more specific meaning than "murder", many of the instances of its usage do not fit that meaning. ("Nuclear apartheid"?) If anything, those murder examples have more in common with each other than the various "allegations" in the article we're discussing do. And, yes, "allegations of apartheid" is rather different from history of apartheid. Among other things, anyone can allege something, and perhaps even get a reliable source to report on it. This does not make it a notable part of history. Shimeru 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge the various sub-article POV forks/polemics into this one. WilyD point about which uses to list via WP:RS makes sense. Anything more detailed regarding the human rights situation in various countries should be dealt with in the appropriate human rights articles. As for the WP:SYNTH claim, does this mean that the people arguing SYNTH therefore object to all lists? To my mind, this seems to be what the article essentially is -a list. <<-armon->> 02:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holocaust is a defined topic, "Allegations of apartheid" is not a defined topic. An article describing a policy is a legitimate article on a legitimate topic. Allegations that this is just like South Africa (which in effect these articles are) actually makes it more difficult to describe the policy, and hence creates an unneccessary fork that does not serve readers. Only merging all these articles into legitimate areas where these topics are properly explored can end the sense that they have been created to make a point, and are merely POV/content forks of wider issues. Make these positive steps now rather than later.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apartheid means different things to different people, just like genocide means different things to different people. No one is claiming all apartheids are just like South Africa. To say we can't have an article about a concept we don't have an exact definition for is just a Loki's Wager argument. -- Kendrick7talk 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had the time to peruse many related "apartheid" articles - and I have the impression (I might be wrong) that this whole debate is a ramification of the Israeli article - people who want the other apartheid articles kept seem to be the ones who wanted the Israeli article deleted and those who wanted it kept - there is no other explanation as to why so many editors who are primarily active in the Palestinian-Israeli pages would turn up in the "Brazilian" apartheid article. I am sorry, but that's really WP:POINT. In any case, see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - other articles are completely irrelevant: existence of A doesn't necessarily justify B. Many editors who voted keep here have argued how the Israeli article violated policy et al in those AfDs. WTF? So, even many keep voters accept that this article violates a whole bunch of policy, but argue that it should only be kept because the other one, which also violates policy, didn't get deleted. Since when do two wrongs make a right? I love this comment from the Brazilian AfD: "no cherry picking" :) I am still not seeing how this stuff cannot be covered under Human Rights in X articles - most of them are not that long anyways.. Baristarim 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct again. When a bunch of Israeli focussed editors turned up en masse to oppose merges related to Cuba, and one prominent Israeli focussed editor actually started reverting my routine efforts to make Tourism in Cuba into a good article to ensure some foothold in a strategy involving these articles, it became apparent that this game of WP:POINT had gone on far enough. When this strategy is actively interfering with unrelated legitimate content and the work of unrelated editors, its time to pull the plug.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are certainly correct that much of this content was eagerly created as a WP:POINT but that's not a valid reason for deletion; I too tried to fix the Cuba tourism article for a time and gave up. However, I think generally crimes against humanity rise to a level beyond mere issues of "human rights" which can mean a lot of various less serious infractions. I wouldn't merge the Armenian genocide into Human rights in Turkey as happy as that might make the Turks (though it would upset my grumpy old landlord; it's a tough call -- nah, I just couldn't go it to my grocer, my banker, my downstairs neighbors, and my barber – well... he holds a razor to my neck once a month, don't you know?). -- Kendrick7talk 03:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, that last comparison came out of nowhere, and the fact that I am originally Turkish has nothing to do with it, right? :) Find better arguments and avoid such straw mans, you are actually harming your position.. Talk on content, not the contributors. Baristarim 04:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops -- I had no idea you were from Turkey; I do in fact live in Watertown, Massachusetts, "the third-largest Armenian community in the United States." -- Kendrick7talk 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Although I confess -- the part about the barber was for comic effect[reply]
Ok, no worries. I did have a feeling about that barber part now that you mention it :) Baristarim 05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, now we're getting into a more complex issue, but the definition of "a crime against humanity" is open to vast amounts of distortion and political manoeuvrings and is itself a propagandistic phrase with little or no meaning. Interestingly, your Armenian Genocide is an excellent case in point (read the work of Niall Ferguson with a critical eye and you'll see what I mean). These phrases are used to channel sentiment towards a political point of view and hence are inherently misleading. Nevertheless, Armenian genocide is considered a fairly established title for the events in question, despite reservations from certain parties. Do you think that titling our various events "allegations of apartheid" is a fair effort to present a situation in as NPOV a way as possible? Which should be our goal. Or does it veer closer to channelling sentiment towards a particular POV? -- Zleitzen(talk) 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's fair. I'm reminded of the words of Dr. Homer Whipple: After all, it can't happen here. If there are allegations that "it's" happening, where ever "here" might happen to be, I'd want to know about it and be able to judge the allegations on their own merits. I'd love to live in a world where the worst thing that could ever happen is a POV article about something existed on the wikipedia, but I don't think I do. -- Kendrick7talk 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question There are at least 14 countries and 3 religious groups here with allegations of apartheid cited, and essentially zero representation of arguments against the allegations. For many of these countries, the idea that the country practices or has practiced apartheid is the POV of a tiny minority. I'm trying to imagine the amount of text required to put a comment like, "Canada and New Zealand's support for the practices of slavery and apartheid are well known" into properly-weighted perspective. So here we have a collection of massive WP:NPOV problems. Is there anyone volunteering to make each of these sections NPOV? Kla'quot 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Falcon, Jayjg and others, but I am "voting" that way mainly because I think the justification for the delete (WP:SYNT) is incorrect. I would love to see the day when this article could be deleted. However, if Wikipedia is going to allow itself to be an Encyclopedia of Name-calling, I don't see the fairness in keeping some "allegations of apartheid" and deleting others. Call that "allornothing" if you will, but I call it fairness. 6SJ7 05:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not name calling and let's stop beating around the bush: I have never heard the word "apartheid" used in connection with New Zealand, but nearly always in connection to Israel (on top of RSA, obviously). Wikipedia only mirrors information that is already out there. It is not our fault if Israel has grave foundational issues with regards to its ethno-religious policies/history. Nevertheless I am still in support of merging the Israeli article with HR in Israel article. It is amazing, nearly all keep voters agree that this sort of articles shouldn't exist, but just because one thief got away they are seeking to break the doors of the whole prison!! How unWikipedian is that, really? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.. Baristarim 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of fairness, what do you think of the fact that Allegations of Israeli apartheid has arguments in favour of the term and arguments against the term, whereas Allegations_of_apartheid#New_Zealand only has arguments in favour of the term? Do you think that's fair? Kla'quot 05:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair should be fair, period. What we really need is an "Allegations-of-Apartheid-in-X" article for every country on earth. It's hardly fair to restrict these articles to those who've been accused of apartheid. These folks are getting reemed twice – first by being accused of apartheid, then by being singled out among all the nations of the world for an article in Wikipedia about how they were accused of apartheid. That's double jeopardy. Fair, anyone?! Jay raises moreover an important point that the bulk of the citations for this group of articles is in the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article. This is a serious problem: not only is Wikipedia not fair, but the actual state of reliable source materials in the real world isn't fair. Let's buckle down and fix all this at once. I suggest we set about creating 6.5 billion articles, accusing every man, woman and child on the planet of individually practicing apartheid. Sounds onerous, but if every editor in this debate wrote an article about him- or herself we'd already have thirty or so! Let's get cracking.--G-Dett 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, the same arguments. It doesn't matter what other articles there are. And let's stop beating around the bush: In recent times, practically every single time I have heard the word "apartheid" it has been in connection with Israel - not about New Zealand or Brazil. Wikipedia exists to mirror the information which is out there, not to create it. As I have pointed out earlier, this sort of keep argument is really bordering on disruption in some cases: no there won't be an "Allegations of Apartheid in X" article for every country, not every country is similar, and in any case they all should be merged to "HR in X" articles. The "fairness" of outside material doesn't have a lot of bearing, really. As I have said, Wikipedia only reflects info - there is not much Wikipedia can do about the state of outside information. Baristarim 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We have to think big. There are 6.5 billion people in the world. How many are Wikipedians? Probably twice that many. I'm already working on the article about myself. Here it is so far: Allegations of apartheid by user:G-Dett draw a controversial analogy from the policies of apartheid-era South Africa to the editing practices of user:G-Dett. Proponents of the analogy argue that G-Dett's editing demonstrates rather well (to them, in any event) that what she thinks are justifiable accusations against Israel should not be leveled against any other country, no matter what the facts are.[35] They point out, moreover, that she insists that the allegations listed in the umbrella article Allegations of Apartheid are merely "ephemeral", "neologisms", and (their favorite) "invoked rhetorically" but that she also votes Strong Keep when her own favorite rhetoric is put up for AfD.[36] Critics of the analogy have agreed to go into counseling to come to terms with their antisemitism.--G-Dett 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still trying to figure out the finer points of your post :) Baristarim 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can make heads or tails of it, please explain it to me.--G-Dett 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is my response to Kla'quot's question about the New Zealand section and "fairness." This sounds like an NPOV issue regarding that section, and it can be corrected by editing the article. If there have been criticisms of the "allegations" against New Zealand, presumably there are reliable sources that say so. And this assumes that the allegations against New Zealand are based on proper sources in the first place; if not, perhaps the whole section should be removed. (And it is a section, not a whole article.) But this is the regular Wikipedia editing process; there is no reason to refer to any other particular article to find out whether it is "fair" or not. 6SJ7 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever the actual history, existance of the article has justification as a length-split (appendix) to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid after which, given the weakness of Wikipedia's structure in that kind of split, it must be allowed to evolve organically in accord with its title. I don't see that it causes a problem for any except WikiLawyers who are deluded about WikiLaw. Andyvphil 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first came across this AfD, I had no idea how much of a stir this Israeli article was causing. Listen, is there any evidence out there accusing New Zealand of apartheid? Are we out of our minds? Cuba has a lot of problems, but apartheid refers to a specific set of policies. Cuba has a issues with freedom of speech et al, but I have never heard of it being engaged in a state policy and mentality of deliberate ethno-religious divisive politics. Nor have I heard it for Brazil or New Zealand. Again, it is not Wikipedia's fault if Israel has grave issues with regards to its ethno-religious history/politics. But nevertheless that article should also be merged to HR in Israel article. Wikipedia is really losing its touch and seriousness along the way with all this. This article is definitely OR - the info in the article is sourced, but their relation with the title is OR - that has nothing to do with WikiLaw. Anyways, I am personally getting quite tired of this.. Baristarim 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "apartheid refers to a specific set of policies"? I think not. Mostly it's an epithet... And if it's news to you that New Zealand "has grave issues with regards to its ethno-religious history/politics", maybe you really need this article. You see, there's this indiginous population called Maoris... Andyvphil 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though there is evidence of the word "apartheid" being used to describe New Zealand's policies, in the source I checked, the policy is also equally described as a "disaster". We could effectively create articles describing allegations that policies are a "distaster" that could include anything from the Iraq war to China's one child policy. And for Andyvphil, who describes this article purely as an (appendix) to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, how does that help the articles and editors concerned Cuba and Brazil? Are these expected to be ransomed and traded in a poker game to ensure some unconnected representation of Israel? Personally, I'm not very interested in the arguments editors are having about Israel, but I certainly don't like it negatively impacting on the articles concerning racial issues in Latin America.-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Andyvphil is right about New Zealand, of course. But this goes to a persistent but utterly specious assumption (mis)guiding this whole discussion. Namely, the assumption that we should approve of articles on "allegations" that we believe are well-founded and accurate, and vote to delete those we don't. Note in this regard Leifern's absurd assumption that I am somehow opposed to people invoking apartheid to describe appalling situations in Brazil and elsewhere. I am not, but this is utterly beside the point. The key question for the existence of any article is whether there's a critical mass of RS-material defining it as a topic, not whether we find that defined topic offensive or important or trivial or libellous or diversionary or a mere epithet or whatever. In the case of allegations of Israeli apartheid, obviously there is a wealth of RS-material. With some of the other parallel "allegations of apartheid" articles, it is less obvious. In the case of the general article we're debating whether to delete here, it has become very obvious that there is no RS-material whatsoever. Anyone who votes 'keep' has to address this problem. The rest is just spin. "Consistency" and "fairness" apply to editing principles, not article content; to invoke them as a basis for insisting upon standardized templates and content prescriptions for a range of disparate articles, joined together by Wikipedians on debatable grounds without the backing of a single external citation, and each with completely discrete, independent and non-overlapping RS-foundations, is to engage in pure sophistry.--G-Dett 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can find a wealth of reliable sources that compare the Iraq war to a "disaster". But we don't have an article "Allegations that the Iraq war is a disaster". Nor should we. We cover these issues in an appropriate manner that does not serve to slant the presentation or lead readers. These article put the defendants on the back foot immediately and are not the best ways to explain complex issues.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an illuminating comparison, and there's a case to be made (that has been made, cogently, by several on this page) that Allegations of Israeli Apartheid should be subsumed into an article on HR in Israel and the Occupied Territories, or something of the sort. I tend to disagree with that proposed move, and with your comparison, because the debate about whether Israeli policies constitute apartheid – unlike the vague proposition that "Iraq is a disaster" – is the focus of the wealth of RS-material I'm talking about; the comparison is a discrete subject in itself and has been for several decades, all the more so today after Carter's book. But what about something like, say, the Iraq-Vietnam comparison? That's become a topic in its own right. Has it reached a critical mass of RS-material to merit an article? I don't know; I'd say not at the moment (though there's a lot more on it than on most of the "allegations of apartheid" articles). But if it shows some staying power, becomes the subject of prominent and enduring debate, as well as books and articles both popular and scholarly, then maybe yes. What I'm saying is we should debate these things on a case-by-case basis, on their individual merits as discrete and well-defined and relevant topics, vs. ill-defined, amorphous or ephemeral grab-bags. We should not judge the article-worthiness of a comparison, however, on the basis of whether we find accurate or fair the political criticism embedded within it, and we should not chase after some chimera of "consistency" for a string of articles whose respective bedrocks of source materials are separate and unrelated. --G-Dett 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, rename into Social segregation (which now is a useless redirect to a disambiguation term, segregation). "Apartheid" is a specific term applied to a specific political system. Its usage in other conext is a rhetorical devise. The neutral descriptive term is segregation (which AFAIK is almost literal translation of the word "apartheid"). My suggested title will cover the actual issues as actual issues, not as mere "allegations". Mukadderat 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support that - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we should confused using a more "neutral" term with a less accurate one. Segregation can be de jure or de facto (e.g. self-segregation), whereas apartheid is exclusively de jure.* Segregation can imply separate but equal whereas apartheid is when one group maintains dominance over another so the first group can maintain their dominance over the society as a whole. Sure, it's less offensive to water it down, but the reason it's less offensive is solely because the meaning of "segregation" is so much more open to interpretation. -- Kendrick7talk 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC) *Though where the executive isn't in any way beholden to a judiciary of show trails which may aim to give the appearance of equality, this may be actually of the form that might makes right; De jure of course has no meaning when there's no rule of law, or it doesn't actually apply to the oppressed.[reply]
Comment You can't rename this article Social segregation partly because the subject of this article is not Apartheid. Again, you can't "move the relevant information into 'Human Rights in X'", as Baristarim proposed bucause the subject is not whether apartheid is practiced in the countries listed. If, pace Zleitzen, you have significant material "debat[ing] the intricacies of Maori disempowerment" that should be in a different article. As Leifern observed at the very top of this page, this is an article about the use of a political rhetorical device. It seems obvious to me that apartheid is alleged as a way of (simplifying slightly) capturing Mandela's moral weight for accusations of racism in disparate locales. It's tax day, and I don't have time to research quotes, but I don't believe that's an original observation on my part. So I'm alleging, without present proof but confidently, that the subject Allegations (better: Accusations) of Apartheid is notable and addressed by many published sources. So, at worst the present article is undeveloped (and slightly misnamed). But, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and flawed articles can be allowed time to develop, so long as the subject is encyclopedic. There is no problem here that needs to be fixed by deletion. Andyvphil 10:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article includes "Gender apartheid", "Water Apartheid" and "Tourist Apartheid". None of these refer to "accusations of racism in disparate locales". And, of course, none of these have been studied as a collective topic elsewhere. You write "flawed articles can be allowed time to develop", this article has had nearly a year to develop and has only succeeded in setting a bad precedent that has caused numerous problems all over wikipedia.-- Zleitzen(talk) 11:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's largely because of an earlier concensus at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid to merge topics like gender apartheid and global apartheid into one article, instead of a disambiguation page and this is the result. If the consense has now changed upon seeing the result, then it make sense to resplit these topics out. -- Kendrick7talk 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to alleviate confusion, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid was archived from the version here, but the archive has gone missing. -- Kendrick7talk 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen, you're not following my point. This article does not (and should not) include "Gender apartheid", "Water Apartheid" and "Tourist Apartheid". It includes accusations of those things, accusations that implicitly assert that what is going on is akin to racism, and that fighting whatever is asserted to be going on is akin to the work of Mandela. A lot of the accusations and implicit assertions are ridiculous...but that doesn't make the meme non-notable. Andyvphil 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andyvphil, when you're done with your taxes if you can find some RS's who discuss accusations of apartheid generally, as a meme or a genre of rhetoric or whatever, please do come forward with them. That's the sine qua non here. I've searched casually and not thoroughly, but presently the only people I know of who discuss "allegations of apartheid" as a rhetorical figure are Wikipedians.--G-Dett 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand, Andyvphil. Something like "Tourist apartheid in Cuba" etc has nothing to do with racism or "the work of Mandela", its merely a coined informal term to describe exclusive hotels and beaches for tourists, that exist throughout the Caribbean, but which are notable in Cuba because they compromise Cuba's egalitarian constitution. Ironically, Mandela would be furious at the comparison and I imagine would be pushing the delete button faster than anyone. Anyway, that should be evidence enough that the various sections are disconnected and are by no means describing issues that "are akin to racism". They are merely listing disparate situations that have had the word apartheid applied to them on occasion by various partisans. These things get thrown around by partisans all the time. Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state anyone? Allegations that Guantanemo Bay is a gulag? -- Zleitzen(talk) 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone please explain to me why it's seen as necessary to discuss all of these issues in the same article? It seems quite clear from all these discussions that we have 1.) countless sources alleging apartheid against particular countries and institutions, and 2.) no sources talking about this as a general matter. So why the combined article? Conversely, why do people consider it unfair to discuss them separately? I would think the presumption would be to discuss issues in the context that the sources actually discuss them. With so many of these debates here, I still haven't seen this point addressed. Mackan79 21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair point and one of the problems of this article itself. That there are simply too many wildly varying sub-topics to even have a comprehensive debate here, let alone appear in one article. How can one possibly debate the intricacies of Maori disempowerment, whilst simultaneously debating the policies of the Cuban government's adoption of "enclave tourism" circa 1992, and even attempt to retain some perspective. -- Zleitzen(talk) 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into subarticles for each country/culture, relist each After considered thought, this seems the best policy. -- Kendrick7talk 02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning This article is comprised of subarticles which individually survived AFDs before (e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global apartheid). But WP:CONSENSUS generated at WP:Centralized discussion was to WP:MERGE them. Now people, without knowing the history, are complaining that the consenus merge resulted in a WP:SYNTH and now want to delete the whole article. So this is going in circles. -- Kendrick7talk 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep very notable topic and well sourced.--Sefringle 09:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for its notablity, sourced material and other reasons stated above. Amoruso 11:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Shuki 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little or no arguments presented by the three keeps above (two by prominent Israeli focussed editors), and they only add to the "false consensus" contrived to slant this debate, that we have seen elsewhere. We just hope the closing administrator views these in the same light as the WP:ALLORNOTHING votes above, and understands that consensus can be subverted to suit certain agendas in the face of basic core wikipeida values. If, perchance, Israeli focussed editors succeed here in this effort to subvert content that impacts on content relating to many regions, then we've got serious issues. These issues are not going away, and will be hammered out relentlessly until some kind of acceptable settlement is established. Because to keep this obviously spurious article that impacts on African and Latin American situations - simply for strategic gains relating to some nation in the middle east - is not on.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - notable it may be, but a ridiculous example of POV if I ever saw it. These allegations could be leveled against any country in the world (as in fact, they have been). Brazil? Whoever created that article clearly has an agenda - there's no more apartheid in Brazil than anywhere else in Latin America. France? United Kingdom? This is pure POV, having allegations from a bunch of leftists in this manner, de facto makes the article look like the apartheid is real, not like it's talking about the allegations. A black eye on Wikipedia, unless the article is severely changed. Part Deux 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Per Zleitzen and, Allegations_of_apartheid#Sri_Lanka section depend on www.tamilnation.org which is an anti-gov POV web cite. So WP:ALLORNOTHING applies here. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a couple of reliable source from organisations with agendas (i.e. any sources whatsoever) is not a criterion for deletion. Agencies are reliable sources of their own allegations, tamilnation.org is a notable group. WilyD 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that section also has an argument from the exact opposing view, by a group that opposes the Tamils. You didn't seem to have any objections to the latter, only the former. That will, of course, strongly discount the value of your claim here. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't read Lahiru's comment that way. Pointing out a specific problem in an article, i.e. a case of reliance on a biased website as a source, is a good thing to do in an AfD. So he failed to point out two problems instead of one problem, big deal. The "exact opposing point of view" to "group x practices apartheid" is not "opposing group y practices apartheid." It is, "group x does not practice apartheid" and that POV is still absent from the article. Kla'quot 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, perhaps you weren't aware that Lahiru had, prior to his vote here, attempted to remove only one specific source from the article itself, and then followed it up by his confirmation here. Thus it becomes apparent that his objection is solely because he politically opposes one particular side in one particular section of the article. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zleitzen and iridescenti are correct, I believe. "Apartheid" is clearly a highly loaded term which has been routinely (mis)used to refer to episodes of actual and alleged discrimination elsewhere. That's literally the only thread which links all of the various rhetorical references in the article. For instance, to take a country with which I'm familiar, Allegations of apartheid#Bosnia and Herzegovina is literally nothing more than a description of one newspaper columnist's use of the term in one op-ed column. There's no context, no explanation of whether the term is applicable, not even any indication of whether anyone agrees with him. Almost the entire article is like this. It's as though someone has gone through Lexis-Nexis and picked out every reference to someone calling a particular situation an example of "apartheid", then cut-and-pasted the list into Wikipedia. The resulting article is a hopeless context-free mish-mash of random references. -- ChrisO 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. I suspect you are trying to elucidate another point, but I don't see it. This article reports statements from reliable sources I disagree with isn't a criterion, even if you think they're completely silly statements. WilyD 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WilyD, though you have misrepresented Chris O's position, for the record, Allegations of Australian apartheid got deleted for just that reason. It obviously is a criteria for deletion.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, I can't see the Allegations of Australian Apartheid article, so I can't tell exactly what happened, but the delete arguments seem to be either about the quality of sourcing, or the applicability of sources (i.e. they should be allegations of apartheid existing, or commentary thereon or such), and some stuff about POV forking, which was probably rubbish. What is clear is that the keep arguments didn't hold the kind of water they do here. Here we're looking at extremely well sourced, encyclopaedic and verifiable and the only delete argument I can see is fails WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or Needs a cleanup, which also isn't a criterion for deletion (though it may be true in this case). WilyD 17:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:WilyD, in every debate I have had regarding these types of afd's, you have appeared to argue against their deletion. In every one of these debates you have apparently misunderstood and hence misrepresented other users reasons for deletion and ended with the phrase "...isn't a criterion for deletion". In every debate I have had with you on these articles I have been successful in arguing for the removal of obviously disruptive material, and the articles were removed by agreement to the benefit of wikipedia. The articles in question were generally those which forked content already covered elsewhere and which failed to address complex issues in the NPOV manner outlined by our guidelines. Either my judgment is completely awry, or yours is. You wrote that this article is encyclopedic. If you believe that an article titled "Allegations of apartheid" is encyclopedic - ie. the type of thing one expects to find in an encyclopedia - I think I will continue to trust my own judgement rather than put my faith in yours. -- Zleitzen(talk) 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course, when users make unclear arguments for deletion, I may not understand them correctly. Which is why I employ the tested and true method of repeating someone's argument back as I understand it, so any flaw in my understanding in what they've written. As for my AFD judgement, I've run comparisons of my arguments with the final outcome in AfD, and by and large my judgement is mirrored by the community - you can take that for what you will. Of course, I always argue on AfD only from policies and guidelines - on contentions articles Admins may choose to ignore policy and exercise their own judgement instead - in which case the direction I argue in won't be the outcome. That's fine. As for encyclopaedic, Wikipedia (nor real life) doesn't have an exact definition for it, but I would say that in the Wikipedia context, it means roughly covered by independant sources in such a style and manner that one could write a quality article on the subject, that would pass and all policies and guidelines on article writing. One may have much more subjective definitions, which I can't comment on. WilyD 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think it is more likely that the policy reasons put forward for the deletion of various articles such as "Anti-Americanism in various countries" and "List of dictators" were too subtle for you to understand, but were understood by the closing administrators who deleted them. Like those aforementioned articles, the subject matter of this article is complex, its relationship to wikipedia as a whole is complex, and the reasons why they fail policy and are damaging are complex. Those who understand that these articles are complex (such as those previous closing administrators on those other articles you defended) realise that merely writing anything up that we can source, and then defending it on the basis that it is "verifiable" and claiming it to be "encyclopedic" is not what we are here to do. They realise that articles can be inherently POV and can slant issues via a manipulation of WP:SYN. They realise that there are issues that supersede the mere need to be verifiable, or else we'd have articles like Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state, Allegations that Guantanemo Bay is a gulag, Allegations that Iraq was a Stalinist state, Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship. If you don't understand the tangible problems that can be created by articles that attempt to slant complex issues from their inception, then we're not in the same business.-- Zleitzen(talk) 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Of course, articles with very subtle problems which can easily be written to high standards don't need to be deleted, they need to be cleaned. Any article can be inherently POV or not, and any article can be manipulated through synthesis. In fact, I'd go so far as to say every article is POV, and every article is manipulated through synthesis - I'm not sure anyone is so naive as to believe this kind of stuff can be eliminated, rather than just reduced to some acceptable level - which (empirically) is going down with time. Generally, the allegations articles are kind of sillily titled, but that seems to be because they (problematically) attract the people who care the most. If the question is Are the articles worth the time and effort to write? then the answer is pretty clearly no. If the question is Should these articles be deleted because some editors don't like the conclusions of reliable sources? then the answer is no. Of course, everyone will say they don't have infinite effort, and I know I've let articles sit in ugly states because I didn't have time to deal with them. But the kind of whimsical deletion you propose doesn't serve any purpose, except to alienate editors and make it harder to bring Wikipedia up to quality standards. I'm not sure why one could ever endorse that. WilyD 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Should these articles be deleted because some editors don't like the conclusions of reliable sources" is yet another misrepresentation of a position and I don't believe anyone here has suggested that. What people are suggesting is that this article is a contrivance created by wikipedia editors that serves to slant the representation of complex issues. The solution is that references to the use of the term "apartheid" applied to these situations would be found within established Human Rights - Racism - Tourism etc... etc... articles, which do not attempt to slant the representation to the detriment of wikipidia. I have yet to meet anyone in the real world has has not guffawed at the hopeless intentions of these articles. That is not a good sign. -- Zleitzen(talk) 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) The title is simply a NPOV compromise inherited from debate over the article entitled Israeli apartheid, which everyone thought was POV, so it was prefixed with Alegations of. The title of this article here could just as easily be Apartheid, but consensus had become that that should remain a redirect to the historical meaning, as long as there's a dab-link at the top of that article. -- Kendrick7talk 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Incidentally, the only AfD I've found where we both commented is this one, in which we both argued keep (and me on essentially the same grounds I'm using here). Just out of curiousity, which AfDs did you think I was crazy on? WilyD 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zleitzen, I just can't agree with labelling this article as a true WP:SYNTH when it started as a WP:MERGE to begin with. If the wikipedia fruit-centered editors woke up tomorrow and decided to merge Apples and Oranges, sure, Apples and Oranges would be a WP:SYNTH, but it wouldn't be grounds for deletion -- it would be grounds for a re-WP:SPLIT. I am pleasantly amused by your preemptive praise of any closing admin who, through his or her sheer brilliance, will side with your arguments though. If you truly believe that, you'll be less disappointed in the future to just WP:Assume stupidity. -- Kendrick7talk 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kendrick7, Apples and Oranges are categorised as Fruits, an established topic . If you can show me a source that covers "Apartheid" in similar terms that includes Israel, Cuba, Brazil and New Zealand etc you might be onto something. But as no such combined analysis has ever been made outside wikipedia, then WP:SYNTH comes into play. -- Zleitzen(talk) 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately, unlike fruit, we don't have a good working consensus definition of what apartheid is and is not; that's why this went to WP:Centralized discussion before. I don't believe that means we can't have an article on it, nor do I think it means apartheid can just be anything we want or anything someone claims it is. In the long run, common sense will prevail. -- Kendrick7talk 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • We do know what apartheid was. Apartheid was a policy that governed relations between South Africa's white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites. That other situations have been informally termed "**** apartheid" is of note, but this can be covered in the articles which cover those situations without any trouble at all, and without the inherintly difficult POV scenario to overcome that hampers these articles and keeps them almost perminantly in dispute.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Jayjg for once. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having reviewed the article, it's thoroughly sourced, balanced, and is emphatically not OR by synthesis. The article doesn't make new analytical claims beyond those supported by sources. I really see no good reason for deletion. I don't like the light bandying about of the word "apartheid" either, but that doesn't change the fact that it's been happening a lot. Mangojuicetalk 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Mangojuice. Sourced = We could source anything from Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state to Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship to Allegations that Belgium is boring. Balanced = Do you believe that an article that accuses a party of mistreatment in its title is "balanced"? Afghanistan = no alternative view. Brazil = no alternative view. Bosnia and Herzegovina = no alternative view. People's Republic of China = no alternative view. Iran = no alternative view. Kazakhstan = no alternative view etc etc etc. The reason why there are no alternative views there is largely because this article sets up a near impossible task for editors to find counterpoints, and skewers the issue from its inception. This is because the premise is inhernintly unbalanced, especially against non English speaking nations. In the case of Kazakhstan, the term is used once by someone called James Oberg on a website called "The Space Review". How on earth is an editor expected to find sources to counter that and remain within NOR? Israel focussed editors have had to scour for many hours to come up with counter arguments to find balance, and that is for a nation that carries a healthy English speaking media. I spent months digging for sources to discover some kind of counterpoints to make the Cuba article more acceptable to rightfully disgruntled editors who were adding POV tags. This is poor practice. Not synthesis? Please show me a collective study that treats racism in Brazil and legal property rights in Kazakhstan as being under the same umbrella outside wikipedia. If you can, then maybe I will agree with you. Cover these issues in a neutral fashion on appropriate neutral pages with appropriate neutral titles and end this poor advert for wikipedia. -- Zleitzen(talk) 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section of Tourism in Cuba is balanced
    Whereas
  • Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba is not balanced.-- Zleitzen(talk) 04:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider it balanced because of the word "allegations." It's understood that these are just allegations, that the accusations aren't necessarily true or fair, just from that word. If there are places in the text where this isn't clear, {{sofixit}}. As for other articles, their POV issues are not the discussion topic here. Mangojuicetalk 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that solution or analysis makes any effort to address the many major problems that have arisen from this article as outlined above, nor the potential problems that will arise from it in the future. It seems to suggest that it is acceptable to just content fork any allegations to a separate article. Since creation, the negative impact on wikipedia caused by the precedent set by this article has escalated month by month. -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I think good arguments have been raised on both sides, I am asking myself "is the article informative?" and I think it is. For one thing, I very much doubt I would have known about many of these controversies if I had not come across this page. But what the article basically does is elucidate the many uses that the word "apartheid" has been put to in recent years, which is of interest in itself, and I think that function alone would probably qualify it as "encyclopaedic". In fact, I might even support the article being renamed "uses of the term apartheid" or some such.

Or better still, I think perhaps this article should be renamed simply "Apartheid" with a leading link to the "History of South Africa in the apartheid era" page. IMO With all the uses of the term that are extant today, it might be the more logical approach. Gatoclass 11:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid is an Afrikaner word and was the official policy of the National Party in South Africa. These other uses are not the same. They are informal, coined rhetorical references made in passing. No one would seek out apartheid and expect to find information about legal property rights in Kazahkstan. To use a comparison, when people look up Gulag, should they be faced with sections about Guantanamo bay, simply because some groups have rhetorically described it as a "gulag" in passing [37]? In fact, here is someone calling the whole of Israel a gulag [38], here is someone calling New York's treatment of the disabled a gulag [39], and someone else describing a "Chinese gulag" [40]. These types of rhetorical expressions made by partisans occur all the time. Should we disambig Gulag and have spin off articles named Allegations that New York is a gulag and so on? -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines the term:

1 : racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa

2 : SEPARATION, SEGREGATION <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

So if even the dictionary definition includes the broader uses of the term, such as "cultural" and "gender" apartheid, why shouldn't Wiki cover these usages in its own entry? Gatoclass 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This dictionary also defines Gulag as "a place or situation of great suffering and hardship" [41], which essentially means that a sourced Allegations that Israel is a gulag remains on the table if the rationale provided above is applied. Anyway, there is a difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, and this is outlined in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It explicately explains why a wikipedia article about an octopus describes the animal, whilst Wiktionary has an article about the word "octopus": "its part of speech... its usage". If you look octopus up in a dictionary it has an alternative definitition "Something, such as a multinational corporation, that has many powerful, centrally controlled branches states" [42]. But an encyclopedia does not take that usage and create the article "Allegations of octopus" that has Allegations of octopus practices by Coca Cola, Allegations of octopus by Disney, Allegations that Packard is an octopus - all have been referred to as "like an octopus" and all of these could be sourced to the nines if need be. This is because we are creating an encyclopedia, not a usage guide. There is fundamental difference between the dictionary definition of "apartheid" or "octopus" that appears in the first listing, and is covered in that manifestation by encyclopedias such as Britannica etc, and the alternative usage that is applied in the second dictionary listing that is covered in dictionaries.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's just say for a moment you are right. If this one goes, then all the articles dealing with such allegations should go. Quite frankly, the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article is such a battleground, and hence such a convoluted mess, that I can't see much point in retaining it anyhow - except maybe as a means to keep the more zealous editors away from more important pages :) Gatoclass 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's one of the fundamental arguments, Gatoclass. That these articles have failed to address complex issues in a satisfactory manner.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon, Jayjg and others RaveenS 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've already voted once RaveenS. -- Zleitzen(talk) 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake did not know that this was going on for this many days, I thought it was some kind another nomination. Will be careful next time :-( RaveenS 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There are no actual citations supporting this article, only anecdotal statements that articles exist without citation information. The emergence of those citations would be a valid trigger for taking this deletion action to Deletion review; merger of content into Sweet Potato Queens can be accomplished by requesting that this deletion be temporarily overturned to support Content review. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Tea Queens[edit]

Sweet Tea Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN group consisting of ten people Qaqaq 17:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • article says "They have appeared in feature articles in the Spartanburg Herald Journal, South Carolina Magazine, Travel and Leisure, Belle magazine and others. They have also been guests on WSPA-FM's morning show a number of times. They were recently featured on Charter Cable's Talk Of The Town show." If we can find this articles, maybe keep. But I'm not seeing evidence of that [43] --W.marsh 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about incorporating a briefer version of this article in the Sweet Potato Queens article? Looks to me as if these Sweet Tea Queens have a somewhat creative take on the SPQ movement that's garnered them a small measure of notability. I've been clicking the random article link lately, and this Sweet Tea Queens article is the most interesting thing I've seen so far today. Soooo...to me, that's kind of notable. Merge Etbnc 18:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless these mentions turn out to be more than the trivial things which newspapers etc often run about social groups. That the article is interesting has little to do with things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Muffin. WjBscribe 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin paper cup[edit]

Muffin paper cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article concerns a non-notable product (I guess is the paper lining when you buy a cupcake.) It just has no reason for being. Suggest delete and merge any useful content to "muffin" Wehwalt 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. as this IS rather notable, albeit useless information. Does ANYONE not know what these are? I think not. 164.116.253.7 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How well known they are is irrelevant. Notability is a different criterion. This is nothing more than a dictionary definition and I don't see any potential for it to be anything more than that.Chunky Rice 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm sure these must have a history to them, but I can't find anything online; the best I found was one brief reference that said they were developed in the early 1900s. If no one finds any sources to make this article more than a dicdef, I would support deletion. Brianyoumans 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant weak delete As per Brianyoumans I'm sure these have a history but I can't find it. I don't like the title though, if it's kept it should probably redirect to Cupcake liner or Muffin liner. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, I would be happy to change my opinion if someone could come up with a reliable source about the history of the muffin cup. I just couldn't find anything.Chunky Rice 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it can expanded... I've added a bit. --W.marsh 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Muffin. I sincerely doubt there's enough to be said about muffin paper cups to merit an encyclopedia article, and what information there is would be better discussed in the main article on muffins. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Muffin per Krimpet, above. Do some cleanup. Maybe transwiki to like a culinary wiki (wikicookie?). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only incoming link is Blueberry muffin? How important can this be? At best it is one-and-a-half sentences in the baking article. This is a tool is cooking, with no notability apart from that. Shenme 02:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Muffin, or create an article for Muffin Pan and merge it into that. On the other hand I do not see an article for Cake pan, much less a Pan liner article, although there is one for Sheet pan. Perhaps a Cake pan article should be created, and merge all these aspects of cake-making, including assorted pans for various cakes, and liners and muffin cups and such, into that. Good grief now I'm getting hungry. -- T-dot (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment Why don't we all go out for muffins and coffee then? Dibs on the corn one. Seriously, I can't think the answer to an unwarranted article is to create another one. Probably best to delete this and merge to Muffin or baking.--Wehwalt 14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly unsupportable keep - I agree that this won't satisfy WP:N, as I can't see how "muffin paper cups" could have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, unless as minor subject-matter in scholastic works by historians of muffin-making. (Note that Wikipedia also has 1000 Simpsons articles, the subjects of which have not all been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works - and the same for the thousands of articles on villages in Saskatchewan.) However, "muffin paper cups" do exist in reality. My mom uses them. Significant information could be included - such as what they are and have been made of, the history of their use, issues associated with their use and so on. I suggest marking it as a stub. But I also suggest renaming it to "cupcake liner", or whatever they are sold as in stores - because I suspect "muffin paper cup" isn't their proper name. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - actually, when you think about it, every single manufactured good is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Cupcake liners will come in boxes that may say what they're made of, what is an acceptable use for them, and so on; and being manufactured, they'll also have engineering schematics, or even ISO/QS standards for their manufacture. The factory will have a tooling manual on how to set up the machine; the engineer would have devised the optimum number of crimps per circle, and you might find discussions on that topic in some periodical for manufacturing engineers. And I bet some older cookbooks (written back when people cooked, ha ha) would even have small sections on cupcake liners - when to use them and when not, or even which brands to look for. What say you all to that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about satisfying WP:N? Because those would be either primary source documents produced by the maker of the product (instructions, patent info, production docs, etc.) or trivial mentions (cookbooks). The only exception would be somethign that was in a manufacturing journal, and if you can turn up such a document, you'd be halfway to multiple sources.Chunky Rice 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee you that there will be writeups in periodicals relating to the optimal number of crimps per circle. I also bet you won't find them on the internet. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aware of other sources, then by all means, add them to the article, but it sounds like you're just speculating.Chunky Rice 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm really starting to waste everyone's time here, but I just went to my mom's cabinets and found some Reynolds cupcake liners. Here's an example of available info: They come in 4 sizes (60, 80, 100, 120mL - not sure about the unit, I can't remember). There is a US Patent for them. I agree this is "primary sources", but the information should still be useable (though I agree it doesn't satisfy your WP:N), as I don't see how one can reasonably dispute its verifiability. I dunno why something that exists and is significant in baking fails notability - but I can see your point if your argument is that a cupcake liner article simply doesn't fit in an encyclopaedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[44] - the last paragraph under "pans" says: "Paper or foil muffin cup liners are sometimes used to line the muffin pans. The advantage of paper liners is not only does it make clean-up easier but they also help to keep the muffins moist and help prevent them from drying out. However, if you like your muffins to have a crust, do not use paper liners. Instead, spray the muffin pan with a non stick vegetable spray." Sounds just like something from the article, in fact. And the link was already added to the article on 11 April. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - added a reference into the article from the Hormel Foods site. There, now you have documented proof that muffin cups exist. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge → Cookware and bakeware. I think the suggestion to merge to muffin is an artifact of what the tool is most commonly used for, but it is actually a general baking tool the utility of which is broader than simply baking muffins. (gee - I'm getting this feeling that I'm writing a Muppet Show sketch about an encounter between Beaker and the Swedish Chef). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both muffin and cupcake. Caknuck 08:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signa (opera)[edit]

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

Original research per author's own edit log bd_ 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What is this supposed to be exactly? Does this opera exist? If so, the notability is not asserted. The creator states that the text is based on his own original research. Leebo T/C 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I guess I was just thrown off by the non-standard format of the article. It's not written in a way one would expect about a work of fiction. It needs to be rewritten with attention to our Manual of Style, but the opera itself is not eligible for deletion simply because he worked on it as his thesis. The original research needs to be purged, that's all. Leebo T/C 17:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the author appears to be one of few authorities on the subject matter, but I see no reason for that to mean not merit inclusion. - Tiswas(t/c) 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment notwithstanding the article (and others) need to be purged of the OR, opinionating and non-encyclopaedic parts - Tiswas(t/c) 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am the author of this article, parkermusic, Christopher J. Parker -- Further to the various observations above, I have now taken on board the comments made. I have explained elsewhere in talk pages that I have inadvertently, through my profile, given the impression that the articles I have written and amended are based on 'original' research, when in reality they are simply the collation of materials already in the public domain or available for public inspection. Yes, they were complied as part of the process of writing my Ph.D, but they are not in themselves original statements by me. There is nothing that is anything other than factual or that has not been observed in a number of different sources. I have clarified all the articles I have written by means of additional sources in the reference sections, and I have deleted the plots of the operas to bring them in line with wikipedia requirements. I hope this is sufficient to preserve the remainder of that which I have contributed in good faith. Christopher J. Parker 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Kleinzach 01:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - clearly verifiable, the sort of thing that Wikipedia is all about. Bob talk 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torry Harris Business Solutions[edit]

Torry Harris Business Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-noteable IT middleware implementation company. Was speedied thrice and deleted once through WP:PROD before. Lupo 11:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - only one independent external source (the ChannelTimes news story) is provided, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless further sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Sources added with additional information regarding the company. Deletion of the article has to be reconsidered. Asif m.i 06:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources include the company web page, press releases, a company profile on a client's website and a trade publication. The channel times article is a minor reference but does not establish notability. Montco 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - There seems to be some work being done on the content and on the look out for stronger sources. Should be given more time before being considered for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Divvy2 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC). — Divvy2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Minimally sourced article about a non-notable company. Caknuck 08:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In such a heavily contested debate, I feel it's important to come to a conclusion; I could easily have closed this as "no consensus" as there were plenty of people in each camp. Instead, I have made this decision based on the arguments. From the debate, I see three main reasons for deletion: (1) insufficient sourcing, (2) OR by synthesis, and (3) notability. Insufficient sourcing is a borderline deletion reason in the first place (sourceability is more to the point) but in any case, there are loads of citations, and many users feel that the sourcing is not insufficient, which makes this an editing concern. The OR by synthesis argument did not gain traction, and was well-rebuffed. The notability concern is the strongest: it seems some users feel that the topic itself must have been the subject of independent works for the topic to be important enough to cover. In this case, I have to conclude that that judgement has not been accepted, and WP:NOT#Paper gives clear guidance on topics that not everyone agrees are suitable for inclusion: keep it, there's no harm. Mangojuicetalk 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In writing the above, I had actually not counted !votes, but after writing it I did so, and the count does favor keeping by a decent margin. Mangojuicetalk 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Harry Potter[edit]

Dates in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously deleted at AfD. A reposted, edited version was then speedy deleted as CSD G4. A DRV consensus (very narrowly) determined the new draft was distinctive enough to warrant its own AfD. The matter is submitted for full consideration, especially of WP:SYNT issues. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The main argument to delete the article was that it constitutes an original synthesis. However, this article does not advance a position, as required by WP:SYNT. As for the idea that the article synthesises disparate facts in an original manner, I shudder to think that the simple act of ordering dates chronologically or adding or subtracting numbers, which is explicitly allowed in WP:OR, could be considered "original research". -- Black Falcon 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The important part is the information, which should exist somewhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article couldn't be more in-universe. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link to the Manual of Style page you've provided would call for editing to present the information from an alternate perspective and not for the article's deletion. Moreover, the dozens of references of the type, "According to Rowling", "Rowling cites", "Rowling considered", and "Rowling later gave" clearly indicate that this is not written from an in-universe perspective. -- Black Falcon 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In-universe writing is not a valid ground for deletion of an article. Not to mention that half the article discusses real world debate about how dates were arrived at and is not in-universe at all. Sandpiper 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm having a hard time coming to grips with the importance of this article. Granted, Harry Potter is an extremely successful series. However, I do not believe that merits an article about the fictional timeline that corresponds to it. My main problem is that a substantial amount of the sources for this article are from the books themselves. Why do we need an article that regurgitates information that can be found in the books? Why not just read the books? --Cyrus Andiron 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Strongly agree with the above - the only people who are ever going to care about this will have read the book already. I can just about tolerate fancruft articles for, say, a long-running TV series where someone might not have seen every episode, or might not remember the details & hence an entry might be useful (along the lines of, "which Star Trek episode was it where Captain Kirk had to kill Joan Collins to stop the human race becoming extinct?"), but it's a reasonable guess that anyone who cares enough about Harry Potter to be looking things up here will own all six books. If this is going to be kept, it should be on Wikibooks and not here. Otherwise, why not have a similar article for every work of fiction? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind you that the US initial print run for the next book is 12 million copies. That is unprecedented. So the 'few' people who have read the book in english as their own deliberate choice will be around 50-100 million? Two of the HP artcles are in the top 100 accessed articles on wiki. So what are the odds that this article gets more hits than most on wiki? I would also remind you that people are creatures of habit. If someone looks up their favourite book on wiki, they may also click a few links and start reading something else. This principle has been noted by quite a few schoolteachers, trying to persuade people to read books for pleasure, and the books are now included as required reading for teaching students in the uk (I know one). The issue of exactly when things happen in the stories is important to understanding various elements of the plot. The existence of the article solves a number of potential difficulties for people maintaining other articles, because it sidesteps debate about dating on the page of individual articles, and presents the available information all in one place, here, where they can read before messing with all the dates in other articles. Sandpiper 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the conceptually rather similar Narnian timeline is a featured list. Sandpiper 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I were the Emperor of Wikiland, I'd happily delete the Narnian timeline as well; but the reason that won't happen is that the Narnia one's sourced and referenced to multiple independent non-trivial sources, whereas the Harry Potter one may have 163 references, but all are either to the books themselves, to fansites or to Harry Potter Lexicon - which is where this article, along with its many cousins, ought to be instead of on Wikipedia. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Cyrus Andiron. You wrote, Why do we need an article that regurgitates information that can be found in the books?. The whole principle of an encyclopedia is to regurgitate information found elsewhere. (I am not trying to be sarcastic and hope you don't take it that way; I just can't think of another way to express the idea.) The article supplements others on the Harry Potter books and provides information so that readers will not have to go to the books (which, if I'm not mistaken, comprise more than 1000 pages). -- Black Falcon 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2500 pages, 3000 including forethcoming final book Sandpiper 00:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Reply to Black Falcon All right, I'm going to hit a few points here. First of all, you are defending the article without any prior knowledge, and I commend you for that. And you can support it, but without any context, you have no idea what any of the dates mean. Therefore, you could not use the page. If someone does not have any prior knowledge of Harry Potter, like you, then the dates hold no significance. The article is only intended for people with a reasonable knowledge of the plot. I believe that an encyclopedia is meant to be a comprehensive reference work that covers a wide variety of topics that are accessible to everyone. This article does not adhere to that. And you can argue that there are other articles out there (Quantum Physics) that are also not accessible. But then we're getting into a case of comparing and that is counterproductive. I would still like you to address the absence of notable, non first party sources. Also, please keep in mind AGF. I do not believe that it was necessary to comment that Iridescenti holds a bias for one side. Let's keep this civil. --Cyrus Andiron 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain, please, Cyrus? It clearly explains where the dates derive from, the noted problems with them, even touches briefly on the controversy that surrounded the timeline (with Warner Bros and the Lexicon site squabbling that each deserved the credit). And then the timeline itself explains how all the dates fit together, and the relevance of each to the plot of the novel. A reader not up to speed with the books might find it dull (but then, there are no doubt people who'd question the scintillation factor of an article on Quantum Theory, or the origins of Satan in Western thought), but not unintelligible. Nor is a lack of sources outside the novel grounds for deletion: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Sources for articles on fiction says, "In addition to the source material, there are many sources of in-depth information for writers of article on fictional subjects (although some are more reliable than others). Note that when using the fictional work itself to give plot summaries, character biographies, and the like, the work of fiction must be cited as a source. For instance, a video game article should cite the game text, but it should also cite a reliable secondary source when necessary." Does that or does that not mean that secondary sources are encouraged, but not required? Otherwise, one would expect some sort of warning. Michael Sanders 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the dates like this: 1979 - the year in which Regulus Black, the brother of Sirius Black, is shown as having died on the Black Family Tree have no meaning to someone who is not familiar with the series. That makes it accessible to only a certain group of people. Also, we are not talking about plot summaries, we are talking about a collection of dates. I do not believe that the argument you suggested applies to this discussion. There is a difference between a timeline and a plot summary. I believe that this applies much more: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. That comes directly from here. --Cyrus Andiron 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1) the phrase "wherever possible" - implying that when such are not available, primary sources may be used (provided that they are used correctly, as specified elsewhere) and 2) That is no specific ban on the use of primary sources and 3) That is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Michael Sanders 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're going in circles. I've made my points above and stated my belief that the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia and cannot be attributable to reliable sources. --Cyrus Andiron 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Cyrus Andiron. I have no idea what any of the dates mean as long as I don't read the main Harry Potter articles (that's what I mean by "this article supplements others"). Not all articles are required to comprehensively cover everything about a topic. Otherwise what's the point of internal links and "See also" sections? Some topics are inherently more specialised and require that they be linked to more general pages (as, for instance, the pages on the Harry Potter books). Regarding Iridescenti, I did not say that he is "biased" but rather that his statements suggest (to me) that his argument is "based" in a personal opinion that the subject matter of timelines of fictional universes is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This viewpoint, although it is one with which I disagree, is neither "evil" nor in any sense morally wrong. Also, I do see it is a far-fetched inference given his expressed desire to see deleted a featured article on a similar theme. I also do not think, nor did I intend to imply, that he acts in bad faith; I merely stated my impression of his comments. -- Black Falcon 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. You are correct to note that I support retention of "the article without any prior knowledge" of the books. Although you made no other comments on that point, I should note that I have restricted my appraisal of the article solely to whether the content presented meets Wikipedia policies and whether I feel the arguments for deletion stand up to scrutiny. -- Black Falcon 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Iridescenti. You wrote, the only people who are ever going to care about this will have read the book already. That is, quite simply, incorrect. I obviously care enough to participate in the DRV and this AFD, yet I have not read any of the Harry Potter books. In fact, I don't even know the titles of half of them. There's Goblin of Fire, Sorcerer's Stone, Wizard of something (I want to say Alcatraz, but I know that's wrong), and ... that's all I know. The fact that you wish to delete a similar better article that is a featured list suggests to me that your argument may be based in your personal dislike of the subject matter of the article rather than a problem of the article itself. -- Black Falcon 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Iridescenti. The Narnia article appears to have only three sources mentioned. Two appear to derive from the same person, who claims to have been given a copy of the timeline by CS Lewis. The third is an author who wrote something claiming that some works attributed posthumously to Lewis by the first author were in fact not so. There are no other coroborating sources, and the author is dead so can't be asked. Yes, the timeline was published by Hooper so is a referenceable source whether it is genuine or not, but in this case Warner bros have done the same thing, and do have the benefit of the corroboration of the living author. The Narnia article also claims that most of those dates are only traceable from the separate timeline, whereas these are largely traceable from the books themselves. Sourcing here seems to be better. Sandpiper 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the difference. Narnia has three sources listed, all published books. The Harry Potter timeline uses the books by Rowling, the Warner Bros. timeline (corroborated with Rowling), and the Harry Potter Lexicon. The lexicon is a fan created encyclopedia. Again, who verifies that the information there is accurate. --Cyrus Andiron 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Warner Bros, who published it on their DVD editions of the films, claiming it to be approved by Rowling. As you can see if you read the article (or look at one of the DVDs). Michael Sanders 01:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but that furthers my point as well. All sources for this article go directly through Rowling. We're back at square one without any secondary sources. --Cyrus Andiron 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's nothing in the rules preventing use of primary sources. For that matter, if this goes straight to Rowling - well, how can any article in wikipedia be written? Any referencing of the voyage of the Beagle, for example, would go straight to Charles Darwin. Michael Sanders 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add also that "accuracy confirmed by Rowling" is not the same as "written by Rowling". That is, Rowling's approval of the sources does not make them primary sources; on the contrary, I would say it makes them doubly reliable secondary sources. -- Black Falcon 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(BF got in first) Erm, I was going to say that this is a work of fiction, and if Rowling, as author says that black is white in her world, well, then it is. Lexicon is a secondary source in that it confirms the derived timeline directly on the basis of the books content. Lexicon do not claim Rowling told them, rather that they deduced the information. Later Rowling confirmed they were correct, or at least authorised a similar timeline. At least we do have the input of Rowling into this, unlike the narnia case where Lewis is dead and can't comment. Rowling writes detective novels, and is on record as saying she does not lie to her readers. With regard to the three sources on the Narnia article, the last one seems to be by someone arguing that the single source of the first two is suspect. Sandpiper 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment relative to the Narnia comparison and discussions above: I would also point out that there is also a precedent and fairly close similarity to the article Timeline of Arda which reflects the History of Middle Earth as told by J. R. R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, The Unfinished Tales, and the general The History of Middle-Earth which constitutes some twelve volumes of texts. The histories and Middle-Earth years were presented, albeit very much in-universe, and admittedly without regard to "real calendar years" as it were. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or transwiki somewhere more appropriate. There's really no way to source this without violating WP:SYNT, along with the in-universe concerns. Krimpet (talk/review) 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what position is being advanced by the article? If anyone could say, then maybe the article could be rewritten to avoid this. So far (this is the third debate), no one has explained what position is allegedly being advanced by a synthesis of sources. Sandpiper 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see that synthesis can be an argument for deletion of an entire article, in any event. It is a rule about content. If you think some of the content is a synthesis, then say what it is, and something can be done about it. Warner bros has published definitive dates eg when harry went to school. The dates have been agreed by the author. The book says eg Professor McGonagall started teaching 30 years ago on a certain page, therefore she started teaching in 1956. Is it being suggested that subtracting 30 from a current date is an impermissable synthesis? Sandpiper 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above. Put it on a Harry Potter wiki, and leave it off here. RobJ1981 20:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I'm concerned, synthesis is not a big issue. Adding and subtracting to arrive at dates is different than manipulating multiple texts to create a new point. I'll grant you the dates. I think the sticking point for this article is the fact that it has not been covered by notable, non trivial sources. Right now, most of the 163 sources are from the Harry Potter books themselves or other publications by Rowling. That is my biggest issue. And, as mentioned by Iridescenti, that is what separates it from the Narnian timeline. --Cyrus Andiron 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Narnia article states that the only source for the timeline is a copy given by the author to one Walter Hooper, who wrote it up. Thus it essentially derives from the word of the said Mr Hooper, which the article also says has been brought into question with regard to other material he claims was from Lewis, who was once his employer. This information has been published by Warner bros, checked by Rowling, and is also verifiable independantly to a significant extent from the works themselves. Sandpiper 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the Narnian timeline, despite the validity of Hooper sometimes being called into question, the dates have been used in a number of scholarly works on Narnia since (see the five books at the end of the article). Naturally, with the HP series not over yet, though, there is still time for its timeline to be incorporated into other print material. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is well sourced, using both primary and secondary sources, violates no wikipedia rules, and is important, if not essential, to the encyclopaedia reader in understanding the subject. Michael Sanders 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to an appropriate Harry Potter fan wiki. This is unattributable to non-first-party sources (which I mentioned on the DRV), and is written from an in-universe perspective. --Coredesat 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First party sources are allowed to be used in the articles themselves, particularly articles regarding works of fiction. Would you like to specify how it uses in-universe perspective? Michael Sanders 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I wish to make three points.
  1. This article is not written from an in-universe perspective. An article written from an in-universe perspective would not contain statement such as: "The timeline itself contains flaws", "Rowling later gave further confirmation", "Rowling has specified", "According to Rowling", or any reference to anything that does not exist solely in the Harry Potter fictional universe.
  2. "Primary source" does not automatically equate with "unreliable" (I presume that's what you meant to imply by linking to WP:RS). In fact, per WP:RS, Three classes of sources exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia: and primary sources are one of the three types. The only restriction on primary sources is that they should be used "with care".
  3. As my knowledge of the Harry Potter series is extremely limited, I will do no more than note that claim that all of the sources are primary was challenged in the DRV. -- Black Falcon 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history is that HP-Lexicon created a timeline based upon information contained in the books, and some additional statements by Rowling. Warner subsequently published another timeline without officially stating its source, but effectively endorsing its accuracy as the creators of the films. This timeline is included on DVDs of the films, if you play them in a computer. Lexicon claim that Warner used their timeline, and back this claim by stating that a 'mistake' in their timeline was reproduced exactly on the DVD. This claim is posted here [45]. That page also goes through the arguments used to determine dates. There are a number of other pages, including this [46], if you want to see a really big list of dates. Some dates are not from the books, but from separate statements by Rowling published on her website and (I understand) on authorised trading card games. It should also be noted that Rowling has recommended a few fansites to anyone interested in more information about her works, including HP-Lexicon. She said that she uses it herself to check facts, see her website comment here[47]. I make it therefore that HP-Lexicon is a good secondary source of information, being endorsed by the author herself. Warner is either a second primary source, or a secondary source, depending on how you interpret their information. Since the information is fact-checked by the author to conform to her series of books, I take it to be another reputable secondary source. Sandpiper 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's my belief that a secondary source should not have input from the author of the primary source. The entire point of a secondary sources is that it can offer analysis or information without being influenced by the suggestions or demands of the primary source. Secondary sources are meant to be analytical; a take on the primary source of information. --Cyrus Andiron 12:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: please note, from WP:AFD: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself."..."The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."..."Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say "does not meet WP:BIO" to avoid insulting the subject.) The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." Simply saying 'I don't like it' is not sufficient, nor is a simple vote in favour or against. Michael Sanders 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Apparently I'm seeing the use of this as orientation to the series more than I'm seeing problems with its genesis. Only if this can find a better home on HPL does it make sense (to me) to get rid of it. Can a redirect for "Dates in Harry Potter" point to an HPL page? Shenme 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main arguments for deleting seem to center upon the (non)notability of the timeline, questioning the need to have a timeline, a sense that the article constitutes original research, and/or synthesis. We have no actual examples of this claim from those making them, just the claim itself, and then no valid refutation upon numerous challenges. Rather than re-address the same arguments (how can it be OR of "we" did not invent the timeline?), an effort is underway to rewrite the article to more closely represent the facts of the matter. For example, the original opening stated that Harry Potter fans have created a timeline for the Harry Potter series, based on three shreds of information provided by author.... I am convinced that this led many to the conclusion on non-notability - after all who cares what a lot o' duffing Harry Potter fanatics might come up with in their imaginations when they should be outside playing football or something. "Created a timeline" suggested these crazy folks made it up out of thin air - thus original research. "For the HP series..." carried a tone that "we" (or they the fans) were doing this effort as a favor to assist Rowling and the world - suggesting 'cruft. The fact that the detailed dates presented were derived from "three shreds of information" strongly suggested a lot of synthesis from less than solid information. None of these are actually the case. The timeline has been documented by Warner Bros., with or without the assistance of the Harry Potter Lexicon fan site, and reviewed and approved by Rowling, therefore it is notable, traceable, verifiable, and therefore allowable. The Introduction has now been changed to reflect the fact of the matter: The Chronology is a general timeline of events derived from information provided in the series of Harry Potter novels written by J.K. Rowling, along with additional materials posted on her web site and published in various interviews. The introduction goes on to discuss the Warner Bros and Lexicon sources for the material. This new version should clarify for most reviewers the pedigree of the materials. Please note that this was a problem of the quality of the description of the source materials, a matter of wordsmithing, and not a general problem of notability, original research, or synthesis in order to make an argument or something, as alleged by many in favor of deletion on those grounds. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This new version of the article is far better than the old one. Not in-universe, and there's a tie-in to the real world at Chronology of the Harry Potter stories#Contradictions. Not NN, obviously. And definitely not OR, as this is material previously published and, on top of that, verified as in accordance with the series by the author herself. Thus the article is worthy of keeping. It needs a bit of copyediting, but the content has now been verified as relevant (in the whole new lead), so there shouldn't be a reason to delete. Though may I suggest a move to Chronology in Harry Potter or the like; the current title sounds like it would be something like "1997 – first book published; 1998 – second book published" etc. (a publishing history). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, I hate it when a DRV is done without notifying the person(s) who tagged the article for deletion (speedy in this case), so that they too can present their rationale for doing so. Secondly, there were some rather incorrect statements in the deletion review, like the argument that it was deleted because it was OR (which was only one of the arguments, WP:NOT being the most important), or arguments like "First of all, primary sources in this case are Rowling's original writing, not the novels based on that writing. " This has to be a new one: the manuscript is the primary source, when it is printed, it becomes a secondary source? I don't think so... Anyway, on to the current article: it has two parts, a timeline (i.e. a plot summary, but in a less useful form for those who haven't read the books and thus most need a plot summary: so a good canidate to get rid off under WP:NOT), and a discussion of the timeline and how it was compiled. This shifts the discussion to another question: is the timeline in any way notable? It has been published, yes, but it hasn't been the subject of any reliable secondary sources. While there have been many, many reviews of the Harry Potter books, their success, the authors, the movies, the actors, ..., I don't think there has been any review, criticism, or other reliable independent secondary source about this timeline (as the article states, it is commonly used by the fandom, and I don't think that the Harry Potter Lexicon can be considered a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense). So there are two problems now: Wikipedia doesn't want the timeline itself as an article (for WP:NOT and similar guidemine arguments like WP:WAF), and it doesn't want an article about the timeline (as there are no secondary sources about it). The best solution is to delete this article, and add a link to the timeline as an external link to the main Harry Potter pages. Fram 07:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that notability is definitely one of the main problems. Specifically: A notable topic that has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. Right now, there are not any independent published works that support the notability of the timeline. We have the books, the lexicon, Rowling's Timeline and the Warner Bros. timeline. All of these are related and come through one person: Rowling. There are no other published sources that could confirm, deny, or comment on any of the information in this article. I also have a problem with the word derived, which appears in the first sentence of the article. Basically, that means to to trace from a source or origin. To me that sounds like unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is stricly forbidden by OR. --Cyrus Andiron 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Comment: The Synthesis of Published Material claim above applies to "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Everyone seems to be leaving this last part out, and stating that Synthesis of information in general is somehow bad and forbidden. Everything in the Wikipedia is synthesis - information gathered and combined together from multiple sources. This is not the intent of the ban. The ban is on making an argument and advancing a position by synthesizing materials. The example is: We believe C. Source 1 says "A" and Source 2 says "B", and A and B together may imply C, therefore we have "C", QED. An absurd example: Mary bought some canned catfood at the local store, according to her grocer. Her neighbor said Mary's cat died last month. Therefore Mary must be eating catfood, because she cannot afford human food. It may be true as theories go, but it is disallowed as synthesizing a novel position that Mary eats cat food, based on circumstantial, not direct "evidence". That is what the Synthesis position on Original Research is all about. Nobody is attempting to advance a Position C here, so "Synthesis OR" arument does not apply. In addition, the question of the word "derived": As stated in the article, the derivation was done by the Lexicon and/or Warner Bros., not the wiki editors who assembled the article. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Falcon. The Potter book series is without recent precedent in its impact, and a timeline is a useful adjunct as an alternative to re-reading 3000 pages of novels to clarify a detail. Such a massive body of fiction is well served by articles such as this. The timeline is an NPOV article not seeking to advance some controversial point of view by synthesis. The editing process can delete any minor characters' dates which the article's editors consider unencyclopedic. As an example of why this article should be kept, I had wondered how old Dumbledore was supposed to be. This article gives an age/birthdate, and cites it to a published transcript of an interview with Rowling. Thanks, Wikipedia! Things merely cited to a fansite like the Lexicon could be deleted unless the sources used in the Lexicon can be confirmed, and then the dates could be cited to their original sources if those satisfy WP:ATT. Edison 14:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wonder how old Dumbledore is, you can find that in the article Albus Dumbledore, where his birthyear is given as 1845, with a source. SO why would you come and look for it in the "Dates in Harry Potter" article? If there is a decent source (like an interview with the author) for the supposed age of a major character, then it is failry logical that that info is added in the article about that subject, who is on his own notable. However, to compile (or reproduce) a list of such dates on its own is still rather useless. Fram 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of exactly when certain things happened compared to each other is important to the plot. The main comparison is between Harry's generation at school, and his parents generation. However, the principle villain was at the same school, interacting with roughly harry's grandparents generation. Keeping all this lot straight (who knew who) is a lot easier if you can see it in a timeline. This is a detective novel, though this sometimes seems to be overlooked. Something which greatly interests readers is sorting out the clues in the text left by Rowling. Rather than drawing up their own list, it is presented here. But the issue is really that after reading Dumbledore's dates in his article it is then possible to click the date link to this article, and obtain further information about dates, their derivation, who were contemporaries, etc. It is rather foolish to rewrite all this in every article. That is why we have links, so people can click one and see more detailed information on a particular topic. One specific reason for the existence of articles like this is that the information is relevant to many articles. Sandpiper 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the books, and fail to see how this timeline helps me in any way, or what info related to e.g. Dumbledores age should be included in the Dumbledore article which isn't there already. Rewriting this list in every article is a fine example of a strawman: this would indeed be foolish, as it would serve no purpose. I fail to see any use for this article in an encyclopedic and already rather thorough dissection of Harry Potter. It's available on the web and on DVD's for those interested: what is gained by repeating it here? The timeline is a useless piece of plot summary which hasn't received any critical comments from reliable sources, making the first half of the article lacking in reliable secondary sources establishing notability (for the timeline, obviously not for Harry Potter). Fram 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I fail to see any use for this article in an encyclopedic and already rather thorough dissection of Harry Potter. It's available on the web and on DVD's for those interested: what is gained by repeating it here? " That seems to be a pretty stupid point: what is the point of wikipedia, or, indeed, any encyclopaedia at all, by that logic? Why should we have an article on the second world war - there are plenty of thorough dissections out there, aren't there? A reader can go to library and read about quantum theory, can look in the newspapers to see how climate change is doing, can grab a biography of Kennedy - so why read a garbled version of any of those things here, where it will have been badly typed up and misunderstood by some kid/professor/whatever at a computer? The point of wikipedia is to be a thorough resource on everything, provided that it can be properly sourced and verified, and provided it is notable enough. This article is properly sourced and verified. It is an article on an extraordinarily successful and popular series of books, which is pretty integral to an understanding of the series, and to understanding how all the dates fit together. Michael Sanders 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments so far:
    • "In-universe" - please specify how the article is 'in-universe'; furthermore, in-universe is not sufficient grounds for deletion. This has been repeated several times by those in favour of deletion; not one of those has explained their reasoning.
    • "Non-notable" - the article addresses the events occurring in the novels, the real-world issues surrounding it, and even the problems (possibly even legal struggles) surrounding the origins of the timeline referred to by the article.
    • "Delete, or transwiki somewhere more appropriate. There's really no way to source this without violating WP:SYNT, along with the in-universe concerns. Krimpet (talk/review) 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)" - doesn't seem to be any relevant point there, since it is already sourced.
    • "Delete per comments above. Put it on a Harry Potter wiki, and leave it off here. RobJ1981 20:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)" - unspecified, appears "I don't like it" rather than deletion-appropriate objection
    • "Delete or transwiki to an appropriate Harry Potter fan wiki. This is unattributable to non-first-party sources (which I mentioned on the DRV), and is written from an in-universe perspective. --Coredesat 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)" - not a valid argument - first-party sources are allowed, an article making heavy use of 1st party sources is not liable to deletion. Please point out the in-universe perspective.
    • "WP:NOT" - please explain how that applies here. Wikipedia is not a collector of indiscriminate information; this is not indiscriminate information (see any reference to what Harry had for breakfast on the first day after the full moon of the second month of the ascending House of Aquarius whilst Dumbledore was wearing a mohican?)

Please explain how these arguments, several of which don't appear to be relevant to deletion, apply here. Michael Sanders 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also remind everyone that "The deletion process is really a discussion. Wikipedia has particular standards for deletion and editors explain why they believe certain rules apply. Some of those desiring deletion are not adequately explaining why they believe it fits criteria for deletion: see Always explain your reasoning..."Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. In addition, this article conforms to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion Michael Sanders 23:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People may by now have gathered my view in this argument, but for the record it is keep. This is not because I write HP articles. I have voted against some in the past. It is because this article both contains information of interest to people who like the books, and is useful as part of the overall coverage of the subject on wiki. I was just talking to someone today, who happens to be a head librarian in a medical library. Her business is sourcing information. I explained this debate, and she was amazed. She could not understand why people on wikipedia could be so against inclusion of articles on popular culture. Wiki is supposed to be the encyclopedia for everyone, by everyone, about everything. So what is wrong with properly covering a subject of such interest to millions? Many arguments have been proposed suggesting reasons to delete this article. All have been answered. The simple fact that just about every rule in the book has been suggested to argue for its deletion suggests to me that there is nothing really wrong with it. If there was, people would agree with each other instead of brainstorming suggestions that might possibly fit the bill. Perhaps people should just accept that in order for wiki to be what it sets out to be, it needs to have articles like this. How is it that people have lost sight of one of the most obviously important rules, wiki is not paper, and are bound and determined to turn the encyclopedia for everyone into the encyclopedia for the ivory tower isolationist. What wiki absolutely does not need to do is become more high-brow than it already is. I have nothing against adding as much analysis and real world explanation to fiction articles as is useful and possible. However, absence of such material should never count against the remainder of any article, which were such material to be added, would then pass muster as a respectable article. The encyclopedia needs to retain the best possible coverage of all aspects of popular culture. You do want people interested in popular culture to start reading a reference source which has other, perhaps more useful, content as well, don't you? Do you really want them to sit all day reading Mugglenet instead of wiki? If you do, then perhaps you should not be contributing here. Sandpiper 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sandpiper - I - and the others arguing delete - are neither anti-Harry Potter fanatics, nor ivory-tower intellectuals not wanting to see Wikipedia polluted with low culture (at least, I hope the others aren't). However, I believe that while an article about a work of fiction or major fictional character is generally acceptable, and an article about a particular object/concept of significance within that work of fiction can be acceptable (eg TIE fighter, Horcrux, Charn), there is a qualitative difference between these and this type of article; whilst the former are genuinely useful towards explaining concepts used within a culturally significant work which may be used in a wider context or in discussion of the work to people who may not have read/seen or may not remember the work, the latter is a self-referential type of article which pretty much by definition is not going to be of interest or use to people other than the most diehard fans. To use the example used elsewhere in this AfD, I can picture someone looking up Quantum Mechanics wanting to find out more about the subject; I can even picture someone looking up Blood purity having come across the term and wanting to know more about it; I cannot picture anyone outside the Harry Potter community looking up this article, and consequently feel it would be better suited to either a Harry Potter site or to Wikibooks. And (while I realise it ain't gonna happen), I would say the same about Narnian Timeline, Star Wars Timeline etc, and in any event your argument regarding the Narnia list above is just a very long way of saying WP:WAX. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: About claiming WP:WAX - The article Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, where WAX is located, is simply an essay suggestion, not in any way a policy or even a guideline. Quoting: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not a valid argument for deletion. You say only those who have read Harry Potter will be able to understand it. Leaving the questionable nature of that statement aside: how many people have read Harry Potter? A hundred? A thousand? A million? Ten million? More? Certainly, enough people have read it to make it a relevant article to wikipedia readers - more so than an article on quantum mechanics (that's populism for you). This article is "qualitatively useful" to those who wish to understand how the events in Rowling's novels, and the backstory she created for those novels, falls together. It conforms to wikipedia rules. It is intelligible to those who have read the novels (and, I would contend, those who haven't). It gives the background information about the issue. It is not 'self-referential', if by that you mean it quotes information verbatim from the books - it also uses information from the comic relief books, Rowling's interviews, her website, much of which is, or may be, hard for 'the average reader' (whom we all serve at wikipedia) to locate. The timeline and the information surrounding it both serve those purposes. As for having it here - why have anything here? But we do, because if we can source it and verify it and satisfy notability (all done here), we can control it, and ensure it remains encyclopaedic. That's why we write about history, or politics, or sciences, or books, or tv shows, or the hundreds of other things on wikipedia. To ensure that we are as thorough and as comprehensive as possible. Michael Sanders 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is notability satisfied? I haven't seen any reliable secondary sources discussing this timeline. Harry Potter is extremely notable, but that does not automatically make this timeline notable (and popularity among fans is not notability for Wikipedia). 05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment My thoughts exactly, this discussion is not about Harry Potter, it's about the "derived" timeline that corresponds to it. Harry Potter is not up for deletion right now, but Dates in Harry Potter is. You have to consider them as separate entities. This timeline is not sourced by anything other than the primary sources that all go through Rowling. Therefore, it does not meet notabilty because there are not multiple non trivial sources. Also, if you're going to claim those as sources and cite dates then events, then you are just restating what can be found in the book. That seems like a plot summary to me, which would violate WP:NOT.--Cyrus Andiron 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. coverage of Harry Potter on wiki is not one article, but 300. We could perhaps theoretically put all that information onto one page, which would take half an hour to load, and be pretty useless. So instead, we split the topic into different articles. We try to do so in a sensible way, and one topic which comes up here and there is dating of events. The article was linked to loads of others, presumably these links have not been restored despite the article being restored? It is effectively a footnote to many other articles. It exists because a sensible encyclopedia would include it. I have to say, if I had to choose a dozen HP articles to delete, this would certainly not be one of them. I would regard it, for example, as more important to the topic of HP than the articles on the films. But this is an absurd comparison: wiki is not paper and we do not have to choose which part of the collected information to chop for lack of space.
Aside from the book, the other sources are not primary. They were not written by Rowling! You should not conflate sources that are "based in the book and checked for accuracy by the book's author" with "written by the author". They are secondary sources that are doubly reliable because the author (in addition to regular editors) checked the information for accuraccy. -- Black Falcon 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I've said this before. The entire point of having secondary sources is that they are not subject to the input of the original author. That is how analysis and criticism are created. If every secondary source was subjected to the opinion of the original author, then there would be no analysis of the source material. The information contained in these sources would be the exact same if Rowling had published it. She corroborated with them to write it. Therefore, this article still fails notabilty, as I said before, because there are not multiple non trivial sources that support it. This is elaborated in more detail above. --Cyrus Andiron 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you saying? if critic X says something about the work, and the author says 'yes, thats right', and researcher Y says something else, and the the author says 'thats right too, give me everything anyone has written about my work and I will confirm or deny it for you', then all these secondary sources become primary ones, and suddenly there are no secondary sources on a subject any more? So someone cirticises the invasion of Iraq, the whitehouse say 'Ok, I agree, you are right', and suddenly the fact of the invasion and that it was criticised ceases to be reportable? History is history and remains a record of what happened whatever happens next. Sandpiper 07:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Cyrus et al So the argument seems to come down to: 1. The timeline was synthesized, which is disallowed by WP:SYNTH: (not true - it was synthesized by OTHERS and the synthesis did not attempt to prove a point, which is a necessary condition for the synthesis ban). 2. It was not created by Rowling therefore it is not reliably sourced per WP:RS: (incorrect - it was produced by Warner Bros., the Producer and owner of the HP copyrights and trademarks). 3. It was shown to Rowling before publication for approval, therefore it is no longer notable: (Huh???) So non-creation by Rowling makes it synthesis, creation by others with non-approval by Rowling makes it unreliable, but creation by others with approval by Rowling makes it non-notable, therefore it is disallowed no matter how it came to be?. I do not think I have ever seen such a twisted and bizarre rational for an AFD. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: no, the argument is that half of the article is a plot summary (rewriting it so that it says "Rowling says that X is" instead of "X is" may superfluously remove the in-universe aspect, but doesn't change anything), and that the other half is a discussion of how that chronology was made, but that there are no secondary sources about the timeline to establish its notability. The timeline itself is the primary source for the discussion of the timeline (just like the books and interviews with Rowling are the primary source for the timeline itself), and there are no secondary (reliable, not fanmade) sources for the discussion of this timeline to indicate that it has any notability (unlike, of course, Harry Potter and the books and movies and so on, who are very notable). 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I find what you are saying something of a paradox. There are three sources here. The books by Rowling, the timeline published by warner, and the timeline allegedly copied by warner, which first appeared on Lexicon. I still make that Primary source Rowling, secondary source Lexicon which extracted and tabuleted info from the books as a timeline, but also extracted real world dates from the information. Tertiary source Warner, who re-published this timeline and thus confirmed it. Lexicon created the timeline by themselves. I repeat that Rowling has endorsed them as a source of information about HP and thus they are a good source for reference purposes. But in this case, the later publication by Warner of the identical information (including Lexicon's 'mistakes') completely conrfirmed their accuracy as a source in this specific case. Even if Warner's timeline being identical was purely coincidence, it still confirms the accuracy of Lexicon. The whole business also made the story quite interesting. Please note 'fanmade' does not mean anything. University professors and professional literary critics are fans too. In this case Lexicon has been conirmed twice over as a reliable source for this information. If you check, you will notice that policy on sourcing states that consideration of what constitutes a reliable source must take into account the nature of the subject concerned and the specific relevance of the source. Sandpiper 08:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm still not convinced by the notability of this article. The 6 books didn't include any form of chronology and didn't mention dates, and as others have pointed out, there was no major reaction to it...We didn't see critics or analysts comment on this, etc.
    In my opinion, this can only be of interest for a small number of die-hard HP fans who have read the books over and over, and I cannot see how it could help occasional readers anyway, since it was never a major issue in the books to know in which year this or that event happened (the order itself is already mentioned in the books, and if WP readers don't want to read the books, the various summaries in other articles are enough, in my opinion), and since this chronology doesn't shed any new light on the events...It only brought the possibility of mentioning the characters' ages in their articles, however I can't see how this would be important information.Folken de Fanel 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true either. The books do not mention real-world dates, but they certainly have a chronology. Book 1 is Harrys first year at school..book 2 is Harry's second year, and so on. During the action we see flasbacks of one sort or another, where we learn about the main characters parents generation at school, and indeed Voldemort who might be around their grandparents generation. Quite often this information is released in a way that eg in book 5 we read about Harry's 5th year, and learn about what his parents did in 5th year. Many events are described relative to each other in a way which only requires the addition of one or two fixed dates, and then all the dates become fixed. As to reaction to the timeline, well no, of course not. It is not controversial, except here. It extracts information from the books, but no one disputes that this was done in a sensible way and has now been made official by the publishers. On the whole it is more important to appreciate that certain events happen in the same year, or one just after another, rather than the specific year, I agree. But this does not invalidate the usefulness of the timeline, which still shows in a clear way which events happen at the same time. As has already been pointed out, there are enough die-hard fans out there to have pre-ordered half a million copies of a book which will be freely available at knock-down prices in every major supermarket in the UK, never mind the bookshops, on the day of publication. So why do they pre-order their books for collection at midnight on the day of publication? Because this is the kind of subject which really does have vast numbers of people interested in core information about the series, which this is. Sandpiper 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Folken: You say: The books do not mention real-world dates. OK - well you must have forgotten about Sir Nick's deathday cake. "DIED 31st October, 1492". See ch. 8 of Chamber of Secrets , about half-way through, for reference. That anchor date, plus the earlier statement that it is the five-hundredth anniversary of Nick's death-day, places Halloween night of Year 2 in the series, when Harry was 12 years old, squarely on 31 October 1992, thus his birth on 31 July 1980, and so forth. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are two important real life dates mentioned by Rowling. One was from the Black family tree, which she donated for charity, and in which Draco Malfoy's birthdate is given as 1980. The very same Draco Malfoy, who is only two months older than Harry, according to JK Rowling's website. Which puts Harry's birthdate in 1980. The second one is the already mentioned date in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, where the ghost Nick celebrated his 500th deathday. The date of his death given in the book (chapter 8) as 1492, therefore the book takes place in 1992. Harry is 12 years old at that point, therefore this date, too, puts his birthyear in 1980. All the other dates given in the article are either from the Black family tree, for example Regulus Black's deathdate, or given in the books or by Rowling on her website, when it is for example stated, that this character is two years older than Harry and that one three years younger. No Original Research at all. Neville Longbottom 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are all proving my point: you have to closely look at the book to find a single date mentioned, which is a proof that only die-hard fans can notice this. One single date in more than 2000 pages certainly doesn't establish the notability of dates in HP...Besides, the article has only one single external, secondary source, a fansite (hence "only interesting for a small number of die-hard fans") Folken de Fanel 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folken, please stop assuming that you represent some sort of mass opinion, or vested interest: just because you failed to notice a pretty explicit date reference within the books, and the associated references to what happened such and such years ago, is not proof positive that everyone except 'die hard fans' noticed it. More to the point, the article is of sufficient notability for wikipedia because it is focused on a notable topic (i.e. Harry Potter). Michael Sanders 19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, stop attacking me each time I don't agree with you. It's not because you can't find anything convincing to add to the debate, that you can bark at everyone that doesn't agree with you.
Besides, we are not talking about "harry potter", but "dates in harry potter", which is quite different. And Dates in HP aren't notable, because they are inexistent. One occurence among more than 2000 pages certainly doesn't make it "notable". And we have not enough different secondary sources which could justify its notability. Folken de Fanel 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though I partly edited the article, I do not feel as strongly about it, as for example the one about Blood purity. It was the notability issue, that made me unsure, since I find themes of a book more important than it's chronology. However, the argument, which convinced me, was that similar articles about Narnia and Lord of the Rings exist. If they are notable, than the one about Harry Potter, as the by far most selled book in our days, is as well. Neville Longbottom 16:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to everyone - Nobody is suggesting deleting Harry Potter! This is a nomination of one article out of the hundreds of HP articles on Wikipedia; an article which (leaving out user & talk pages) has a grand total of four links in (none of which, incidentally, is Harry Potter itself) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see that anyone has confused the two, so ... where's this coming from? -- Black Falcon 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Iridescenti: You must have the incorrect AFD here. The article in question, currently named Chronology of the Harry Potter stories has many dozens, if not hundreds, of links to other HP pages including Harry Potter, and similar numbers of external links to references. For all intents and purposes, every HP related article which has an in-universe date reference (eg: characters, storylines, major event descriptions, etc.) have dates that are linked back to this article, which acts as a date verification source. It is probably one of the most completely cross-referenced articles in the Wikipedia. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And one of the most thoroughly sourced - I mean, yes, most of the sources refer to authorial work, or the dubious work of the Lexicon (a discussion for another day), but there are plenty of articles of the same narrow range of sources without that mitigating factor. Michael Sanders 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The What Links Here? page shows that the only mainspace pages that either link here or redirect in via Dates in Harry Potter are Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Cho Chang, Rubeus Hagrid and Minerva McGonagall - that's just a statement of fact, not a value judgement of any kind. Incidentally, this is technically a deletion discussion on Dates in Harry Potter and not Chronology of the Harry Potter stories - read the header at the top of the section and the AfD log - but I (and I assume everyone else here) am treating it as a nomination of the Chronology and not the empty-shell Dates article. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The edit history of this article was largely lost when it was deleted and restored. Can anyone with the authority please restore the rest of its considerably longer history? Sandpiper 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescenti - The AfD is for the Chronology of the Harry Potter stories, not the outdated Dates in Harry Potter redirection stub. The What Links Here tool is invalid, because removal bots removed the links when the article was first deleted. What happened here is that when the original Dates in Harry Potter article was first deleted, a couple of weeks back, vast numbers of articles within the HP Project suddenly had red-links back to the deleted page. Most of those annoying redlined links were dutifully taken down by well meaning editors and cleanup bots. Meanwhile the article was re-established due to a faulty AfD process, and then renamed due to complaints that it was "too crufty". This eliminated the long-term history of the article up for review, and makes it appear, in the What Links Here tool, that the article is non-notable because hardly anything links there anymore. We will have to tediously restore all those links - many many dozens of them - for the What Links Here tool to be correct in the sense of intent. Those of us who have been involved in the HP articles for more than the length of an AfD know that virtually EVERYTHING in the HP Project, which had in-universe dates in them, had linked to the Chronology / Dates page, and vice versa. I'll take it up with the HP project page to help re-establish the hundreds of Date links in the hundreds of HP articles. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They'd already be re-established: were it not for the fact that editors are generally chary about spending a lot of time on efforts they fear will be wasted after five days. Michael Sanders 13:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Fram a clean-up or removal bot? S/he is the editor who stripped out all the links within a few hours of the deletion of the article. Michael Sanders 13:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I was just about to ask you if you had time to re-establish date links. But I agree - why re-establish links that may go away again in a couple days. You just cannot win with deletionists thinking they are in control. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. There was a correct AfD, the result was delete, and I cleaned up all the redlinks this left behind (not removing any info, just removing the links). No need to call me or anyone "a deletionist who thinks he is in control". Anyway, you shouldn't link those dates to this article, but to the source used to establish that date: Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be used in that way. Fram 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Fram - I was not talking specifically about you, and certainly not to you. You did a fine job of cleaning up the red-linked dates, even though the article was under appeal for re-instatement. I was talking to Michael about what appeared to be an effort to first delete all the links to an article, and then say the article should be deleted as non-notable because there were no links to it, which is a bizarre and twisted approach to accomplish the deed. That is exactly the sort of editors we have been dealing with in this particularly irrational and heated AfD. Again apologies - the "deletionist" remark was referring those who are really struggling to come up with fantastic new rationals for deletion - and the "delete because it is non-notable because there are no links to it because we deleted them" was just the latest in the series. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in Fram's defence, the article wasn't under appeal at that time - after I discovered how the original AfD had gone, I rewrote it to resolve the AfD complaints and reposted it. The appeal wasn't made until it was twice speedily deleted (which, the issue now having passed, I shall hold my silence about). However, it was slightly...hasty, and perhaps over-zealous, to remove all the links so quickly. If a deleted article had that many links, clearly the deletion will cause trouble; it's not a particularly good idea to exacerbate the problem, or indeed to wade in. As for the linking system, ideally, all 'in-universe' dates should be linked up to the article (otherwise, they end up being linked to the historical year articles, which causes a bleed between 'in-universe' and 'extra-universe'); important dates, I suppose, should be referenced within the articles themselves, as well. But nonetheless, there is a difference between using an article as a source, and using it as a convenient short-hand: if I write "Louis XVI was King of France" as "Louis XVI was King of France", I'm not using the article to source that he was King; merely to link up the title to the relevant article. The same is true here. Michael Sanders 21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies and defence accepted ;-) I don't think it is over-zealous to delete all links after an AfD has closed as a delete (one could just as well argue that reintroducing all those links again during the next AfD is over-zealous), but that is not really important now. 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many more irrelevant articles about other fictional universes which are kept. Mordac
Comment There are plenty of valid arguments for keeping it - see above - but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't one of them. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well if a cat-hater dog-lover put up Cat for AfD, then one of the primary arguments against deletion would be that the AfD proposal itself is biased, and that articles for Dog, Mouse, Rat, Monkey, Racoon, etc etc etc exist as a precedent and a model, and that the Cat AfD is absurd. To your point, may I remind you that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, and I quote: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors.. "Well, I happen to strongly disagree with that essay, therefore it is invalid". That reflects the opinion of this author. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you happen to disagree with that essay, and therefor it is invalid? Strange reasoning there... Fram 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the point. The opinions of the authors of the essay are not policies or guidelines. I meant to place the remark in quotes, as if it was a valid argument - which I have now. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, T-dot is right - the very nature of an "essay" is an expression of opinion - and whilst the reputation and authority of the writer affects the degree to which the essay is taken as authoritative, it is still, at the end of the day, an essay, a formulation of beliefs and opinions which cannot be taken as binding - in this case, someone could write a wiki-essay saying "Precedent is very important in wikipedia. If one article is judged to be tolerable by policy, editors feel ethically obliged to tolerate other articles allowed by the same decisions...", so what would make either more authoritative? Michael Sanders 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a perfectly encyclopaedic article, it's well referenced. Although I'd suggest some copy editing and also some reformatting to give it a tidier look. Matthew 07:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep - as per Matthew --RockerballAustralia 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Any reader of the book may want to refer to it (without being a die-hard fan) so the number of reader makes it notable (Ok, maybe not each date is notable individually, but the timeline itself is). The sources are reliable and the article is not original research, since it has been published for a long time, reproduced on several websites, and now acknowledged as correct by Warner (the author of the books has also acknowledged the HPLexicon as a source of correct information). --Lgriot 12:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a plot summary, and "notability" isn't defined by the number of readers, but by the reactions to this particular issue, and a notable subject must have "multiple" sources. There's only one secondary source for this...Folken de Fanel 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia allows and accepts a certain degree of plot-summary, in order to give a good accounting of a notable subject, i.e. Harry Potter. Michael Sanders 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it can hardly be argued that without this article, Wikipedia would not have a good accounting of this notable subject. This article is superfluous and goes beyond what is necessary to understand the Harry Potter articles. Fram 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, without this article, Wikipedia would suffer a distinct drop in its accounting of the subject. For the reasons outlined above by everyone favouring 'keep'. Michael Sanders 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. I think we are on the whole repeating ourselves, However...The noteability of this particular article has to be judged for what it is: which is one small but distinct part of the whole coverage of HP. It now has links restored to about 70 other articles (not including talk etc). It exists because the issue of dating is important to all of them. Not to mention of interest to a reader seeking to understand how the books are structured. People are dismissing this as a 'plot summary', but actually it is more an 'authors tool' which gives us a behind the scenes look at the books. From the point of view of understanding the books, it is a lot more useful than a number of others. Sandpiper 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are definitely repeating ourselves, which is why I stopped responding a couple of days ago. This discussion is completely out of hand. It would be ridiculous to expect anyone new to the discussion to read every opinion before commenting. As a result, there is rampant redundancy in most of the arguments. All that is left to do is let the closing admin sort it out. I disagree with every point you just laid forward for keeping the article and my objections are explained at length above. --Cyrus Andiron 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not out of hand: the case is simply that both sides hold strong views, and that there is *no consensus* as to whether to delete or not delete. Michael Sanders 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus and article's improvement. PeaceNT 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTable[edit]

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

It is likely advertisement Anthony Appleyard 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Cleanup - the article needs improvement to reduce its "spamminess", but the website is clearly notable, both as the leader in its market space and per news coverage. If people want some sources to add to the article (which I highly recommend!), there appear to be quite a few relevant ones in this search. Here are a few to get started with (some of them are paid archive articles, sadly). JavaTenor 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a related note, the site's lengthy press page may have more useful resources, although some of the articles there appear to be trivial mentions in larger pieces. JavaTenor 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - abstaining from voting as I don't know enough about California to know whether this is important enough to warrant an entry. I know it's a hobby-horse of mine but AfD'ing an article four minutes after it was created, without even the courtesy of notifying the creator, may not technically break any wiki-rules but surely goes against the spirit. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, the article had been around as Opentable for rather longer than that before being moved to OpenTable - see [48], so I don't think the AfD nomination was improper on that ground. As regards your abstention, I don't think this is a California-specific discussion; the corporation is based in California, but books reservations for restaurants in 46 states as well as Mexico, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, and the UK. JavaTenor 23:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as JavaTenor has demonstrated there are plenty of reliable sources asserting the website's notability, that could be used to source and clean up the article. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done some cleanup and adding of references on the article. Assistance on further improvement efforts would be appreciated. JavaTenor 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Normally I'd try, but it's a subject so outside my area that I wouldn't be confident in getting anything right - what I know about California is pretty much gleaned from Beach Boys lyrics. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Langston[edit]

Nick Langston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete This page seems to be an autobiography, created by Special:Contributions/NLAcreative aka Nick Langston. The page therefore conflicts with WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Furthermore, it doesn't meet WP:N or WP:RS. The search "Nick Langston" singer brings up 66 hits in Google, with even less if you exlude the wikipedia hits, hardly a notable individual. Shiva0x007 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable musician who evidently created his own vanity page. If anything userfy the information. --Cyrus Andiron 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not a 'vanity' page, however, having read the link on autobiographical sources and COI, I take the point. I also cannot comment on notability as I do not know how many hits on google are required to be 'notable' and the internet is not yet a definitive measurement of 'notability'. I have clearly made no attempt to hide my input to any page and I am also not the only user who has contributed to the pages on which I am mentioned. I would also point out that my work with EBJC, Tantric Jazz and Supergrass is both verifiable and notable so I am confused at their deletion and believe their deletion does not help people looking for information on these subjects. I have not been involved with wikipedia for as long as many others so I will clearly have less knowledge about policies and procedures. However, rest assured that any contribution were made in completely good faith.User:NLACreative
Does an article on you meet the criteria "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."? I see no evidence that it does. Please read WP:N for more details.Shiva0x007 11:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to notability (music), amongst other things it states: "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" and, "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". Notable musicians are mentioned and an internet search for individuals such as Andy Kinsman and Dennis Rollins (who are referred to) and John Paul Gard (who is not referred to) will confirm their notability, as would a search amongst the local media of Bristol. With respect to "the most prominent representative of a notable style", I would make no such claims to Nick Langston being the "most prominent", but perhaps "a prominent". I would also point to the Regional Youth Music Awards http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=107007375 which refers to Nick Langston as an "established artist" along with a range of other established artists including Lemar, Massive Attack and Roni Size and also http://www.thornburyfm.org/html/pres-nickl.html . The references to Nick Langston on entries for Tantric Jazz and East Bristol Jazz Club are clearly verifiable from those institutions' own websites and others. The Supergrass website is backed by a huge fanbase and the demo at Stargoat Studios is generally known by hardcore Supergrass fans. However, as I said earlier, I clearly have less knowledge on this process than others and wish only to include information that is appropriate for wikipedia users. NLAcreative 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Rocket Ryanjunk 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Rockets Work[edit]

How Rockets Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

page Rocket does this job already Anthony Appleyard 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wikijunior George Leung 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rocket -- Whpq 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should not be transwikid. The tone of the article is completely unencyclopedic, even going so far as to use the first person. There is nothing salvageable in the article. This topic is already covered on the rocket page, which is my main reason for deletion. Additionally, this article does not cite its sources. As it appears now, it is original research, as shown by the use of "I" in the article. --Cyrus Andiron 21:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As in ox"I"d"I"zer? Please, while this article should not exist in Wikipedia, this is suitably well written for Wikijunior. George Leung 00:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "I" is in "There are other kinds of rocket engines that I won’t go into detail." in its last section. Anthony Appleyard 06:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was the "I" that I was referring to. Articles should not be written from a first person perspective. This article is written more like a high school essay than an encyclopedia article. --Cyrus Andiron 12:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Transwiki probably not worth the time. Danski14(talk) 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rocket. --Canley 09:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rocket. Anville 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This topic is already covered and much better at rocket. I doubt that this would be a commonly used redirect, and don't see that this well written enough to bother transwikiing. --EMS | Talk 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge any useful information (if any) not already included in Rocket. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. WP:V is not negotiable.Cúchullain t/c 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omerta (MMORPG)[edit]

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

I originally speedily deleted this article under criteria A7 (as it was tagged) and G11. Aside from meeting these criteria, the article is unsourced and is not-notable (more specifically failing WP:ORG and WP:WEB). I'm bringing it to AFD due to a dispute at my talk page. cj | talk 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of notability. None readily available in my, admittedly brief, investigation. MidgleyDJ 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The site is ranked 38,964th on Alexa.com which I would venture to guess is pretty decent. Also, most of the users are from Turkey, the Netherlands, and Portugal so it's probably a bit more difficult to find any verification of notability for us mostly English speaking editors. I would like to say "keep", but I'm not well enough versed in Wiki Guidelines to make a confident decision. PierceG 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability made in the article. No references provided to, smells like OR to me. --Cyrus Andiron 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to The Wack Pack. Ryanjunk 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

`gina-dance[edit]

`gina-dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a neologism based on a limited event at best. - Tiswas(t/c) 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (Author)[edit]

Sean Kennedy (Author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability, previously voted to delete as Sean Kennedy ---- Bennie Noakes 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per db-repost. See previous deletion discussion. This is the same person with a different article title. RJASE1 Talk 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as repost. Subject still fails WP:BIO. I'm afraid a 200-word Wired article from 2000 and a four year old piece from a free computer tabloid don't quite make the grade. I note the two "books" discussed in the article are not included at Library and Archives Canada (a must for titles published in this country), nor are they recognized by any of the online retailers and used book searches I checked. The Toronto Public Library (the largest in the country) doesn't carry either title, nor do any of the libraries at the University of Toronto (the largest academic collection in Canada).Victoriagirl 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually follow the link you'll find that this "200 word Wired article" is accompanied by 15 minutes of audio interview, of Kennedy and O'Brien. Please check it out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:BIO's second paragraph states clearly "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person or related group of people has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." Should we keep that in mind? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I'm quite aware of WP:BIO and would never so much as consider participating in an AfD vote or discussion were I not. Rest assured, I have kept in mind the paragraph you have quoted. Victoriagirl 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you don't mind me asking, precisely why do you consider that the article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Do you disagree with the opinion that the man has a following, as well as the opinion that the man has made unique contributions to his field (the 2-Way ICQ during radio broadcasts, the style of the 'rants'), as well as the opinion that the man is known for originating new concepts (Server as a god, Xenu's Wog Mecha, each of the Klans, and other such memes?). If any of the above opinions can be supported, the article should be kept. It's natural that there should not be a large amount of 'mainstream' coverage of Kennedy, as he considers the concept of 'mainstream' itself to be dangerous and controlling, however, this doesn't mean that he has nothing to contribute to the Sum Of Human Knowledge(TM). OldMixcoatl 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)— OldMixcoatl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The article is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia as it is a reconstruction of an entry deleted three weeks earlier - as such it runs counter to Wikipedia policy. While some may disagree with the decision, it is not appropriate to simply reintroduce the article. Victoriagirl 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate this, and I do apologise as the creator of the updated article (being new to this place and not having seen the second discussion under AfD), it seems that a number of mistakes were made as well as my own. Firstly, the article was submitted here instead of under deletion review. Secondly, people voted for speedy delete, despite the fact that it doesn't fit the criteria. From below, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. The and instead of an or means that if the revisions made do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted but the copy is not substantially identical the article does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion.

In which case I ask you, even assuming that Sean Kennedy has received absolutely no recognition from third party news sources, assuming that all his writing is, due it being self-published, critically void (both assumptions I strongly disagree with), is the article not warranted due to any of the three points raised above? OldMixcoatl 05:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)— OldMixcoatl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment At the risk of appearing to bite a newby, I must correct OldMixcoatl. In fact, DanDud88 was the creator of the article. When reintroduced, the article clearly failed to address WP:NOTE, the reason it had been deleted three weeks earlier (in fact, not a single reference was provided). In my opinion, further editing has not rectified this situation. Whether or not it meets the criteria for WP:SPEEDY rests on how much one verson owes to the other; a moot point, I suppose, as it wasn't nominated for Speedy Deletion in the first place. To address your final paragraph, OldMixcoatl - I have never made the claim that Kennedy's work is "critically void". My issue with his books - which I now learn are self-published - is this: there is no way to verify that they actually exist. Even self-published books are supposed to be deposited with Library and Archives Canada - and yet the books are not listed at that institution, nor at the Vancouver Public Library, nor at the libraries of the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. All this speaks to verifiability and, by extension, WP:NOTE. In short, how are we to create an article without being able to cite verifiable, authoritative sources? While I recognize that Sean Kennedy might be considered outside the mainstream, I must wonder why it is that not one of Vancouver's alternative papers has seen fit to publish an article on the man. If he is indeed known for originating new concepts, as you've written above, citations should be easy to provide. As it stands, I think Sean Kennedy is best discussed within the Wikipedia entry on Rant Media. Victoriagirl 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it happens, this [49] was the edit in which I created the current article, under Sean Kennedy. DanDud88 copied the article into Sean Kennedy (Author) as part of his creation of the disambiguation page. But this is a minor point, and I had forgotten there was an (in my opinion) far worse article about the same person under Sean Kennedy before I made mine.OldMixcoatl 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My apologies to OldMixcoatl and DanDud88. It would appear that an article on the Sean Kennedy under discussion was first reintroduced by Grimtrekkie at 19:27, 3 April 2007. It was completely rewritten by OldMixcoatl six hours later. Victoriagirl 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As another sidenote, a version of The Scabbed Wings Of Abbadon can be found here:[], while an audio book of The Bloodstained Rabbit can be found here: [].OldMixcoatl 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I appreciate the effort, I must point out that these are simply audio downloads. The article states that Kennedy is the author of two books. Victoriagirl 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the link provided to Scabbed Wings is a zipped pdf file, rather than an audio file. I can't find the Bloodstained Rabbit in pdf, unfortunately no-one has scanned it in, and it was a very limited run ([50]) which has sold out. There are a couple blog entries and the like about receiving the text novel (e.g. [51]).OldMixcoatl 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mean to be a stickler, but audio and text files aren't books. I note that the Rant Media website indicated Scabbed Wings as a forthcoming publication, which pretty well expains why I haven't been able to find any library records. This, of course, leaves The Bloodstained Rabbit. Recognizing that blogs are "largely not acceptable as sources", I put it that there must be some third party source indicating that it was actually published. Was there not one book review? Did no copy make it into any library? Victoriagirl 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is somewhat amusing considering I'm looking at Bloodstained on my shelf right now. I did see someone say somewhere on the Rant forums I believe that they donated it to their local library. Tracking it down is not made easier by the fact that it has no ISBN, a feature Scabbed Wings will have when it is out later this month, so I understand. If I can be of some assistance in proving that the book is, in fact, in print and on my shelf please let me know. CodingRooster— CodingRooster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment While it's my opinion that The Bloodstained Rabbit was published as a book, what we are looking for here are verifiable facts. The issue is that no source has yet been found to prove that the book exists. I point to this problem as it speaks volumes to notability. In short, I wonder why it is that a book published by a man who has such a "significant cult following" (as claimed on this page) has never been so much as mentioned in the alternative media, mainstream media or academic press. Victoriagirl 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Vancover sun http://rantmedia.ca/pics/media/vansun20000909/vansunfront.jpg http://rantmedia.ca/pics/media/vansun20000909/vansunfront.jpg Theres others too http://rantmedia.ca/media.php Know1uno 4:15 PM April 11

  • Comment The subject of the seven year old Vancouver Sun piece is RantRadio - in fact, RantRadio, not Sean Kennedy, is the subject of the aforementioned Wired and Computer Paper pieces. Of all the media pieces featured on the rantmedia link provided above, only one, a very brief profile from 2000, has Sean Kennedy as its focus. Victoriagirl 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, I don't know what criteria this could possibly fulfil for speedy deletion. According to the page concerned with the proposed deletion of the previous article: [52], no consensus was reached. Furthermore, the page was not actually deleted, rather the content was altered to refer to someone else. As to whether the article should be deleted, I'm very new to all of this, but the notability for an entertainer state that a suitable criterion is: 'Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.' I doubt anyone can argue that Sean does not have a significant cult following. Also, with a literal interpretation of the 'rules' (although I realise that due to the nature of this website the 'rules' can change at any second), as there has already been mention of one source with Kennedy as its subject ( [53] mentioned above ), here is another: [54], that while singularly uninterested in what Kennedy has to say, definitely uses him as its 'subject', therefore that provides the 'multiple published sources with the topic as its subject' needed. Of course, I realise that as this system relies on the will of the mass, rather than abiding by actual rules, the page will probably be deleted anyway, speedily, more than likely. OldMixcoatl 08:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)— OldMixcoatl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep - I think this article will keep re-appearing, whatever the vote result is, just because I think his fan base is rabid enough to keep it up. Now, as for the press, I don't see why the Wired article doesn't count, as it still identifies Sean Kennedy and has a few paragraphs with him as the subject - and the small feature in Spin was still a small feature in Spin. A full set of other press clippings is available at the rantmedia site, though many of those articles you won't find on the internet because those press outlets don't archive online. I'd also note he has had several speaking engagements at various Defcons - does that contribute to notability? And, if this means anything, I and someone else have both aired his "Tales from the Afternow" series at our campus station. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since this is a repost, I'm not sure why we're even having this dicussion here, it should be over at WP:DRV. RJASE1 Talk 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's not exactly a repost, but a reconstructed article. A fair bit better than the last one that got deleted, from an NPOV standpoint. The different title, also, is because since the last deletion a few other people at Wikipedia found two other Sean Kennedies that they felt merited articles - so this one now has to be identified as "Sean Kennedy (author)". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the fact that the current article is not identical to that which was deleted is irrelevant. It is, as you say, a reconstruction - as such it clearly falls under the WP:SPEEDY policy. Whether or not NPOV issues have been addressed is irrelevant. the simple fact is that the original article was deleted for failing to meet WP:NOTE and nothing else. The new article fails to address this issue. Victoriagirl 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPEEDY says a speedy delete is warranted for "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. This copy is substantially different from the old, and when I saw it'd been re-created I personally added the footnotes (that were never there before) to try to address WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and comment - in case anyone was wondering, I did not create this article - I just watched the empty space left after the last AfD to see how long it'd take for someone to create a new article here. And, when it came back, I tried to add some notes and clean up the language. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that this version of the page (as it exists now) is very much different from the version that was deleted and furthermore, that all of the valid objections raised regarding the original article have been solved. It may not have been proper for the initial remade page to borrow heavily from the deleted one, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater folks. 63.100.44.98 01:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I recognize the work of AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, I maintain that the new article fails to address WP:NOTE. I'm afraid a seven year-old mini-profile in Spin and vaguely described segment on Way of the Master Radio - not exactly a published source - just don't make the grade in the eyes of this girl. Victoriagirl 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it doesn't meet WP:N with the references provided in this AfD and the article, I doubt any more is going to come to light. There is more out there on him I'm sure (apparently he was even on CBC radio, according to the article's first AfD), but it's just impossible to find. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter what the focus of the articles are? Sean is a major part of most RantRadio articles because he is its loudest voice! Even the pictre on the Sun article has Sean front and center. He is an important part of RantRadio. So what if the articile is about RantRadio if it is then it is also a little about Sean. Know1uno 10:45 April 12

Comment That's a good point, the photos are just as published as the text of the article. So if the photo has Sean as the subject, then that's him being made the subject of a published source. OldMixcoatl 08:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To claim that a photograph accompanying an article is in some way a separate published source is, I would argue, more than a stretch. That said, the matter is irrelevant; the photo in question clearly captures three individuals (all identified in the caption), the most prominently featured being Sean Kennedy. In no way is he the subject. Victoriagirl 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - On the notability front Sean Kennedys work is available on most P2P networks, on youtube, google video, and bit torrant, and his NewsReal show is syndicated on several net radio stations which provides notability. He has provided a large quantity of material to a very popular media network and has a visable fanbase. The article covers the information on his activities in an unbiased manner.

Raggedy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.241.129 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).— 81.98.241.129 (talk) 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. WjBscribe 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Turney[edit]

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

Deprodded, so listing here. No indication of notability. Darksun 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable, reads more like a VITA file. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable academic who probably, like the great mass of men, lived a life of quiet desperation. Eddie.willers 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Cliff Turney matches notability guidelines for a creative professional (academic). A world class researcher and administrator who oversaw Australia's Oldest University's newly formed Education Faculty. An influential figure who published much. An innovator in the field of Education influencing teacher praxis. An understanding of teacher education in NSW in the 70s and '80s is incomplete without knowledge of Cliff Turney. I don't think he should be confused with Spiderman ;)DDB 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think he is notable, and yes, this article needs (but deserves) a major clean up (and I'm willing to commit to starting that if this is kept). Even though Google doesn't yield hundreds of results, I believe that we should be able to find enough decent material to work with. --JoanneB 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why only commit to cleaning up if the article is kept? If you believe that you can improve the article and assert it's notability, then you should do it now. I'm very willing to say keep if the article is improved and notability is demonstrated. --Darksun 03:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your reasoning, and in the past, I've voted delete for articles that we should perhaps have an article about, but not in the current form. However, researching and editing takes time. I like doing it, but not so much when I know the article could be gone in mere days. When I commented, the discussion could still very easily go both ways, so I decided not jump into it before knowing my efforts would be worthwhile. --JoanneB 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cliff Turney is certainly notable. But similarly to JoanneB's comment, I agree that the article needs a major clean up: at the moment it does indeed look like a list of dates, but that can be fixed. The page definitely needs to be here, just not in this form. matt.smart talk/contribs 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but of course it needs to be wikified and generally cleaned up. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reached here via Jimmy's page [55] :) In my opinion, the person meets the notability guidelines. However, some more information is required and over a period of time, it will surely have more information. Let us remember: stubs grow. --Bhadani (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User:Ddball wants a chance to make the article better. Let him. WAS 4.250 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep - The article needs to assert notability better, but since it likely can, it shouldn't be deleted out of hand. If that occurs before closing, I would change to a strong keep - Crockspot 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - noone saying 'Keep' (other than DDB) has said HOW he is notable. I'm not denying nessecarily that he is, I just can't find any evidence of it. His publications seem limited and there are not many citations. "Cliff Turney" brings up about 50 Google results, of which maybe 30 are relevant - not an amazing number, especially considering some of these are just staff lists on the university website. "Turney, Cliff" brings up about 20 citations... I'm not sure if this is enough. WP:BIO lists the following criteria for notability of academics:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. - This doesn't seem to be the case, based on the low number of Google hits (admittedly, not a conclusive test, but I don't have other ways of testing it)
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - Is he? Are details of the theory on Wikipedia? If so, it should be made clear in the article
  3. The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - Is there any significant independant analysis of his work?

If the notability can be shown, fine. There is still time left before the end of the AFD. However, I've yet to see any significant improvement to the article. --Darksun 03:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think he meets the first criterion, probably not so much the latter two. His full name is "Clifford Turney", by the way, which yields some additional results. And take this quotation Cliff Turney put these principles into effect, not only in this University but also through his national profile as a reformer and scholar. His numerous books and other publications on teacher education were of the highest standard, and were complemented by his membership of several influential committees of inquiry into teacher education, his leadership of several academic and professional societies, and his work in editing scholarly journals. [56]. I acknowledge it is not from a fully independent source, yet even if you disregard the qualitative descriptions ('of the highest standard', etc.), judging from this and some of the other stuff I've read about him (his being a foundation dean of his faculty, for instance), he is at least as notable as many other academics we have articles on. --JoanneB 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, well, with the results for 'Clifford Turney' it seems he is slightly better published than I first thought. I'm now bordering on thinking he satisfies notability, I'm still not convinced though. --Darksun 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - former Dean of Education at a major university like U. Sydney is pretty notable. Metamagician3000 12:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Darksun is involving himself with this article to a strong degree. In order to allow the article to stand and fall on its merit, I will be excusing myself from further involvement, and suggest Darksun do the same. DDB 11:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motron Software[edit]

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

Delete Mostly unsourced. Only claim of notability is winning a young entrepeneur contest for a school project. --Onorem 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Ok, I will get more references by the end of today (GMT) H0rru5 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)H0rru5[reply]
  • Comment - I will be more than happy to account for some of these citations. I will even assist H0rru5 on this quest. (GMT-6) leemcd56 15:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)leemcd56[reply]
  • Comment - This article has enough sources for now, but when that forum is back up, please add more sources. Close this. ChRoNiC numeral 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)ChRoNiC_numeral — ChRoNiC numeral (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • No sources that would be considered reliable for determining notability have been added since the AfD began. Forums are not reliable sources. --Onorem 01:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I own Motron Software and I state here and now that all of theses statements are true. There were a few mistakes, but I fixed them so you can abolish the AfD notice. Stevenup7002 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Stevenup7002[reply]
Please read WP:RS, WP:CORP, and WP:COI. Notability has not been established, and you are not considered a reliable source. --Onorem 13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was the one who experienced all of this. How can we get rid of the Afd? Stevenup7002 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Steven[reply]
Did you read any of the links left here or on your talk page? What you say you experienced is not verifiable. An AfD discussion generally lasts 5 days unless it's obvious one way or the other that it isn't necessary. This one may end up being relisted for more comments since it was unlisted by someone from the AfD log... --Onorem 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable company. Self-sourced information and forums are not sources that establish notability under WP:CORP. Try again when the company is public. UnitedStatesian 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all.Cúchullain t/c 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Signal (Film)[edit]

The Signal (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was tagged for speedy then contested. Essentially, there is no credible evidence that this meets any of our guidelines. It is completely unsourced. Complicating things is the fact that it appears there is a film called The Signal that may in fact be notable as it screened at Sundance. This is not that movie though. Add to that the fact that if you look at the originator's username and contributions, it's not a stretch to see a possible WP:COI here. I'd also suggest bundling the following related articles here as well:
Andre Boyer
Sarah Ashley
CJ Johnson
Nick Thiel
Han Le
None of these individuals meet WP:BIO; they have a few minor appearances in television and an IMDB page. Most were speedy tagged as well, but the speedies were contested. My opinion is delete all. Isotope23 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: Non-notable movie and all actors are non-notable as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete the lot. A previously deleted part of the article gives it away; "The Signal has also been broken up into webisodes airing on You Tube" [57]. And if the film's not notable the actors certainly aren't. EliminatorJR Talk 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note The author over-wrote a previous article at Jed Williams with the one in this AfD. [58]. I've reverted, the article, and removed Jed Williams from this AfD. EliminatorJR Talk 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call... sorry I missed that when I nominated these.--Isotope23 23:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ths Signal is in the process of being added to the IMDB database. I did not see any inclusion of it on an online encyclopedia but, the film has been broken up into pieces on www.youtube.com. There is also a main website for the film at www.myspace.com/thesignaliscoming. The Signal is an independent film and is cureently being circulated to film and video festivals.

This was deleted because I didn't think it complied to the guidelines. It doesn't give anything away it was just a correction: "A previously deleted part of the article gives it away; "The Signal has also been broken up into webisodes airing on You Tube""

I don't think the cast should be lumped into the same category as the film because they are individuals and have other valid work that has been verified by IMDB and My Space. Therefore they are noteworthy. The film however should be considered for deletion because after reviweing more details I see it doesn't meet all the guidelines for wikipedia. I didn't know that. I'm not trying to seel anything I'm just adding an independent film.

You cannot be added to IMDB unless there is verification that your work has been on television, film, or screened at festivals. They have editors that get paid to make sure everything the truth. It's actually harder to add something there than wikipedia. I am going to read the links you posted so, I can understand the process of adding information to wikipedia. I'm a bit confused as to why there's so much animosity towards a one project.

  • Comment Please don't take it as animosity. Many hundreds of articles are added to Wikipedia every day, and many don't make the strict guidelines that the encyclopedia has for inclusion. Hence the need for this page. If you can improve the article so that it meets those guidelines, then it will be kept. EliminatorJR Talk 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the guidelines, I will make the necessary changes promptly.

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

The result was delete. Renata 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De arte alea[edit]

De arte alea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had considered merely tagging this for references (which it lacks) but figured a simple subject like this, and I may as well try to source it myself. A Google search on the topic, however, turned up scant few results and each one was a mirror of this article. Google scholar was not of any more use. I now have to question whether this lost work really existed at all, and barring some new sources it appears to be more a non-notable, imagined work - if that. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless a credible source can be made available to distinguish between "lost" and "non-existent." Leebo T/C 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and above: no citations, no assertion of any truth. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No verifiability. 2005 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thanks to Arkyan for actually doing the nominator correctly, it's not a lack of sources that should be the decider of deletion, it's the inability to find any after searching for them. Otherwise, we can delete such unsourced articles as June and thousands already tagged as unsourced. Carlossuarez46 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know it's bad form to use fiction works as source, but I remember that Robert Graves' I, Claudius, a fictional autobiography, had a section devoted to his writing this book. Upon remembering this, I did some research by googling just Claudius and gambling:
    - "The Emperor Claudius was interested in gambling and wrote a treatise on the use of dice." This is the work that has been referred to. (http://www.united-church.ca/policies/1977/r231.shtm)
    -From a short biography:
    "Suetonius says that Claudius devoted himself to literary work, much of which was learned and concerned with arcane subjects (Claud. 40.3). Among his works were a 20-volume Etruscan history and an 8- volume history of Carthage written in Greek, and even a book on playing dice." (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7094/claud1.html)
    - Further search shows the best source I could find, from a board game site:
    "The emperor Claudius was not fond of playing tabula, but addicted to dice (see Seneca, Apocolocyntosis 14,4-15,1). According to Suetonius he even wrote a book about "the art of playing dice" (de arte aleae). Suetonius does at no point mention a board game tabula in connection with Claudius’ fondness of playing. It is 600 years later that Isidore reports that alea (which means "die") was also the name of a board game. At Claudius’ times the word simply meant "die", just as Caesar used the word in his famous saying "alea iacta est"." (http://www.boardgamesstudies.org/research/notes.shtml)
    Although I don't actually have any Suetonius on me to check to see if it's actually there, I think it's clear that being mentioned in four secondary sources (I count I, Claudius), including one that even mentions the title, proves its verificability for Wikipedian purposes. I've also put these sources into the article proper, to help it in that respect. DamionOWA 04:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep', its on the Lost Works article, and other works of far less renown by other less known people are still kept. Claudius was an emperor, surely that counts for something?? Zidel333 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with you wholly, the problem is a lack of reliable sources that prove the work even exists. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those sources do exist, though. The three articles I linked all mention an ancient work on dice by Claudius, and two of them specifically cite Suetonius, a known historian from whom much of our understanding about Rome, especially the Caesars, is drawn. After some more search, I actually found a reproduction of a translation of Suetonius' The Lives of the Twelve Caesars where it is mentioned: "He was greatly devoted to gaming, even publishing a book on the art" (part 33, page 65). If Suetonius is not a credible source, I can't think of anyone else in Roman studies who can be trusted. DamionOWA 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can concede the fact that Claudius did write about the subject of gambling - Seutonius is a sufficient source for that fact. However to make the connection that the title was De Arte Alea is erroneous. The translation of Seutonius you provide says "even publishing a book on the art", and if we are to take the other link at boargamestudies.com at face value, at best we can expand that to say "publishing a book on the art of dice". To make the assertion that this, therefore, means a lost work titled De Arte Alea was written by Claudius constitutes WP:OR. Lacking a source to that effect or more information on the subject (which does not seem forthcoming) a better solution than this article would be to place that source in Lost work and change the entry under Claudius to read "a book on the art of dice" rather than a link to a purported book of this name. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear a sentence or two could be added to the Claudius article, but this article plainly should be deleted. We don't have articles titled some name somebody just pulled out of their butt. 2005 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the dichotomy presented by Leebo (and also per Arkyan's comment just above this one). -- Black Falcon 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendacity[edit]

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

NN student film. Article text mentions a couple local awards, sparing this from A7. However, Google results that I got were mostly, if not entirely, irrelevant. Would a Fresno County Public Schools-ish award make a student film notable, anyway? Action Jackson IV 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Student film that won local awards at the school where it was created. Non notable. ↔NMajdan•talk 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, looks copyvio-ish. HornandsoccerTalk 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel the page was very professionally made and that since they won several awards from different, notable sources they should be allowed to keep the page. GarallTalk 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhem the movie[edit]

Mayhem the movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject is a non-notable proposed movie and the article has serious WP:COI issues as it appears to have been authored by the filmmaker. Mattinbgn/ talk 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Town[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and is self-posted by a member of the band creating a WP:COI. Ronbo76 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is legit references to a band...its relivant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scragglerock (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 April 2007

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

The result was Keep all — anthony[review] 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Chopper Bikes[edit]

Junior's Dream Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All of the American Chopper bikes are here on AFD. None are notable. All articles violate WP:ATT and WP:NOR. Delete

  1. Junior's Dream Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  2. POW/MIA Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. Mikey's Blues Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  4. Christmas Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  5. Fire Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  6. Comanche Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  7. Cody's Old School Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  8. Black Widow Spider Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  9. Lance Armstrong Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  10. NAPA Drag Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  11. New York Jets Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  12. Lincoln Mark LT Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  13. Statue of Liberty Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  14. I, Robot Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  15. Dixie Chopper Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  16. Davis Love III Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  17. Carroll Shelby Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GreenJoe 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's not original research just to describe what happened in an episode of a TV series. Any actual original conclusions being drawn can be removed. Maybe merge to one article, I dunno. --W.marsh 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect into American Chopper. EliminatorJR Talk 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As their original creator. Numerous, numerous television shows have articles for each individual episode. Episodes of American Chopper are literally named after these bikes because that is what the entire episode centers on. If bike models are notable enough for articles and television episodes are notable enough for articles, certainly bike models that are the centerpiece and subject of television episodes are notable enough for articles. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I don't understand the thinking behind this AfD at all - how can a straightforward (and sourced) description be OR? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the stuff in there is sourced. GreenJoe 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But ... wouldn't the episode itself serve as the source? -- Black Falcon 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The articles are merely photos and a recitation of how each machine came to be, within the context of the show. There are no technical, design or performance details. There are no assertions of notability. If this info has to be kept then a single article listing all the bikes will suffice with the data in its current form. Eddie.willers 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (all) per Staxringold and others. I think this is an invalid nomination. These articles are not original research. I was informed of this AFD on my talk page as being the creator of Junior's Dream Bike, which confuses me, because I did not create it. Most notable TV series have articles on their individual episodes. American Chopper is unique in that they work on a specific bike over the span of a two (or sometimes three) part episode. So articles on the individual bikes are basically the equivalent of an article on an episode. The bikes are (in my opinion) certainly notable, because they are generally built in order to promote something, such as celebrities, corporations, movies, charities (often the theme of an episode is building a bike to promote a specific cause, like Lance Armstrong Foundation). Original research implies creating an argument to promote a position or original thought, NOT simply documenting information presented in a TV series. May need cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. Wavy G 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - firstly, the reasons for nomination from checking are wrong - good sources, not original research. Looking through the articles, the fact they are currently all on sperate pages means it difficult to compare different machines. Why not merge them all on to one page, like one would for a series of one-time or bit-part apperance characters on any other TV show? (which is really what they are). I can see what the creators are trying to do with a navigation panel, but in a few years time will all these bikes be notable on their own? Together as part of the show yes, hence suggestion to merge. Rgds, - Trident13 10:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The biggest problem seems to be the lack of references, so I added some references to one of the articles, Mikey's Blues Bike [59]. I used the {{Cite video}} template to do so. --rogerd 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be opposed to merging all into a list of OCC bikes. However, with all the images, and all the possible additions, that could be a very big article. Wavy G 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If these articles survive the AFD (which at this point I think it will), we should reference all of the other articles and perhaps add some language to make it clear that the articles represent an episode of a TV show. I wouldn't bother until the AFD is concluded, since in the unlikely event they don't survive, it would be wasted effort. --rogerd 18:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Very notable tv show motorcycle.--Tom Vickery 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all If you get rid of these, then you need to get rid of {{ Template:American Chopper }} . Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 19:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and apply "citation needed" tags for sections that violate WP:NOR and WP:ATT. There should be plenty of reference links out there at the official web site and motorcyle magazine web sites. I find the various motorcycles articles and images fascinating, and a good resource for further study. And I'm not even a motorcycle fan. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Arlt[edit]

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

The article is unsourced, reads like a press release or CV and would need to be substantially rewritten to be of any use to Wikipedia Mattinbgn/ talk 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Denk[edit]

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

I redirected this to Anna Nicole Smith and it was reverted, so let's have a discussion here. This gentleman is not the father of anyone famous and has no other reason for being notable. Surely the article should be redirected, at most with some minimal info added, to the main article on the subject. Chick Bowen 19:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ageless wisdom (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Article was prodded; prod was contested with a hangon tag rather than just by deleting the prod notice. I'm bringing the debate here for further discussion and copying the prod and hangon reasons below. No opinion from me. NawlinWiki 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article appears to be blatant self-promotion for Share International, Benjamin Creme and related New Age groups. It has very little/no encyclopedic content or references/citations. The content which does exist is already covered in the Great White Brotherhood article. Quotation section contains several quotes from non-notable groups/figures. The quote from Alice Bailey does not even mention the 'Ageless Wisdom', and I question whether Bailey, Blavatsky, Roerich or Besant ever used the term 'Ageless Wisdom' in this context. (original prod notice from User:Oo7565).
  • Keep I strongly object to this deletion request, because it is not self-promotion, and is a worthy topic, that is not yet listed in Wiki. No organization has a monopoly on the Ageless Wisdom, nor do any make such an absurd claim. There are other similar and related topics ie: Theosophy, Anthrosophy, Rosicrucians, Great White Brotherhood et al, on wiki. This topic should be kept on Wiki and allowed to improve with time. I have made some changes on the description, added/deleted quotations, and rearranged, deleted & added some links, in an attempt to satisfy the complainant. What else is needed to prevent this from being axed? Thanks, Jon33.
  • Delete Article is almost nothing but a "quotes" section and a very lengthy list of external links. No citations. Delete. Goodnightmush 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes & external links have been significantly reduced. It's getting better, please take another look. Jon33 11 April 2007
  • Delete: Per Oo7565. This article has little encyclopedic content or references, and seems to be more of a haven for external links than anything. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally rewrote the first two paragraphs in the article and the # of links has been slashed down to four. Jon33
  • Delete This is redundant promotion. This topic is already covered on Wikipedia: please see the Great White Brotherhood and enlightenment/Theosophy-related articles. The only difference is that this article is designed to promote certain commercial religious groups (notice the large external links section) with ties to New-Age medium Benjamin Creme. Algabal 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a redundant promotion. This topic is not covered already in Wikipedia. TheGreat White Brotherhood is a group of men, not a body of teachings. Theosophical movement had founders.The Ageless wisdom has existed since the dawn of time on this planet and is not a possession of any particular group, nor is it religious material like enlightenment. Furthermore it was not created or started. It is literally "ageless". Jon33 11 April 2007
Yes, the topic is covered. The idea that an ageless body of knowledge has been passed down over the years by great spiritual leaders, right into the lap of a few occultists who lay claim to it, is covered in the Great White Brotherhood article. You seem to be saying that this article describes what the members of the Brotherhood know, rather than the Brothers themselves, but that is within the scope of the GWB article itself. There is still no encyclopedic content or citations in the article, and you have failed to prove that this is a unique religious concept not directly synonymous with enlightenment or the GWB. Just using a different phrase to describe it does not make it different. Algabal 04:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment i did not prod this article person who did did not use edit summary so i did a edit summary for themOo7565 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was me. I wrote the original and Oo75 seconded it. Algabal 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article has no encyclopedic content, and purports to expound upon a topic central to Theosophy and the Great White Brotherhood, but "Ageless wisdom" appears nowhere in either of those articles, which is where it would belong if it were important enough to deserve mention as a topic. Pete.Hurd 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption that it would, if it were important enough be in either of those articles on Theosophy or the Great White Brotherhood, is mistaken. It is there but in a diffent form. The Theosophical teachings as well as the teachings of the Great White Brotherhood, Alice Bailey and Helena Roerich are what we call the "ageless wisdom" . Just becasue it is not mentioned on the totally unrelated enlightenment page, and partially related Theosophy page does not negate it's existence or significance. Jon33
No, it is there in exactly the same form, just not using the words 'ageless wisdom' and with less of an Alice Bailey/Benjamin Creme promotional motive. Again, the article is redundant. If you wish to expand upon the teachings of Helena Roerich, Madame Blavatsky and Benjamin Creme, do so in their articles. Algabal 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Stories[edit]

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

Near orphan, no statement of importance, no sources. Was nominated for CSD long ago but didn't meet any criteria at the time. kingboyk 21:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just one appearance on Google News Archive, apparently a 404'd list of works connected with 9/11. Fails notability requirements of independent reviews. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Target of any redirect left to editorial discretion. WjBscribe 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athorism[edit]

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

Since the {{prod}} was removed, we're doing this the slow and painful way. I'm afraid I can not see how this satisfies the notability criteria here. This is a neologism or clever rhetorical device employed by Richard Dawkins. But we aren't going to have an article for every clever concept these evolutionary biologist come up with. If we do, as one editor put it, then fossil rabbits in the precambrian should be the first to have an article. Merzul 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - much as I love the idea it pains me to agree that this does not deserve its own article. Sophia 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I think that any ideas here that are of substance could be incorporated into the article on parody religion giving that article some context as to why some of these parody religions have been invented. --Merzul 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suppose so. Still, since you mentioned it I wish I could look up those fossile rabbits... but I won't find them in the Wikipedia. --Rick MILLER 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you can :) --Merzul 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - athorism is a humourous encapsulisation of an important idea, but I don't think it needs its own page. Especially a POV page that labels (by implication) religion as insane. --Plumbago 07:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Another neologism by Dawkins, Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, was AfDed twice, the first being Merge into The God Delusion, and the second being kept. Without taking sides in the latter (I did in the former), I think these discussions may be useful to clarify the issues for other commenters here.
And no objection here to Merzul's redirect suggestion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be unambiguous, consider my position to be delete and redirect per Merzul. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Where do we draw the line? Is it only major philosophical concepts that get there own article? If so, what qualifies the concepts validity on the wikipedia? I think the article should be kept on the basis that as the author(s) presumably felt this concept warrented it's own article then who are we to disagree over what the importance of the philosphy is? If we cut this article, then we may as well give up on wikipedia and the whole idea of creating an informative source of information. 90.152.12.130 13:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we can't have a separate article on every idea that Richard Dawkins dreams up over breakfast one day, much as his ideas may be better than most. Metamagician3000 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect - Merzul's suggestion of a redirect is sufficient Demong 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for all the edits, messed up my comment... will be using the preview button a lot more in the future Demong 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitschrock[edit]

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

A musical genre, made up by a band one day, that no other bands (AFAIK) claim to be in. Too obscure to be notable, no references, and seemingly original research. Google does not help much. An option is to give it a slight mention in the band's article, but either way I say delete. →EdGl 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One band, however famous, do not a musical genre make. A genre can only be considered notable when other bands and the music media are using the term - and a simple google search shows quite plainly that this is not the case. A1octopus 23:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, this is definitely not made up one day, and it certainly exists. See here, here, here and here for mentions from reliable sources such as The New York Times and other newspapers. And that was just a preliminary search. That said, this article is obviously inaccurate in its references or at least its original research. So it's probably even more deeply flawed than just made up one day by a band. But as per the other arguments, it looks as though the genre exists but was not made up by the band. All that said, I don't know if we should delete this or not -- I don't think there are any articles specifically about the genre... If the LexisNexis links expire, by the way, I'll find some other way to save them. Rockstar915 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the insight. Unfortunately, this web.nlexis-nexis site requires login, and I cannot view the contents. →EdGl 04:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not a problem. I'll give this another shot. Remember, I'm still neutral on the topic. I'm just trying to show that this genre exists and is indeed a genre. Whether it's notable enough to deserve its own page is questionable, but then again, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Also, it should be pointed out that a lot of the information in the article is factually inaccurate and the genre has at least a few notable bands (Meat Loaf and Ratt, to mention two). I'm not tied to this article in any way, but I don't want it to be deleted for the wrong reasons. The articles below are just a few that I found per my LexisNexis search and then retrieved from the newspaper's website. There are indeed more where this came from, and there were even more that I couldn't retrieve from the newspapers' websites because of time archives.
So take a look and we should evaluate it from there. :) Rockstar915 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it seems like this word is a neologism, which we "ought to avoid", but with references such as yours, it is certainly possible for "inclusionists" to make a valid "keep" argument. However, I think a possible merge into Kitsch is probably the most suitable. I simply don't see the potential for this article to expand to more than a several-sentence stub. What say you (Rockstar, and everyone)? →EdGl 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, I like your idea to merge it into kitsch. I think it would actually fit perfectly into one of the sub-sections. As of right now, however, I would say that don't think it's in any shape to merge. Maybe we should delete it and then rewrite it into the kitsch article? Or else we could just throw in a few sentences from the kitschrock article into kitch. But I agree, I'm still not convinced it deserves its own page, especially after looking at the kitsch article. So I think I'm going to officially vote merge into kitsch. Rockstar915 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this is more of a neologism than an actual genre. Either way, I agree with the above that this article is OR and basically unusable. A nicely sourced addition to kitsch is certainly possible, but I would just start over.--Kubigula (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand -- there exist reliable sources about the genre, so technically it is not a neologism. Sure, it needs cleanup and probably a merge, but why suggest delete? Rockstar915 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, read the opening sentence (or paragraph) at WP:NEO; despite some coverage, it could still be considered a "neologism." The word "protologism" may be what you were thinking of. →EdGl 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - probably all musical genre names started as neologisms ("heavy metal", "rock and roll" to name a few). However, one problem with neologisms is that there may be used in the media, but until they reach a certain critical mass, the definition is still up for grabs. I can't read all your sources, but what I do see corroborates the use of the term - though perhaps not in the way this article suggests. I think adding something to the kitsch article (based on the sources you have found) would be great. I just wouldn't use anything from this article unless it happens to coincide with the sources. So, more precisely, my suggestion is to delete, redirect and add something to kitsch based on what you have found, if you are inclined to do the editing there.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kubigula. It's strange that some of the sources seem to be referring to some recognized genre apparently known as kitsch rock (e.g. the NYT's characterization of Grease as "the pimply grandsire of the kitsch-rock musical") but I can't find any sources that actually describe what kitsch rock is supposed to be. Pan Dan 17:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Metasciences[edit]

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

Non-notable band that seems to exist primarily on MySpace Mrmctorso 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was to redirect it to 2006-07 Philadelphia Flyers season. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2007 Philadelphia Flyers[edit]

2006-2007 Philadelphia Flyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It might be possible to write a good article about the 2006-2007 Philadelphia Flyers. But this article, as it stands, looks to be completely original research and editorial opinion. It looks like it's either someone's original analysis of the team or a cut-and-paste of an analysis from somewhere. Since the article will literally require a complete rewrite from scratch to meet policies for WP:OR and WP:NPOV, I recommend temporarilly deleting and redirecting to Philadelphia Flyers for now without prejudice for a better article being written from scratch independently at a future date. Dugwiki 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, if that's what you want to do, an AfD is not necessary to make a redirect. If you want to redirect somewhere though, I'd recommend History of the Philadelphia Flyers instead. Or maybe 2006-2006 NHL season? I dunno. FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put it on AFD because I'd effectively be deleting the contents of the article. I also wanted to avoid, for example, the redirect simply being reverted by the article's author. So since this will effectively delete the contents of the article, and to make sure I have consensus for the move and to make sure the redirect sticks, I'm putting it up for afd to be safe. Dugwiki 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to avoid the redirect being reverted by the author of the article, perhaps you should have talked with them? They could have even requested a speedy deletion since they were effectively the only editor. I think that would have been preferable to AfD in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll simply have to agree to disagree then. Dugwiki 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are you recommending the article be kept? Or deleted? Dugwiki 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm recommending you try a different method than AfD in cases like this. It would have been much more preferable to talk to the user, explain the situation, and hopefully help them to be a better Wikipedia contributor. Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but trying would have cost little. FrozenPurpleCube 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take no position whatsoever as to whether NHL teams need articles by year or not. FrozenPurpleCube 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, the central question for this nomination is whether or not to delete the article. If you're not commenting on that, then there's not much to say. Dugwiki 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I gave you my advice for the future as much as this article. It's often helpful to know there are other methods to achieve the same goal. FrozenPurpleCube 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you do things you're way, and I'll do things my way. I'm more interested in whether or not this article is deleted or kept. Dugwiki 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like anybody much cares. Maybe it'd be faster to contact the editor, see if they'll request self-deletion? FrozenPurpleCube 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, it hasn't even been up a day yet. Dugwiki 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Guidelines allow for articles on single seasons of sports teams, but this isn't it. It's terribly written and totally useless for an encyclopedia. YechielMan 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Improve Per nom--eskimospy(talk) 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I would tend to agree that AfD was not a great option but since it's here... The article is original research and would require such a complete rewrite that I see no point in keeping it for keeping's sake. Of course, no prejudice against re-creation. Pascal.Tesson 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that suggestion, although I should mention that there's probably nothing worth actually "merging" from the nominated article. Just a guess, but it's probably going to simply be a redirect with no text actually copied over. Dugwiki 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. So it is written, so let it be done. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jura River (Paris)[edit]

Jura River (Paris) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, does not appear to exist other than as a single reference in a Robert Charroux book (external link is just quoting the book, google search only finds that link and Wikipedia mirrors). Kmusser 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of verifiability. Eddie.willers 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V as it is fiction, and non-notable fiction at that. The only citation is to a page that begins "Big Foot, the Abominable Sandman, Nessie and The People who live Under Mt. Shasta". - Tiswas(t/c) 09:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Bag[edit]

Z-Bag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism that I can't find any reference to anywhere except this article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unsourced neologism, WP:NEO and WP:WINAD both refer, unless sources can be provided within five days. (aeropagitica) 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dicdef of a neologism. Caknuck 23:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires: Dawn of Man Expansion[edit]

Age of Empires: Dawn of Man Expansion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unofficial expansion to Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome (itself an expansion to Age of Empires), which is not notable enough for inclusion. · AO Talk 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I say... Neutral slightly leaning towards oppose ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until sources can be produced that validate the information in this article, it is just speculation. --Cyrus Andiron 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just like G1ggy said, there are sources; so that reason for deleting the article doesn´t seem very accurate. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose There are sources that can confirm the information. In fact, some of them are in the article, and many more can be produced. ~ Giggy! Talk | Contribs About Me | To Do List 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.Cúchullain t/c 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Equalizer[edit]

The Great Equalizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The NewsMax reference forming the foundation of this article, and the phrase _The Great Equalizer_, appears to fail the attribution test of WP:ATT, and fails the reliable sources test of WP:RS, and appears to be in violation of WP:NOT#SOAP, being based upon a personal blog of Miguel A. Faria. I suggest that this article be deleted. The citation of the Joel Miller commentary also fails a WP:NOT#SOAP test and the WP:ATT test. Additionally, the term _The Great Equalizer_ is severely ambiguated. SaltyBoatr 00:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google web search finds The Great Equalizer used to describe a very broad range of topics, including: cancer, home ownership, the atom bomb, education, a Rick Borsten fiction novel, a Television series, computing power, the Internet, the search engine, assistive technology for disable people, mathematics, marriage, shopbots, In-stent restenosis, Romantic Love, automation and more. SaltyBoatr 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google book search returns plenty of references, the top nineteen refer to a different usage than 'firearms', with the twentieth being the first containing the 'firearm' reference. Per WP:ATT, I argue, a Wikipedia article about how firearms are The Great Equalizer fails a credible attribution test. Similar for a Google scholar search, and I argue that for an article in Wikipedia to state that _The Great Equaliser_ means firearms, that such an association should be confirmed through a check of scholarly work, and it is not confirmed. SaltyBoatr 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of this article failing the WP:NOT#SOAP test is this entry on the talk page, which frames this AfD as 'doing the bidding the the gun prohibitionists'. I argue that this article plays a part in an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox in the gun politics debate. SaltyBoatr 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to be sourced although the article clearly needs some work. Dman727 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Dman727; Please clarify, do you mean: 'Seems to be sourced.', Or: Is sourced, per WP:ATT? SaltyBoatr 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im not to sure what you mean. The article is sourced with sources. It could use more and the article is not in great shape. I did just notice that the article is only a couple days old, so I would suggest giving this more time to develop into a better written article. Nonethless the phrase has been around for awhile. Dman727 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean, what I am asking, is whether the sources meet WP:ATT. The sources appear to me to not meet WP:V and to be based on blogs, which WP:ATT disallows. I agree the phrase has been around for a while and is used with at least twenty different meanings, with the disease cancer being the first, and guns being the twentieth. Check Google books, or Google scholar to confirm this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't see how this phrase merits an article with twenty meanings, it just isn't scholarly. What it really is, is a soapbox in the gun politics debate, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SaltyBoatr 06:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wiki is not a soapbox and that one of the reason why the article should be cleaned up. But its clearly a noteable term and is sourced. Dman727 14:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A notable term with twenty+ definitions, I argue the term should be defined in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary SaltyBoatr 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term, "The Great Equalizer" seems to be a textbook colloquialism. It can mean various things because it has no defined meaning. As a matter of fact, the meaning that this article attempts to give it would make it a misnomer, because giving a weak person a firearm to defend himself or herself from a stronger but unarmed attacker doesn't "equalise" anything. Regardless, this article asserts that the term specifically pertains to firearms, and its only source to back this claim up shows the term being used just like a colloquialism is typically used; it doesn't demonstrate the term being defined for any purpose outside of that article. Its very foundation, then, is unsourced. If a source can't be found that actually defines this phrase as referring specifically to a weapon in the context that the article defines it, then the article should not exist as it does now. If such a source can not be found, then the only way this article could remain relatively unchanged is by acknowledging that the term's article-designated definition applies only to that author's article, and any others that it sources using that way. MVMosin 04:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find references to the phrase being used for anything other than firearms 100 years ago? As far as I can tell, the very first use of this term is regarding the colt revolver. This makes that the original definition, even if cherry-picking wikibooks as a justification for deletion produces the excuse that it's definition number twenty. Note that "the great equalizer" has 283,000 hits on Google itself. This, alone, would be sufficient to prove it's worth an entry, as it's a unique enough phrase, not something that just spontaneously occurs in random speech. Note, too, that adding the word "handgun" after the phrase produces over 30,000 results, "firearms" over 40,000. But, again, it's most important that this phrase, which nobody denies is in significant use, has the 19th century colt revolver as its only even claimed origin, as well as firearms as a very common modern usage, perhaps the most common.
As noted, though, the article is also brand-new. I still suspect a connection between the anti-gun stance of the editor suggesting it, and the prematurity and censorship-orientation of the suggestion. Especially since even the rationale used -- that there are other usages beside that of firearms -- would more strongly suggest adding to the article, not deleting it entirely.
A broad perusal of wikipedia shows that people are far more likely to delete information based on relatively mild criteria like "it wasn't positioned correctly in the article" or "it wasn't properly cited" when their edits just happen to show a reason to suspect bias against that kind of info. If it's embarassing to Clinton, but true, it's more likely to be deleted by a Liberal...if it's embarassing to Bush, more likely to be deleted by a neocon, when in both cases most other editors would have fixed it, instead.
Oh, and why doesn't the Johns Hopkins article referring to the 19th century Colt as having that title "count" as a reference?--Kaz 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked: Can anyone find references to the phrase being used for anything other than firearms 100 years ago? Yes, there are many, and none of which involve firearms, see this one from 1905, where the phrase means 'education'. And from 1905, meaning 'blood'. From 1871 meaning 'atmosphere'. From 1854 meaning 'education'. From 1886 meaning 'public school'. By the way, a search of public domain books (generally the older books) finds zero results if one includes 'firearms' in the search phrase, ditto for 'gun', 'colt', and 'revolver'. SaltyBoatr 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your references use those three words in the middle of longer phrases. "The great equalizer of the human condition" and "the great equalizer of the conditions of men", for example. These phrases in context imply either that the author is simply communicating, rather referring to a known phrase, and the three words are a coincidence, or that the subsequent "of the X" is him expanding the known phrase to fit new circumstances. If you say "a grand master", you mean chess. If you want to use it to mean anything else, you say "a grand master of X", like those authors did. And note that none of them predate the invention of the Colt revolver in 1836. In fact, the earliest one is a full generation later, after the phrase "The Great Equalizer" would have been well-established, making the modification of the phrase to fit educational rhetoric quite natural. --Kaz 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears based on original research. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the 'Johns Hopkins' article you cite? Your link which you provided is subscription only. The abstract of the article includes this sentence "The revolver thus earned itself the moniker "the Peacemaker," or more aptly "the Great Equalizer." , which 'aptly' suggests that the phrase was coined by the author in 2004, not 100 years ago when the phrase used was "the Peacemaker". Perhaps this encyclopedia article should be renamed 'the Peacemaker'? SaltyBoatr 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how you could claim that "aptly", by which the author means that of the two famous phrases, the latter fits better, could mean it was coined in 2004, which surely everyone on here of any reasonable age would remember firsthand to have been used many years before. The Colt revolver was invented, as I said, in the 1830s, and it's this gun to which he refers. --Kaz 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your response to mean that you have not actually read the Johns Hopkins article upon which you base your argument. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked with the reference section at my local library, and found that the article being cited by Kaz is not actually properly cited as The Great Equalizer and not really about the Colt Revolver. The correct citation should be: The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed.(Book Review). Kerry M. Kartchner. SAIS Review 24.1 (Wntr-Spring 2004): p169-172. Further evidence that 'The Great Equalizer' is a massively ambiguated term, in this case, a 2004 book about Nuclear Weapons, and not notable as a distinct article. SaltyBoatr 19:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and Delete. In the 17th Century, the poet James Shirley composed Death the Leveler (see this external link and this second one and the article James Shirley (which itself does not refer to this work)). Death has been considered the 'equalizer' of men for many hundreds of years; to suggest that the great equalizer is a newly created concept that is attributable to firearms is a statement of our general ignorance of historical literary references (be they English poets or Biblical references or Greek philosophical traditions). Transwiki this phrase and be done with it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument doesn't make any sense...that people have said this or that levelled the differences between men has no bearing on whether the actual, precise phrase "The Great Equalizer" originates with the Colt Revolver, much less whether it's wiki-worthy, which it would be regardless of its origins. Prove that people commonly used the exact phrase The Great Equalizer to refer to death in the 17th century, and you only give us more reason to expand the article.--Kaz 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Regardless of the clear origin of this phrase in reference to the Colt revolver, invented in the 1830s, it clearly is a phrase of historic significance to this very day. It is unreasonable to suggest deletion because the phrase is now used more. It's as if someone said we should delete the Apple article because the word apple has come to mean many things other than the original species of fruit. Or that we should delete corn because it didn't originally mean maize, but was actually a generic word for grain. These would be reasons to expand the article, not delete it. And so it is, here. --Kaz 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that user Kaz holds a vested position and fails to disclose that he/she is the primary author of this article[63]. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you're assuming your own bias is the kind shared by everyone else. I am making specific, detailed arguments, which are of the same value even if I were Elvis Presley reincarnate. While you have a specific agenda of censorship here, because you don't like the way "The Great Equalizer" points out a specific attribute of the handgun, my own arguments are simply for the keeping of information in wikipedia, regardless of its effect. You will find that in my debates all through my 4000+ edits. Information that has any relevance should be included and retained, regardless of what position it supports or denies.
Good editors fix problems with information, rather than just censoring it wholesale. Your bizarre premise of "this is a very widely used phrase, therefore should be deleted" is a prime example of not behaving that way. A perusal of your edits shows you're anti-gun, and that is your likely agenda here. If The Great Equalizer accidentally supported your position, instead of accidentally supporting a position you oppose, you'd be defending it, not trying to censor it. --Kaz 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your ad hominem attack on me does nothing to defend your argument. SaltyBoatr 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MVMosin said it well: The term, "The Great Equalizer" seems to be a textbook colloquialism. It can mean various things because it has no defined meaning.[64] I have researched this term, The Great Equalizer, and found more than twenty different definitions of the term. The dozens of definitions of this term belongs in Wictionary, not Wikepedia. Of the three citations provided by Kaz, two fail WP:ATT because they lack credibility being based on fringe blogs, and the third is only incidentally related to firearms, being primarily a book review about the problem of nuclear proliferation not 'firearms'. SaltyBoatr 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wiktionary. The problem I see, too, is that it explains in a roundabout fashion not only the term and its meaning, but in what context it can fall into (firearms, nukes, cancer). I have extreme prejudice against the NewsMax and WND links, but if it defines the term, yeah, sure, leave 'em in. At any rate, this is more of an expanded dicdef, and as such it really belongs on Wiktionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable expression, and non-specific to firearms, even if, as some have said, Sam Colt made men equal. Yaf 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per SaltyBoar "I have researched this term, The Great Equalizer, and found more than twenty different definitions of the term." Let's see a Keep by someone less biased than Kaz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.79.29 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - The 19th century reference (to Colts) was usually made to the "equalizer", not to the "great equalizer". - O^O 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of protest songs[edit]

List of protest songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I suspect this will prove controversial but here goes. What we have here is an infinite list that can never come close to completion, making every single entry on it arbitrary. The fact is nearly every song by bands like Crass, Dead Kennedys, Subhumans could easily qualify for this list, though only a few are included. And that's just a few bands from one specific genre. Peruse the talk page and you'll see ample discussions of problems of inclusion, definition, and verifiability, mostly unsettled in any general sense. Songs by redlinked bands are not uncommon, leading me to believe people are adding songs by their garage band. The article is way too long to have any sort of quality control, and who knows how many completely erroneous entries there are. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with brackets in their titles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about romance (including breakups) are examples of debates on articles with similar problems that have since been deleted.

Oh, and please don't drag the whole "a lot of people have worked on this article so we should keep it" arugment in. It's irrelevent, and doesn't hold water. R. fiend 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My biggest problem with the article is the lack of verifiable sources. How do we know that these songs were made to be protest songs? Did the band announce it? Basically, all of this is original research unless someone can prove that all of these songs were created to protest something. There is no context given and no basis for what is included and what is not. --Cyrus Andiron 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete but it would be nice to have a list of only the famous ones. Perhaps trim the list to contain only those songs with a non-stub-class article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eldar (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Could Work, Possibly a list of Number 1 protest songs, but would need credible reason to believe they are "protest songs". Goodnightmush 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one person's protest song is another's commercial sell-out. Carlossuarez46 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is an arbitary representation. It has less mmerit than a List of songs about %s, which would be crufty at best. - Tiswas(t/c) 09:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable/scope too broad. –Pomte 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft in current form because scope is too vague. It would be acceptable to have individual lists of songs about specific protests eg "List of songs about the Jarrow March" or "List of Pro-Life Rock Songs" and so forth. A1octopus 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Anti-Polish sentiment. I will merely redirect; further merging can be done if anyone wants to. Mangojuicetalk 18:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organised persecution of ethnic Poles[edit]

Organised persecution of ethnic Poles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Merely a fork to dump together various events never considered related in the historiography. Makes similar sense as the hypothetical article titled, say, Ethnic persecution organised by Poles to include various massacres and pogroms conducted by Poles throughout the history (not to say that this is unique as any nation in its history is complicit for carrying massacres and ethnic persecution). --Irpen 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

never considered related - where? In the Soviet Union?

There are many ethnic articles about expulsions of Germans. There are no such article about expulsions of Poles, I'm going to write one or remove all German articles.Xx236 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reply. I compared these articles about Germans and can see your point. Yes, there is certain overlap here. Article about "persecution" also describes anti-German sentiment and rightly so. This is because any action (persecution) requires first to convince people that such action is necessary (hence the "anti-sentiment"). Still, I think it is perfectly fine to have some degree of overlap in articles about different subjects if it makes the articles more readable. This is common for many scientific papers in WP. Biophys 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested a merge at Talk:Anti-German sentiment; feel free to comment there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The presence of similar articles and Biophys' argument convinced me. Appleseed (Talk) 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any native-speaker here? Is a sentiment the same as mass exterminations and expulsions? Bullshit.Xx236 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please behave politly here. Swearwords are not welcomed on Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing wrong with swearing - if something is bullshit, it should be labelled as such. Swearing at people is unwelcome, however. WilyD 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another anti-XYZ list consisting of largely unrelated events put together by a warrior w/o any context. Pavel Vozenilek 23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:POINT and WP:OR. Putting together unrelated event for making original research point. There are already a number of absolutely unsourced article prepared by the team of Polish authors, like Przyszowice massacre. The source of these allegations is Institute of National Remembrance which has been criticized by Guardian, BRITISH HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP, and international magazine of cultural criticism, PopMatters as an organization created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts. Convincing reason for deletion. Lamest edit wars is an accurate description of what is going on to be on this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAME#Ethnic_feuds. Vlad fedorov 12:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • some journalists from left-wing media have critized IPN - so are we supposed to take journalist musings over works of academics? As most of your arguments, Vlad, this doesn't hold much water when analyzed closely.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • actually when browsing through Guardian's archives I couldn't find a single mention of the IPN being criticised by the newspaper. Besides, the article on Przyszowice massacre is now sourced. //Halibutt 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to your logic the Holocaust is a series of unrelated events in many countries, commiitted by people of many nationalities. There is a strong relation here - mebers of the same families were killed by Soviets and Germans, sometimes survivors of one mass execution were persecuted by the other state. People who's families weren't exterminated should be careful when they criticize the point of view of the victims. Xx236 08:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary stub. This list could be placed elsewhere and does not deserve a seperate article as it is. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no reason why an article about organised persecution should be deleted when there are plenty of others. That it is a stub means it should be expanded, not deleted. Anonytroll 06:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owens Park[edit]

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

No significance apparent; it's just student accomodation. Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The tower is a local landmark, for sure, since it dominates the skyline. Starting point for the Chemical Brothers is also relevant. I'd like to see it expanded with the history, etc. The BOP is well-known among students, but not sure if that make it notable enough. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and because it seems verifiable, prune anything that isn't. --W.marsh 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The tower was notable for many years for being the only high-rise building in the area, and being forty or so years old it has seen many students pass through it. The article itself is not good and does not cover its architecture or history. Nevertheless the building is notable. Keep, and improve with notable facts. In common with most school, college and university articles, it is rather geared towards events known only to current or recent students. Oosoom Talk to me 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the tower is a landmark and the hall is perhaps the best known in Manchester. The Chemical Brothers link also makes it notable. The article is fairly poor, though. --David Edgar 10:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep somewhat of a landmark that is visible for several miles in South Manchester. Is a representative hallmark of the sixties expansion of the UK HE sector. Although not ther largest hall of residence at UoM its reputation is a defining part of generations of students who have studied at UoM and UMIST. Pit-yacker 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant visible landmark in south Manchester. Probably the best known of the Manchester University and UMIST halls of residence. The article could do with some serious work, though. Fingerpuppet 21:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and agree with pretty much everything said above. ---- Eric 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Takumi Ichinose[edit]

The result was Merge and redirect to Characters of Nana (manga). Sr13 (T|C) 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

completely unsourced article on a character in a band in a manga. And it has a trivia section! I got news for you. That header should be moved to the top... Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a notable manga, a significant, abeit secondary, charatcer should be kept. George Leung 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything which can be sourced into the main article. If nothing can be (which seems unlikely), then the article should be deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a brief synopsis of the article to Characters of Nana (manga) per WP:FICTION which clearly says "Minor characters in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."". --maclean 03:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Esposito[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. All tags regarding notability to this article have been sumarily removed without substantial article improvement. Ronbo76 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable sources for anything. Except for the fact that they were "an assistant" in some arbitrary school. Something higher quality than that is really needed. i kan reed 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above statements.--Kranar drogin 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability First and foremost, the focus of the article isn't even on her participation in said "arbitrary" school, but rather it chronicles her successes and notable establishments in the field of comedy--namely the similar track she is on, ie: Amy Poehler (BC grad) and other comedians who started off in the Boston/Chicago improv theatres. If this article is worthy of deletion, so is half of the shit you administrators publish on this site. TeamCopy 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was not for whether the person in question is notable, as I tend to avoid that criteria. I was more concerned with the lack of reliable sources, and the only official publication present in the sources confirms a trivial detail. Better sources like newspapers, magazines, or books would do this article a world of good and if they verified the right information(name, place, and activities) would get my vote for a keep. i kan reed 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, non-notable. Korg (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it then

Why prolong this discussion if clearly the stupid hierarchy of Wikipedia will win out? Delete the damn page already, then. Wikipedia is in no way a credible website; no wonder professors dismiss it as a joke. TeamCopy 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Whatever parallels there may be with other, now notable, persona, the fact remains that this person has currently not achieved these levels. - Tiswas(t/c) 08:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Tasnim[edit]

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

non-notable, stub bd_ 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey of a Thousand Miles[edit]

The Journey of a Thousand Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a single episode. There are no reliable sources for the article to be more than just a plot summary. Attempted prods were contested, seemingly on priciple only. In this case merging is not an acceptable solution because the list of episodes or the main article would just become overwhelmed with needless plot details. Jay32183 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are from the same series and also have no reliable sources to improve beyond episode sammaries:

The Apprentice (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Big as Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bird of Paradise (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Black Vipers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chameleon (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chucky Choo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Citadel of Doom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Crystal Glasses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dangerous Minds (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Days Past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Deep Freeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Demon Seed (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Dream Stalker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dreamscape (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Emperor Scorpion Strikes Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Enter the Dragon (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Evil Within (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finding Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hannibal's Revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hear Some Evil, See Some Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the Flesh (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Judging Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Katnappe! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Last Temptation of Raimundo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Life and Times of Hannibal Roy Bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Like a Rock! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mala Mala Jong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Master Monk Guan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My Homey Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The New Order (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Night of the Sapphire Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oil in the Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Omi Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pandatown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Return of Master Monk Guan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Return of PandaBubba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ring of the Nine Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Royal Rumble (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sands of Time (Xiaolin Showdown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saving Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Screams of the Siren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Shard of Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shen Yi Bu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sizing Up Omi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Something Jermaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tangled Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Time After Time (Part 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Treasure of the Blind Swordsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wu Got the Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Year of the Green Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also note, I have been a major contrinutor to these pages. I have looked for reliable sources; none exist. The pages cannot be improved to a point where they satisfy the expectations set out in WP:EPISODE. Jay32183 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have a consensus to improve and not delete episode articles, see WP:EPISODE. - Peregrine Fisher 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The consensus is to improve, not delete (see WP:EPISODE). I see no reasoning as to why they can't be improved. Matthew 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Matthew, PF, I don't know how many times I have to tell you guys, that is not what WP:EPISODE says. It says: "Wikipedia contains a large number of articles on television episodes. There is some disagreement as to whether every episode of every show "deserves" an article, which leads to a large number of AFDs for such articles. The following suggestions aim to promote the creation of high-quality articles about television shows and their episodes, which should help to reduce acrimonious AfD debates."
    • In other words, the point of WP:EPISODE is to encourage merges and preventing articles from being created as a way to reduce AfDs, and is not saying that we do not AfD episode articles. If we have nothing of value to merge, deletion is appropriate. I'm really getting tied of both of you making a point to show up at every episode AfD on a crusade to save every episode article, instead of judging them on a case-by-case basis. The consensus of WP:EPISODE is to prevent needless episode articles. -- Ned Scott 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to merge these artilces into a season page, I guess that's OK too. We shouldn't be jettisoning the infobox, cast info, and plot summary. Same with the room these pages provide for detailed external links to wikiquote and other sites. For instance Dreamscape (Xiaolin Showdown). We should be talking about how to improve these articles instead of deleting them. - Peregrine Fisher 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That information already exists on other pages so a merge is meaningless. The articles are just overly long plot summaries and "Shen Gong Wu tracking" which is really only for fanboys. I'll probably be saying this a lot; I've been working on trying to improve these articles for almost a year. There isn't anywhere for them to go. I own the DVDs, there is no commentary. Critics have not written reviews of individual episodes, only the series as a whole. There isn't meaningful information available. The list of characters already includes all of the cast information, so it's not like that needs to be preserved. Jay32183 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#IINFO #7. Some episode articles will be notable, but none of these are. Lets be realistic here, people. This is not the place to blindly defend unrelated episode articles, this AfD is about a specific set of articles. -- Ned Scott 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this debate is only about Xiaolin Showdown and should not be taken as precedent for deleting more notable episodes like Abyssinia, Henry. Jay32183 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ned Scott's comment -- Monty845 23:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a whole lot of non-notable episodes of a single series. I seriously doubt anything useful will come of these after the "Shen Gong Wu" tallies and "Kimiko's outfit" things were added.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes. Believe it or not, there is a rough consensus that episodes of major television shows do merit articles, and absent some kind of threshold to describe it, I say keep. But maybe there does noeed to be some kind of discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is another misconception people have when reading WP:EPISODE. An episode needs to be independently notable, and it is not enough that the series itself is notable. Not only that, but it violates policy if it's nothing more than a plot summary that isn't needed for the overall topic. -- Ned Scott 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion, but you will note I did not refer to WP:EPISODE but rather it is my own opinion that there is such a rough consensus is from the observations I have made regarding episodes of television shows being on Wikipedia including discussions here on AfD. Would you like me to dig up the past AfD's I've seen to explain how I've come to that opinion? (Note I do not concur with your description of WP:EPISODE anyway, but I wasn't working from it, so it's a non-issue to me, other than to say I don't agree, and I think it's obvious more discussion is desirable since these things keep coming up). FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am mistaken, then, in linking your rationale with WP:EPISODE. However, your rational is still flawed, as "rough consensus" in this case is not often reliable. Very often we have articles and trends on Wikipedia that are more like, default human behavior, rather than an actual "consensus". All the time we have tons of new editors who simply just copy what they've seen and don't consider past discussions, guidelines, or even policy. The nature of many discussions then make people defensive, and become attached to their views and become more closed minded. A new user (or often an existing user) comes on, does a bunch of work they think is good, gets reverted because of guidelines or policy, they get defensive, thus they form a position. That to me is a false consensus.
And I think failing to recognize that people do care about the episodes of television shows, that they are distinct enough fictional works that they can be covered appropriately is a bad idea. It would be one thing if Wikipedia were paper, but it's not, so it can support more articles. And if individual plays can get articles in paper encyclopedias, I think there's a good reason to include it. Your concern about reversions and bureaucracy are certainly valid, but in this case, I think deleting these pages would be giving into the bureaucracy problem, not resisting it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your own comments, for example. In none of them have you address this specific show or how likely it is or isn't for these articles to contain real-world information. Rather, you've just presented generic arguments in defense of episode articles. Have you actually seen Xiaolin Showdown? The individual episodes are hardly notable. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen the show, but that doesn't matter since I think there is a great deal of validity in covering individual episodes of most dramatic televisions shows. (the only exception I can think of is Soaps, which are not titled or otherwise discrete, so I consider them more one story line). Since each episode of this show is a distinct story, and no different than most every other television show I'd support an article for, I therefore support covers of its episodes. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, merging is not an option in this case. The list of episodes already has sufficiently detailed plot summaries, so merging will make the list temporarily too long. Content will end up removed and we'll have redirects with really long histories because the merger happened even though the content didn't stick. Why leave a redirect with a history when there isn't content from it anywhere? Jay32183 01:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's no sense in deleting the information since the effective cost is minimal? If you want to save Wikipedia's hardware, you'd need to do more than deleting a few article histories. It's like boiling the ocean away with a candle. Besides, I'd say describing the various Showdowns (found in the episode articles, but not the combined page) would be worth merging even if nothing else was. FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The showdowns are only of interest to fanboys, and is just very specific plot information. My reasoning for not wanting the history to remain has nothing to do with Wikipedia cleaning up its filespace, but with Wikipedia preserving an historical record of something it should have never had in the first place. Just so you know, I am a fan of the show. I leave Cartoon Network on as backround noise and the show is on almost daily. My opinion of the show is not effecting my opinion on what is best for Wikipedia. Also, I did a lot of the work saving Abyssinia, Henry at FAR/FARC, so don't assume I'm against individual episode articles in general. Notable episodes are definitely worth including and we should strive for feature status on such articles. These articles would never make FA by the way, they fail 1b. Jay32183 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a "fanboy." I've seen maybe 3 episodes, but the showdown is an extremely important part of each episode. Leaving that out would be like not mentioning the murder in an episode of Monk. - Peregrine Fisher 03:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me we don't mention every murder in Monk... -- Ned Scott 03:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, we don't, since well, not all of the episodes of Monk have articles yet. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat disquieted by any remark that declares something of only interest to fanboys. That's a subjective judgment on your part as to what people may care about, and not an actual reasoning on the subject. Now me, I think the Showdowns represent a distinct feature of the series that easily qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, as they make for a fairly important part of the episode, almost like the monsters in Power Rangers episodes. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know if this or this is a reliable source? Also, this site has storyboards and comments by a XS director that could used for production information. - Peregrine Fisher 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a review of the season one dvd set, it just happens to mention two of the episodes. The second doesn't have anything more than what Wikipedia already has, except user reviews, which aren't so reliable. The third doesn't actually have production information, because he wasn't a director, he was the animation director. That means he was in charge of the animators. The important production information would come from the writers. We probably will get about as much as we would looking up information on the general animation process but with specific names, which isn't actually helpful. Jay32183 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So they are reliable? - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first and the third are reliable for what little content they have, the second is about as reliable as imdb or tv.com. You won't be getting much out of them though. You'll be able to further confirm plot details. But you won't get stuff like how the writers came up with ideas, or critics views on individual episodes, other than that "The Journey of a Thousand Miles" establishes the series by being the first episode. I read that review a long time ago. Jay32183 05:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons given by Ned Scott. Season articles warranted at the most in this case. —Ocatecir Talk 06:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There already exists List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes so these articles are not needed for the reasons I set forth. When so much rdetail goes into such an article, it inevitable goes into original research unless there have been multiple independent sources with substantial coverage of the particular episode. Merge Merge plot summaries into a list of episodes for each season. If there already exists such a list of episodes with plot summaries, then these could be Deleted. For series I follow, which does not include this one, I find it useful to catch up when an episode is missed and there is a plot arc or characters appear, to help follow subsequent episodes. It is also useful to readers when they happen on a series to catch up on the backstory. It is absolutely not necessary to recapitulate every frame of video in an overlong O.R. synposis of every episode to achieve this. With suitable spoiler warnings, we can give more detail than the "teaser" summaries on websites from the show creators. The basic events in an episode can be sourced to the episode, just as a plot summary of a play or book can be sourced to the work, without being original research.Edison 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My own reason for keeping these episodes is that Xiaolin Showdown has a linear plot in which the events of one episode affect later episodes. In my opinion, it's when the events of one episode generally have no effect on the others that per episode articles are redundant. Trim the articles to remove the stuff that shouldn't be there, but keep the articles themselves. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't address the real issue of having no real world context. Jay32183 00:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • These articles are part of a larger topic. There is no deadline, although this AfD has created a deadline of this week. Wait for improvement. Yes, it may take a while, maybe years. So what? That's not a reason to delete. WP:EPISODE recommends a merge at the most. Some of the seasons have won emmies, so merge into season pages if you like. Everything here now attributed to the primary source. - Peregrine Fisher 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, WP:EPISODE does not say that articles cannot be deleted. There isn't anything to merge, so merging would be pointless. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There aren't any sources now, so delete the article now. If there are sources in the future, then the articles can be recreated. Don't perserve pointless, useless content just because we can. Jay32183 01:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)." - These articles are verifiable and do not contain OR.
  • "If the articles are very short, consider merging them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)." - Merge into season pages if you want. That would help with garnering a good amount of outside sources per article.
Seems pretty clear to me. Merge at most, don't delete. - Peregrine Fisher 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your interpretation is completely wrong. The reason AFDs should be avoided is the burden it can put on admins, not that articles on episodes are safe from deletion. There is nothing that can be done to help these articles. The list of episodes arleady exists and contains plot information, what would we merge for? The episode list is sufficient for the series. The series was only three seasons long, and there isn't further detail on those either. I cannot understand why you would want to save long plot summaries as if they were encyclopedic content. If that's what you're looking for, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Jay32183 01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does it say they shouldn't be put up for AfD unless they're unverifiable or OR then? That sounds like a criteria to decide if they should be deleted, hence put up for AfD, not a labor saving device. Also, one of those links I mentioned earlier is a season review. I'm sure reviews can be found for the other seasons as well. - Peregrine Fisher 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're attempting to blindly apply precedent without considering the specifics of the situation. Not all episode articles are the same, you shouldnt treat them all the same. Also, it was not a season review. It was a review of the DVD set. Notability on Wikipedia requires multiple third party sources, not a single review. You've got one guy's opinion. If this were not an individual episode then deletion would happen at this point. You should not be taking WP:EPISODE to mean that articles are protected from deletion. I've spent a lot more time looking for sources for these articles than you have, the articles are not going to improve except for quality of prose. We need to be focusing on quality of quantity. That means not retaining articles that can never be complete. Merging won't give a complete article, it'll give you a whole bunch of plot summaries on one page rather than one plot summary on each of several pages. How is a season article going to be written beyond just taking a single season off of the full episode list. There are 52 episodes, the list is not overly long. These articles should be deleted and it will have no effect on Abyssinia, Henry or other important episode articles. I'm fairly certain that you don't actually care about these articles, but about episode articles in general. If that's true, then you really need to take a step back and think about what you're really doing. Not all individual episodes should have articles and these are among those that should not. Jay32183 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A little google searching makes it clear to me that season 1 could be easily refed. They released the DVDs by season, and that's how the reviews are organized. This, this, and this can be found on the first two pages of a google search for Xiaolin Showdown season 1. If someone who knew what they were doing wanted to spend the time creating AfD proof season pages, they could. As you say, I'm not a XS fanboy. I just believe that good articles can be created on this subject, and I don't think deletion brings us any closer to that. It seems like you worked pretty hard on some of these pages, according to the history for "The Journey of a Thousand Miles." I really wish you would have spent your time merging them into season pages, then I could start reffing them right now. Speaking of Abyssinia, Henry and other FA episode pages, I'm not worried about them being deleted after they achieve FA status. I'm worried about them being deleted before they're FAs. For instance, Pilot (The 4400 episode) was up for deletion, and it was a close call. It's since been improved a bunch. I know you tried and couldn't improve these articles, but just give it time. If you want to tag team a merge of these pages, I would be willing to help with that. - Peregrine Fisher 05:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am still against merging. Those are all reviews of the DVDs, not of season 1. In fact, it doesn't talk about the quality of the show at all, it talks about the quality of the DVDs. It goes into some plot detail, but the problem was we only had plot detail to begin with. Deletion is the best option, and I actually feel that a merge would be worse than keeping the articles as they are now. Jay32183 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking at the first review link from above, it has stuff we could use. "The characters are rather simplistic and stereotypical at times, but the show does offer ways for them to evolve and develop." "The episodes deal with several small adventures that build toward the final showdown between the good and bad sides." "A lesson is always learned in defeat." " There is an issue of repetition." " Each season presents a whole new enemy however, so each season is kind of self contained, but still contributes to the series on the whole." That sounds like the start of a good season page to me. - Peregrine Fisher 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That doesn't make for a good season page at all. Maybe some commentary on the main page, but there isn't any assessment specific to a season or an episode. There are reviews of the series and reviews of DVDs. What you need for these to not be deleted is not there. Jay32183 00:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • All those comments are about the first season only. They don't represent how the reviewer feels about any other episode. You're probably right that this kind of info should be incorperated into the main page, but it should also go on a season page. Redundancy is a good thing in this case. - Peregrine Fisher 07:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:EPISODE. Consensus, as presented in the guideline, has generally been that articles on individual episodes should be (1) improved, (2) merged, or (3) left alone. I see no reason why this case should be any different. -- Black Falcon 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional note: discussion about a merge, probably the most advisable course of action in this case, ought to be conducted outside of AfD, on the target page's talk page. -- Black Falcon 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not what WP:EPISODE means. The articles cannot be improved, there is nothing to merge, deletion is the only thing that can be doen to benefit Wikipedia in this case. According to WP:EPISODE, these pages should never have been created in the first place. WP:EPISODE should probably be deleted if people are only going to use to blindly prevent deletion of crappy articles that can never be good. I wrote a good deal of these articles and I will be the first to say they suck. There's no room for improvement, and merging will just create one really big bad article that will just lead to another AFD. No one has presented a valid reason for these articles to be kept. People have only been talking about episode articles in general. This is not a discussion on episode articles in general, it is about these articles, which should be deleted. There is no content here worth saving, so stop trying to save it. Jay32183 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kool aid mouth[edit]

Kool aid mouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page references an expression with less than 150 Google hits (checked on 11.4.2007), so in my opinion it is not notable enough to even pass the Pokemon test. It seems like this was first created by a user created specifically for that purpose, and I tend to suspect original research there. The article resisted a prod, but it was removed by 216.191.192.58, not exactly a reputable editor. Eldar 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a term on the rise, increasingly popular. This IP adress is associated with school in which teachers vandalize wikipedia to prevent us from using this resource. There is no reason for this article to be deleted as it is a common slang term. See talk section for a great argument. 216.191.192.58 12:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism that, undoubtedly, was made up in school one day. Eddie.willers 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus. Delete this. Herostratus 02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus per Herostratus. delldot talk 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flush it. It is not even a dicdef. This is so strained it should have been speedied. Look, if I came up with "AfD tongue", which is the extreme drying of oral tissue due to a paralyzed dropped jaw, we could all understand exactly 'why'. But whether I went on at length of its permutations and outcomes, it still wouldn't be anything but not enough spit. Like this article. I recommend a warm salt water rinse and spit it out. Shenme 03:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Jll 13:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was early close and delete. Nonsense copy-and-paste job of an existing article under an irrelevant title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Race[edit]

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

A garbage of the sentences.There is no any word in the text related with titleMust.T C 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete At first look I had thought that this article was really worked on and that maybe it could be merged with Turkish people or something, but then I realized that this article was really not "written" actually: It is an exact copy of Race, with "Turkish" being inserted before everywhere "race" is mentioned. So, I might have had more consideration if someone had spent hours writing an article, but it actually isn't one! So just delete it and get over with it :) Baristarim 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, let's speedy it per nom and Anas. Baristarim 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Vandalism? —Anas talk? 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "After the end of the Reconquista, the Spanish Inquisition persecuted ..." Yes, I agree this is a 10-days-late joke article. And someone should have a good talk with the author User:3210 about disruption. Shenme 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Baristarim denizTC 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12 Stones Untitled 2007 Album (album)[edit]

12 Stones Untitled 2007 Album (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing but speculation; not enough info at this point ← amiИa (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for crystal-balling. Eddie.willers 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "... because they're not 100% sure yet." No crystal ball here either. Shenme 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with a title, there wouldn't be enough substantial info backed by reliable sources. –Pomte 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete because it is backed by their official site, head over there and listen to what Aaron has to say. Just cause they're not sure about the title yet doesn't mean a thing about this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BozzCollin (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - premature. Metamagician3000 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_11&oldid=1081098170"