Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 13

< January 12	January 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. John254 04:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transition School and Early Entrance Program[edit]

Not notable. Vanity page. No sources/reputable news articles have been listed for this article. Several unqualified claims. Krysa.io 00:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep School makes explicit claims of notability in full compliance with WP:SCHOOL, offering a substantial and unique program in conjunction with the University of Washington. The charge of being a "vanity page" is not only an unacceptable excuse for deletion, it's patently false on its face. Article needs to be expanded with the many articles available on the program. Alansohn 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article appears to make valid claim to notability. I have no idea how submitter got "vanity page" out of this... add references and cleanup prose... this is not a good deletion candidate. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that there have been multiple Rhodes Scholars from this program clearly suggests notability. RFerreira 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per commenters above. Zadern et 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7, after figuring out what Tadanana did. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Derrick[edit]

Author has replaced article with a dot. meaning he wants it to be deleted. Tadanana 13:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user put this AFD on Template:Cent making it appear on all AFD pages, and moved the article to Wikipedia:Deleted articles/Joey Derrick. JuJube 13:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JScript.Encode[edit]

this article is too short. can't be verified. Iamshawn 13:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand and source. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 13:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, you can't delete an article because its short.--Ac1983fan 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - being too short isn't grounds for deletion. Marked it as a stub instead. Mytildebang 17:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Mytildebang— Preceding unsigned comment added by RiseRobotRise (talk • contribs)
Keep- per above--SUIT⁴² 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Mytildebang said, just mark it as a stub. Section9 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twas Marked as {{stub}}- and with 23,000+ ghits, there's a lot of room to expand. SkierRMH,04:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Active Scripting and Microsoft Script Engine. create a redirect from VBScript.Encode as well. John Vandenberg 13:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winthrop Drive[edit]

Non notable road in Perth (WP:NN), minor route through a single suburb. See here for a map of it. Orderinchaos78 00:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the fact that the road carries one vehicle every forty seconds on average (i.e., 5000 vehicles per day) is its claim to notability, then consider that there are freeways in California that are a mile long that carry far, far more vehicles per day and are listed here on WP. --Dennisthe2 00:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is retained then wiki could be totally choked with articles about insignificant roads.--Anthony.bradbury 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Anthony.bradbury. --Wildnox (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree with Anthony.bradbury. We'd have infinte articles on roads... --Tohru Honda13^{Sign me!} 00:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 02:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing notable about this road, and the low traffic rate would be welcome in many areas! SkierRMH,09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The road is not notable in any way: nothing in the article asserts its notability. --SunStar Net^talk 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article were to survive, I'd have reason to write an article on the road I live on. But be realistic; it ain't gonna happen--M W Johnson 10:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people speculated to have been syphilitic[edit]

An article listing people who may or may not have had syphilis. Was nominated previously in March 2006. Previous keep editors were commenting on a well-sourced article, but it has only two book references as its only source of information. In no way meets WP:V and reads like WP:OR. One cannot have an article based on supposition and if any of the persons were alive it certainly wouldn't meet WP:BLP and would be considered defamatory. A large percentage of the articles for those listed do not mention syphilis and one can suspect that some of them are not entirely honestly motivated, such as Charles Darwin and Stalin. I suggest that any proven cases be added to the individual articles if not already and the article be deleted and/or create a category for this list if necessary. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all things considered, we should at least delete the unsourced bits. Rklawton 23:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - aside from the sourcing and potential BLP/BDP issues, what concerns me greatly is the discussion which goes on at the talk page, where editors seem to dicuss the inclusion of certain figures by debate, in most cases without reliable, verifiable sources. This freaks me out (to be honest) and smells of original research en masse. Mart inp23 23:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title alone states the reason, speculate (as in no proof, just rumors). TJ Spyke 00:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is speculative, and looking at the names included it is indeed highly speculative, to the point where it would generate multiple lawsuits were the alleged victims still alive, then by definition it is WP:OR and non-encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from WP:LIST, speculative data of this sort is best served elsewhere - such as /dev/null. --Dennisthe2 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculative?!? Oy, this needs to go. Also, it appears the whole point of the list is to promote someone's book making the claims -- which near as I can tell IS the whole source. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per title. JuJube 02:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Have to agree with TJ Spyke about its title word, speculated, and the discussion on the talkpage Martinp23 cites. Is it time for WP:SNOW? Ronbo76 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete; how was this page not speedied a long time ago? --Quuxplusone 02:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and User:Martinp23. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (per WP:NOT) - even if true, this would probably be the only thing most of the people had in common, and many other (non-notable) people would have had syphilis that are not in this list. Orderinchaos78 04:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Speculation? That's hardly encyclopaedic when unsourced, for this to be kept would set a precedence: shall we make an article for all people speculated to have rheumatoid arthritis? -- Greaser 08:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. Unsourced lists are the bane of Wikipedia IMO, not very subtle POV pushing to include undocumented and speculative additions to the list. --Eqdoktor 08:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Speculated!!, by whom? The only way this list could be populated is by speculation, WP:POV , WP:OR, and WP:V violations. SkierRMH,09:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 09:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mardavich 09:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...although we'd be missing out on some hilarious vandalism if deleted. .V. (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moncrief 18:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems more to be been discussing and promoting a book. Anyway, historical diagnosis is interesting, but this list is largely unverified.-- danntm ^T _C 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Original research per consensus. Cool Hand Luke 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropometric Disaster Area[edit]

Neologism/Original research cooked up by one Thomas Frey, part of building a walled garden of articles by Dr2tom (talk · contribs)} and Beeblebrox666 (talk · contribs) supporting Frey's ventures (Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum Freud: "Even "Anthropometric Disaster" gets a whopping 9 ghits, all of which are in essays by Thomas Frey Tubezone 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)"). These articles include The DaVinci Institute (and its redirect Davinci institute), the now-deleted Maximum Freud, and, of course Thomas Frey. Only the very thinnest of references, all seemingly self-generated. Calton | Talk 00:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not to deny that obesity is a problem, but inventing buzzwords is not the proper way to solve it. Proper diet and exercise is the way to solve...well, at least most of it. But I digress. --Dennisthe2 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 0 non-wiki Ghits. Artw 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a loop of inter-referring buzz-word does not generate a notable group of articles. And User:Dennisthe2 is quite right; digressing even more, the problem should be addressed, not accepted and described.--Anthony.bradbury 00:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Anthropometric disaster zones" gets one significant ghit, but that just confirms that it's a unique (and somewhat silly, IMO) coinage. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V with a whopping 0 relevant ghits. SkierRMH,09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge to Thomas Frey article, if it happens to survive) highlunder 13:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's bad that the only hit on Google for this term is the Wiki article itself. .V. (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Section9 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this was to have been deleted as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum Freud, no need for 2nd AfD on this. Tubezone 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom :3-DE SU 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Ramachandran 19:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DaVinci Institute[edit]

Non-notable institute/spam, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum Freud, part of a walled garden of articles by Dr2tom (talk · contribs)} and Beeblebrox666 (talk · contribs) supporting ventures by Thomas Frey. These include its redirect Davinci institute), Anthropometric Disaster Area, the now-deleted Maximum Freud, and, of course Thomas Frey. Only the very thinnest of references, either local press, press releases, or self-generated notices. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and I also call major WP:POV and possible WP:COI as well. --Dennisthe2 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Artw 00:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. I also smell POV somewhere in there... --Tohru Honda13^{Sign me!} 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given prior afd for Maximum Freud & ongoing unverifiable Anthropometric... the walled garden should be gated. SkierRMH,09:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The DaVinci Institute seems notable. The article does need a rewrite, though. .V. (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as huge amounts of POV without any assertion of notability for the organization, although it does assert Frey's notability. Also copyvio from the Institute's website (although pronouns are changed...). --N Shar 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable unverified spam. — coelacan talk — 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I have followed the DaVinci Institute for some years, and they do good work, producing solid white papers, offering appropriate coursework for their purpose; however, I don't think that they are quite yet notable, much like a band with no hit records. --Bejnar 09:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, self-promotion. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Ramachandran 20:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Frey[edit]

Non-notable futurist. Article is part of building a walled garden of articles by Dr2tom (talk · contribs)} and Beeblebrox666 (talk · contribs) supporting Frey and his ventures. These include the articles The DaVinci Institute (and its redirect Davinci institute), Anthropometric Disaster Area, and the now-deleted Maximum Freud, not to mention attempts to insert his name, references, and pithy quotes into other WP articles. Only the very thinnest of references, either loacal news stories, commentary submitted to said local papers, press releases, and blog postings, all seemingly self-generated. Calton | Talk 00:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, thinly disguised spam. Artw 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the vein of the other articles in this garden. In addition, the 3/5 of the references are 'circular'/not citing 3rd parties but writings of the person. SkierRMH,09:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly referenced by neutral non-trivial sources by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Rudjek 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable unverified spam. — coelacan talk — 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proponents of this article have had since September (2006) to provide decent references and evidence of notability. They have not done so. Reference #5 is an interesting critique of Thomas Frey's futurism, but a small slice of controversy in a blog doesn't create notability. Maybe later. --Bejnar 09:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Ramachandran 20:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BI 2.0[edit]

Non notable neologism per WP:NEO Artw 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2.0 per nomination. It runs short of actually admitting it's buzzword heavy. --Dennisthe2 00:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable buzz word. --Wildnox (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly non-notable neologistic buzz-word.--Anthony.bradbury 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First they add lower-case i to the beginning of everything, now it's 2.0. I am curious to see what is next. WP:NEO. Orderinchaos78 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- Greaser 08:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the full phrase "Business Intelligence 2.0" gets only about 250 relevant ghits. However, "BI 2.0" gets 10,900 ghits. SkierRMH,09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Something doesn't become notable just because you slap "2.0" on it. JIP | Talk 15:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article Business_intelligence independently refers both to the concept and its common use. Working in the field there is a need for a clear definition to avoid everyone and every vendor having their own. This article BI 2.0 is a dialog about that definition for that community. It is not a neologism in this field. The term is used and abused regularly, like it or not, having a discussion about the term, and a common definition is better than deletion. --racecarradar 21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, unless sourced -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have modified the article to include external references to sources using the term BI 2.0. --racecarradar 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A3 and G11. Cbrown1023 01:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Jeans[edit]

Almost nothing. Near-orphaned. TRKtv t c e 00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A3. Let's just put it out of its misery. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have applied {{db-spam}}--Anthony.bradbury 01:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of personifications of evil in fiction[edit]

Delete - impossibly POV. There is no objective standard as to whether a character is "the personification of evil" or just a very bad person. Otto4711 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus it's just incredibly vague. What counts as a "personification of evil" anyway? Much less, how someone can be identified as such. -- Kesh 00:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally POV, and by any criterion also hopelessly incomplete. For example, Dracula is not included!--Anthony.bradbury 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is strictly POV. Where in the world is Lord Voldemort? Or the Exorcist? Or Freddie Krueger? Or Jason? A list like this should be behemoth, if not infinite. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign me!} 01:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I think the point of this list is literal manifestations of evil, not "really, really evil people". Delete nonetheless. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 06:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all subjective lists --Doc^g 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Tohru Honda13. Hopelessly violates WP:NPOV and non verifiable as different sources have different opinions. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly POV and OR.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no criteria for inclusion, anyone with a grudge can put their enemy on the list (i.e. massive POV issues). I also see one that would have to come off (Mr. Shadow from 5th element) as never being depicted as a 'person', just a disembodied voice. SkierRMH,09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 09:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The list is somewhat useful as a pointer to non-notable characters in fiction that have articles consisting entirely of plot summaries with no encylopaedic context. - 71.232.29.141 13:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified and unmaintainable list, NPOV violation. JIP | Talk 15:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary, unverified, and POV list with no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am ordinarily a fan of lists, but "personification of evil" is hard to quantify. For example, two characters from the Chronicles of Narnia are currently on the list, and both are probably correct depending on one's POV. Unfortunately, the necessity of involving POV at all makes this entry inherently problematic. Zahakiel 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how one can possibly decide what characters constitute a "personification of evil" without one's own analysis, which constitutes original research. Seraphimblade 05:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vague zadignose 12:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.. Nishkid 64 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains[edit]

Delete. We recently deleted a similar list of fictional heroes for being inciscriminate. This list is even worse as it gathers not only fictional "viallains" but real-life "villains" as well. Otto4711 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is actually the third nomination for this article. First nomination here, second nomination here. Otto4711 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all subjective lists. Utterly unreferenced anyway. Define villain? --Doc^g 00:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incomplete, unreferenced, POV, subjective, failsto separate fictional/non-fictional. Not a good article.--Anthony.bradbury 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, the article is poorly thrown together listcruft with ill-defined terms, exactly what Wikipedia is not. TO EVERYONE ELSE: "IT IS INTERESTING" IS NOT A VALID "KEEP" REASON. DO NOT USE IT. Axem Titanium 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm glad these are coming up, they are POV, OR, etc. etc.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split this article into separate articles for different franchises, i.e. "list of DC comic villains, List of marvel comic villains, etc.." RiseRobotRise 07:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. At 71kb article length, it doesn't even scratch the surface - talk about overambitious. --Eqdoktor 08:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with no specific criteria for inclusion on the list, it becomes totally POV. SkierRMH,09:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 09:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BUT note that I have split out Villains from comics and graphic novels to a page of its own. It seems to me the issues in relation to that section are very different to the issues for the page as a whole. Of course, that's without prejudice to anyone who wants to AfD that new page. (NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a delete and my action has caused a GFDL problem, let me know and I'll do what I can to help.) AndyJones 10:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you split is not any better. It is still unreferenced original research. A category would serve better.--Doc^g 11:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would a category solve OR issues? Zagalejo 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it doesn't solve OR issues but it does solve indiscriminacy issues. Axem Titanium 04:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a list repository. This is served equally well by categories. JIP | Talk 15:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the very fact this is it's third nomination. Jcuk 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess what? WP:CCC. Axem Titanium 04:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give it a rest. This is nicely organized index page, and the specific way the named character is a villain can be verified at their individual pages. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's terribly organized and also so ridiculously long that it fails to even be a convenient reference. Axem Titanium 04:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to unmaintainable and arbitrary.-- danntm ^T _C 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Millions of villains in fiction, so the list is arbitrary. Edison 23:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even a list which restricted itself to fictional villains would be hopelessly unmaintainable and subject to judgment calls (original research) in many cases. This article could get to a gigabyte and not cover every possible "villain". Seraphimblade 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pile-on. TheRealFennShysa 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nishkid 64 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fisher[edit]

I despise myself for saying this, but, em....not notable -Doc^g 00:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - why do you hate yourself for saying it? Non-notable, non-verified, big ol' mess of an article. Otto4711 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A MySpace page and some bit parts (only one of which actualy has a character name) does not add up to notability. Sorry "Jip". Artw 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO, highlight is minor part the frank adverts which is not notable. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)}
Delete unless verifiable by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. John Vandenberg 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fancruft. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article on a subject who does not pass WP:BIO, created by single purpose account, and with details which would only be known to the subject himself, thus failing WP:V. Ohconfucius 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no indication that the subject passes WP:BIO. Seraphimblade 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhraj dhillon[edit]

doesn't meet WP:BIO, books appear to be self-published (e.g. "Publish America"), and user Drdln (talk · contribs) appears to have been spamming article reference sections as well. A Ramachandran 01:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable self-published author. NawlinWiki 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unverified spam. — coelacan talk — 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above remarks about "self-publishing and non-notable unverified" are unfair and false. The publishing houses can be verified that these pay royalities and the books are not self-published. Google search on "sukhraj dhillon" will bring over 600 references many of them showing various publications. The modified text below may clear some misunderstanding. Thanks.

For many of us yoga, prana, Sudarshan Kriya, meditation is something for which we go to some remote corner in Himalayas or some ashram in India and expect miracles. These ancient techniques are finally explained by someone who has studied science in the West at Yale University, and his books on Eastern and Western Approach has been accepted by major publishing houses. Dr. Sukhraj S. Dhillon is the author, for example, of practical guide that combines various stress treatment approaches that has been recognized for centuries by faith healers and meditators, and are now accepted by modern medical practitioners. The first Indian-American non-fiction author known to combine Ancient Eastern Wisdom and modern Western Scientific knowledge. What is called “Sudarshan Kriya” by new age gurus is a cycle of breaths—long, medium and short. Not only breathing patterns influence our emotions, the breath is in the present and is used to "rope in the wandering mind" that oscillates wildly between the past and the future. Like Zen masters who teach that the present moment is a chink opening into eternity.

Sources:

Writers Net
Dhillon, Sukhraj S. "Art of Stress-Free Living: Eastern and Western Approach" (ISBN: 1-4137-9506-4). Publish America, LLLP. Baltimore, MD, USA [2006]
Dhillon, Sukhraj S. "Health, Happiness & Longevity: Eastern and Western Approach” (ISBN: 0870405276). Japan Publications, Inc., Tokyo, Japan [1983]
Dhillon, Sukhraj S. "Science, Religion & Spirituality" (ISBN: 1-4241-1126-9). PublishAmerica, Baltimore, MD, USA [2007]

Comment autobiographical sources cannot be used to establish notablity. Third party sources are required. A Ramachandran 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the publishing houses and google search is not autobiographical. I will be happy to give third party reviews or you can search over amazon. Thanks.

Comment please see WP:V. It is the responsibility of the editor who adds the information to Wikipedia to see that it is properly cited. Please read WP:BIO before you put any effort into it, and make sure that the subject meet our notability requirements. A Ramachandran 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nishkid 64 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rick Workman"[edit]

Speedy nomination was declined, so I'm bringing this up at AFD instead. I believe that the subject of this article is not notable enough for wikipedia. He manages three divisions of the police department in Henderson, Nevada. In addition, he has been consulted for a few CSI episodes (although it does not become clear what he advised, and what was done with it) and he seems to have had a few very brief television appearances in a real life soap. Oh, and he chairs the Motorola Biometrics Users’ Group Executive Board. If something salvagable is in this article, it would still need a thorough rewrite. Delete. A ecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 01:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletions. A ecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability that would satisfy WP:BIO. On a side note, a Google test shows 661 results. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Brad Beattie.Gan fon 02:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ran into this while clearing out all the article created with quotes around them. Bad syntax, bad article, not notable. Proto::► 12:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly layout; doesn't claim notability. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 13:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is more like a resumé than an article. JIP | Talk 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non notable--SUIT⁴² 18:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no indication that subject passes WP:BIO. Seraphimblade 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of animation villains[edit]

Delete - for all the same reasons as List of villains is nominated just up the page. Otto4711 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indiscriminate, way too broad, no hope of getting better, superceded by a category. Axem Titanium 01:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary and unhelpful lists!--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Otto4771 & without specific inclusion criteria this becomes a mere POV exercise. SkierRMH,09:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villains. JIP | Talk 15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above discussion on general list. TonyTheTiger 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all subjective lists --Doc^g 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary scope.-- danntm ^T _C 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--Rudjek 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ritter von[edit]

Verrry trivial information, does not justify an article of its own as all the information contained in the article is given in Ritter and von, and it is highly unlikely the article will ever grow beyond its current stage. doco (☏) 01:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting etymology, but all it describes is a name. I suggest a Transwiki - does Wiktionary deal with this? --Dennisthe2 03:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's lacking in info, I struggle to see how this would be encyclopaedic or dictionary worthy. -- Greaser 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Knight" in German is Ritter (and in an unusual usage ein Retter in der Not =a knight in shining armour), so I'd need to see proof of the odd spelling offered. Also, in Dutch there appear to be two common words, ridder (which matches the use in the article) and paard in schaakspel. Again, some proof of the eytomology needs to be provided. SkierRMH,10:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial etymology, belongs to Wiktionary if anywhere. — mark ✎ 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 10:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Agathoclea 11:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly trivial, and rather clumsily named to boot. Peter ^Isotalo 13:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too trivial. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JIP | Talk 15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have an article on Ritter which seems to me to explain the term far more clearly. Jcuk 17:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid 64 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters of La Comédie humaine[edit]

Delete - article apparently started and abandoned by creator, a "list of" article with no actual list. Otto4711 01:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As creator, I must protest. Deleting a list just because it's been untouched for a few days is not a good excuse. If we used that philosophy, Wikipedia would be stubless. Just because an article isn't complete doesn't mean it should be deleted. By its nature, it's an incomplete list. Also, it's less than a month old, it hasn't been abandoned, but neglected in light of the holidays, skiing, projects, and other articles that have taken my attention. It will be improved within days, well before this AFD is closed. —ExplorerCDT 01:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, man, calm down. It's nothing personal. Otto4711 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am calm, but I should assert that you probably could have best remedied any problem this list caused you by a friendly note to me either at the list's talk page, or at my talk page. Just stopping by my talk page you would have noticed that I put up the "I'm busy in real life right now" banner. —ExplorerCDT 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there any actual reason to delete this? -- Jonel | Speak 08:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now it's just a cut and paste from La Comédie humaine#Characters, but asking this to run full time so that ExplorerCDT can bring it up to snuff. SkierRMH,10:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepish. If I remember my literature lectures correctly, there are literatlly hundreds of characters appearing in Balzac's work, and this list has room grow and be useful if well thought-through and (cross-)referenced. Haven't read this work myself, though. --Ouro 15:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give the author time to bring it up to scratch. Jcuk 17:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Let it grow! A list of Pokemon has passed an AFD, and this is French literature! We should be encouraging articles like this. Zagalejo 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without prejudice to re-opening in a month or so. Might there be a Wikiproject able to assist? Eludium-q36 11:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, only one has been attached to the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Balzac. I founded it, and am the only member. For shame, it isn't as big as Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokemon. But you know, around here people have their priorities. —ExplorerCDT 16:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significance of this is that the charactrs are from the long sequence of interrelated novels in this immense series. They need a whole article.DGG 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source material is definitely notable enough to warrant such treatment. I agree there should be a characters Wikiproject as there are similar articles for movies and TV series as well. 23skidoo 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and without a valid reason to delete. --MarsRover 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of film villains[edit]

Indiscriminate list, there are way too many films with villains for this page to be manageable. A similar category surely exists and other indiscriminate lists are being deleted as we speak. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional heroes. Axem Titanium 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my own various similar nominations. Otto4711 01:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree, arbitrary and unnecessary.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again, with no specific criteria for inclusion (no, "villain" is not enough, too easily misinterpreted) it becomes an exercise in POV. SkierRMH,10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sigh. Impossible to keep up to date, unless perhaps someone made a Villainbot? James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As usual with this type of listcruft the article is incomplete, not properly sourced, POV, indiscriminately populated, pointless and wholly non-encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villains. JIP | Talk 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all subjective lists --Doc^g 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary and no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, and not even funny. NawlinWiki 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genotherism[edit]

Couldn't find any CSD that fit this article. Google search for "Genotherism" returned zero results. NMajdan•talk 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure, unsourced silliness. janejellyroll 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense Bucketsofg 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Hello32020 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hedging a bet on a Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense). Not sure this will fly, as there's some assertion (it is, after all, claiming religion status), but either way. --Dennisthe2 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zippo ghits, no sources, etc. SkierRMH 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of literature villains[edit]

Indiscriminate list, there are way too many books with villains for this page to be manageable. A similar category surely exists and other indiscriminate lists are being deleted as we speak. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional heroes. Axem Titanium 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my own various similar nominations. Otto4711 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JuJube. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - didn't something like this get deleted very recently?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 10:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & notes on previous lists today (no specific inclusion criteria = POV). Now off to figure out how to rationalize putting "Curious George" on the list! SkierRMH,10:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villains. JIP | Talk 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above discussion on general list. TonyTheTiger 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all subjective lists --Doc^g 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minggan[edit]

Appears to be an advertisement for artwork [1] Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be notable, but presently lacking in sources. It is unclear whether this legend was made up by the painter Elito V. Circa or how obscure it was prior to his work; it is unclear how notable Circa's work and this legend are now, at least from what I could find on Google. There just don't seem to be sources in English online. The goddess Mariang Sinukuan appears notable enough. Perhaps someone with access to ethnographic material on the Philippines could help here. --Brianyoumans 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it appears to be a Filipino folk tale of some sort, but googling doesn't turn up much in the way of references other than wiki mirrors. -- Whpq 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - afer searching around in Google, I'm not able to find any reliable sources for this as folk tale that don't appear to be associated with this painting. -- Whpq 12:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - claiming Minggan as a trademark and copyright is a little suspicious - how can you trademark or copyright a myth? But perhaps it could be merged into Philippine mythology. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As above, something is basically wrong with this:

"Minggan was a legendary giant, who lived in North Luzon"

"Note: The name "Minggan" and Human Images is trademark and copyrighted by artist Elito"

If the author/artist is claiming a trademark & copyright on a folktale, how many other spurious claims might there be?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 10:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 79 google hits for "Minggan giant", non notable. If we're at it, Mariang Sinukuan seems to be the same legend [...] popularized by Elito V. Circa, who also has the article Elito V. Circa of dubious notability. For Elito V. Circa i find about 23 google hits that are NOT wikipedia & clones. Smells to me like a bunch of self promo articles -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of literary works with eponymous heroes[edit]

Actually I don't want to delete this article or its companion List of literary works with eponymous heroines but I do think something needs to be done with them. Didn't want to use the talk pages because I wanted a broader perspective. "Heroes" is subjective and POV and I'm unsure that there need to be separate articles for male and female characters. So I'm thinking move the article to List of literary works with eponymous protagonists and merging the two articles together but since merging would be a fair amount of work I wanted feedback before doing it. Otto4711 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if consensus is that separate lists are wanted then I would move the heroes list to List of literary works with eponymous male protagonists and the female list to List of literary works with eponymous female protagonists. Otto4711 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word "hero" or "heroine" should not be considered "subjective" in this critical context (A character of a "hero" is actually a literary device, some academics would say). Though, "protagonists" would probably work just as well. Given the amount of works named for both male and female characters, I'd say keep the lists separate. Especially since there are a lot of lists separated by gender. —ExplorerCDT 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list it includes such entries as Alfie and The Talented Mr. Ripley. These characters are certainly protagonists but they are far from being heroic. Otto4711 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in terms of a critical standpoint, those characters are considered anti-heroes, and it just indicates that they're on the wrong list. Protagonist might be a good synonym, but it's too vague a category. Also, we don't delete articles because someone got it wrong. We improve them. —ExplorerCDT 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't need to be lectured on what we do with articles. Note that I said quite clearly that I do not want to delete this article. Otto4711 02:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you bring it to AFD? Perhaps a little lecturing would do you good: The little "move" button on top of the page, with a little gumption under WP:BOLD, or maybe a little discussion on the relevant talk pages, and you wouldn't have wasted your (or infinitely worse, my) time. —ExplorerCDT 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lesson in remedial reading would clearly do you infinitely more good than any half-assed "lecture" of yours would do me. To state it again for the challenged among us: I didn't want to move the articles on my own because I wanted to get feedback from a wider spectrum of people before taking action. I didn't want to use the talk pages because, again, I wanted feedback from a wider spectrum of people before taking action. Unless some heretofore unknown person is holding a knife to your throat, no one is forcing you to read or respond here, so try sacking up and taking responsibility for your own wasting of your time. Otto4711 03:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Wikipedia:Requested moves. And while your at it, might want to bone up on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before you head back to working on those crufty intellectually-heavy Dune articles. —ExplorerCDT 06:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the requested moves link. Should something like this come up in future I shall certainly avail myself of it. I hope in future that should you have the opportunity to point it out to someone else you'll do it in a way that isn't so...hmm, "prickish" would probably violate WP:CIVIL so let's say "brusque" instead. Otto4711 08:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps rename "List of books whose titles are the same as the name of the main character." Except, you know, not that. Something snazzier. But the current title is misleading. Also, please keep it civil.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close This is Articles for Deletion, no deletion is requested. WP:BOOK would be a much better place to take a discussion about revamping these articles. Resolute 06:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being an exceedingly pointless topic to base a list on. Is there some actual connection between those books other than the fact that they fit some arbitrary criteria chosen by the editors? Some don't even fit the given criteria; The Great Gatsby does not "consist of the name of the male protagonist only", not to mention Robinson Crusoe, whose real title is The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe of York, Mariner: who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an uninhabited Island on the coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver'd by Pirates. Written by Himself. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 06:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that its brought up. Per above. --24.225.154.2 08:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitary list that fits WP:NOT perfectly. Nuttah68 11:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator may not want to have this deleted, but if he was looking for feedback and to have other matters assessed, that's what the article's talk page is for. Now that it's here, I believe it's open to the community to consider whether or not it ought to be kept. I do not see the encyclopedic value of this article. It simply appears to be trivia and nothing more. Agent 86 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because being an eponymous hero/protagonist/whatever does not actually have encyclopaedic connotations, thereby rendering this a trivia list. GassyGuy 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per GassyGuy. He summed up my argument better than I did. Oh, and WP:NOT#IINFO, too. Axem Titanium 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra weak keep (copied from the sister debate on eponymous heroines) The debate is whether or not we consider this to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Although the list could use a bit of cleanup, the info in there is easily verifiable so WP:NOT is really the sole thing to worry about. While I personally see no great value in such a list, it could be kept on the grounds that Wikipedia is not paper. Pascal.Tesson 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is perhaps not paper, but we do have standards. One important one is WP:NOR, which is violated whenever a list requires a "judgment call" as to whether something fits on the list or not. By way of example, List of characters in Harry Potter is not OR-a character either is in Harry Potter or is not, that requires no judgment on the part of an editor. On the other hand, a hypothetical List of evil characters (and that better not turn blue!) would require OR-who decides who is evil? Would Darth Vader qualify, given his eventual turnaround? This would require a judgment call and would therefore be an unacceptable subject-and so does this one. Seraphimblade 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand an "eponymous hero" isn't really a judgement call, unless we're nitpicking about the term "hero". Other than that, a fictional character who also happens to be the title of the work requires no judgement call. Pascal.Tesson 05:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as was already pointed out, there are some debatable entries on the list (e.g., The Great Gatsby), so this one isn't quite as clear cut as the aforementioned List of characters in Harry Potter, even though I agree it is less subjective than would be a list of evil characters. GassyGuy 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not that I feel very strongly about the whole thing but if the only argument against this list is that it should be cleaned up, then let's clean it up. How hard can that be? The argument should be about whether a "perfect" list on this topic would be worth keeping. In my mind it's a fairly close call. Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument actually wasn't that it should be cleaned up, but rather that being an eponymous hero in itself is trivial, not encyclopaedic. I was merely pointing out that this isn't a completely objective criterium. GassyGuy 02:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Grehan[edit]

Fails WP:BIO as a non-notable search engine optimizer. ju66l3r 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googlebomb! per nom. :) YechielMan 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, the subject is quite famous worldwide. The article needs improving, though. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources to give him notability? Speaking at SES is not notable (it seems like every SEO consultant on WP has done this lately). Nor is knowing higher-ups in Google. In fact, the article as it stands now borders on a speedy. ju66l3r 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more work on the article, since I voted to keep it. Please take another look. Virtually every noteworthy search consultant or commentator has spoken at SES, but speaking at SES does not necessarily make a person noteworthy, I agree with you. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes have been for the better. Can you ISBN ref that book to better establish the authorship for notability? ju66l3r 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book is currently published online. The third edition coming out later this year will be available in print, so an ISBN number will be available at that time. I know there are a lot of wankers who write articles about themselves, especially in the SEO field, but that's not the case here. Grehan is a household name in the world of Internet marketing, significantly more famous than a typical professor. That's the classic notability test. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent)

It will feel more inline with WP:RS to see it published with an ISBN, simply because online publication (self-published?) does not rise to reliability (all of the high praise understood..but it makes assessment of notability difficult which is why they are not considered reliable). I was more interested in what I found in his bio for an upcoming seminar/conference that suggested he had multiple major newspaper interviews. These would easily satisfy notability and along with the BBC interview easily negate this discussion. As it stands, the improved article in its current state probably negates the need for this discussion anyways. ju66l3r 07:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, if there are additional references out there, I would like to track them down and improve the article. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is encyclopedia, here doesn't exist anything like will be or going to be or one day. This is irrelevant. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral There is not enough evidence to say one way or the other. But I do not see why there is prejudice against online booksd at Wikipedia , of all places. DGG 04:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online books often means self-publication which means anyone can do so and notability can not necessarily be easily attached to being a online-published author (as opposed to an author with publications through an independent publisher). More information is available at WP:RS. ju66l3r 07:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think this clearly fails WP:BIO. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct question is "Why he is notable?" and not vice versa. It is up to keepers to assert notability not on deleters. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? This isn't a lawsuit with a burden or proof. We're having a discussion, so both sides should give reasons. I think the subject is noteworthy because there are multiple, reliable, independent sources of information. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Let's discuss sources one by one:

[2] - it is just a notice on the web, thousands notices about managers

[3] - It's his article, anyone can write to many webblogs, webpages, there are thousands editors, why he is notable ?

[4] - parent article says it is a page with BBC interview, but it is incorrect, it is an advertising to his blog.

I am sorry but I can't see any notability and I don't see that this person achieves WP:BIO. If you bring here some new evidence I will be happy to change my vote.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resetting indent

Thank you for your comments. I've fixed the BBC links. I agree that editors adding content to an article have an obligation to cite sources, but that is a separate issue from AfD discussions. Both sides have an equal obligation to support their positions with reasons. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with Tulkolahten, he is the internet equivalent of a motivational speaker, and do we need an article for every single one of those?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless further sources are provided to satisfy WP:BIO. CiaranG 11:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search reveals he has been discussed numerous times in detail in the media. Multiple, independent and non-trival coverage means the subject satisfies the primariy criterion of WP:N. I added another of these references to the article. Notability is not subjective. Ccscott 12:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that Newspapers notices are multiple non-trivial works. Don't mix notability is not subjective with accepting every web page found over the internet. Those sources above, I think, should not be claimed as reliable in the meanings of wikipedia notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree the article needs clean up and proper referencing, but if multiple newspapers have decided he is notable enough to dedicate articles to discuss his achievements, he meets WP:N. He is the main subject of: "Technology pioneer blown away by the company he keeps now" (The Newcastle Journal, Oct 8 2004), "Search engine marketing: The Revolution Masterclass on search engine marketing" (Revolution Magazine, Feb. 2005) and there are at least another five other published articles where he is not the subject but is cited as an expert on search-based internet marketing. All of this is in addition to the BBC interviews presently linked in the article. The article needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted on the basis of non-notability. Ccscott 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if notable the article does not demonstrate that ... without proper sources and citations we may know who the gent was but that won't make it pass the 25 year test Alf photoman 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the 25 year test? Is that part of WP:N? If the article has problems, we should clean it up, I agree. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it is a variation of one of the alternative tests offered in W:BIO which asks if someone will find this article useful in the future. This test is problematic in my view as it can allow people to slip into the "I've never heard about it/I don't like or care about it" trap and declare a subject not-notable because they think if they don't care now, no one could possibly care in the future. Personally, for me the subject of this article fails this right now (I don't care about the subject or find the article useful), but he has been noted and discussed multiple times in reputable sources satisying the primary test of WP:N and WP:BIO. It is not the editor's job to judge notability of every article - published sources often do that for us. If they think he is notable, the subject should stay and perhaps this will grow into an interesting article. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. ;) Ccscott 09:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep not very notable but passes litmus test for inclusion (cited in major media etc). --Duke of Duchess Street 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Harad. Nishkid 64 02:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribelands of Haradwaith[edit]

The names Kârna, Badharkân, Dalamyr, Hidâr, Nâfarat, Dhâran-sar, Abrakân, and Gadîrkarn are not from Tolkien's works. For actual stuff he wrote about this see Harad and Haradrim. Google searches show that they apparently come from wargaming (The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game?) or other games, and thus are just forms of fan fiction (I have nothing against it myself, but just don't think it's canonical). Delete article, and possibly merge info with relevant articles. Uthanc 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Harad if cited, Delete otherwise. We have the ICE names of the Nazgûl in the main article - I suspect these are ICE names as well. Tevildo 03:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete I believe that some items may be merged with the article on Harad, but the non-canonical items should be either noted as such or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaddawg (talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per above, particularly as this does not appear to come from Tolkien to begin with.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 10:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with whatever book it appears in. Too narrow scope to have its own article. No context - I actually thought it was real until I read the article and saw the stub type. JIP | Talk 15:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game and/or Harad where appropriate. Uthanc's assumptions are correct: they form part of the Games Workshop wargaming products, and are not canonical. More to the point, the context is not large enough to warrant its own article. --Grimhelm 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate. Probably the strategy game unless someone can find a reference in one of Tolkien's writings. Irongargoyle 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per lack of Google hits, and trivial references. Nishkid 64 02:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nahason Orenge[edit]

This article does not meet WP notability guidelines. This article is the first hit on Google (and appears from history to have been self-created by the subject). The rest of the relevant hits are law-related articles pertaining to his granting of asylum, pages culled from search stats, and one letter to the editor from a Kenyan paper, none of which either alone to in total are indicators of notability. MSJapan 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is wrong with law-related providing a basis for notability? --Bejnar 09:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then what is notable about this article, the individual, or the case? This is an important distinction, and there's doesn't seem to be anything notable about Orenge aside from his case, which is what I pointed out in the nom. MSJapan 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nahason Orenge is notable because he is/was a crusading journalist who was considered enough of a threat for the government to arrest in violation of the Kenya Constitution. That alone might be sufficient. He also would be notable as an asylum seeker who established that even a government officially friendly to the United States is allowed to prove the asylum standard, "in fear of his life" for political reasons. --Bejnar 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're esentially saying is that Orenge's situation is notable, but I can't find any notable accomplishments of his own, not even a listing of articles aside from that one letter. Also, one aspect of WP:NN is that people are not notable due to situations they are in. Moreover, Orenge has not received the level of coverage of say, Mandela or Biko. In short, my contention is that there are plenty of political asylum seekers, and that alone does not make them notable. MSJapan 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1)If you want someone to do something to be notable, being a crusading journalist who is willing to put himself at risk for the truth is one good way. I agree that he hasn't had as much coverage as Mandela or Biko did, but given the relatively short length time he was imprisoned compared to Mandela or Biko, it was a lot. His successful fight with Kenya alone should make him notable. (2) There are thousands of political asylum seekers each year. They don't make the newspapers. Orenge's successful, so far, claim is that political asylum can be sought against a peaceful, friendly-to-the-US government. That is why it was newsworthy and that is why it is important in our developing asylum jurisprudence. If Orenge did not have underlying crusadier journalist notability, then the Wikipedia article might well be just about the lawsuit and not about Orenge, but he does and we don't need two separate articles. --Bejnar 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, no enough proof for notability. It might be factually accurate though, considering The People daily was critical towards then president's government and was owned by Kenneth Matiba, an outspoken opposition figure. Julius Sahara 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 71 hits outside of wikipedia is very little for a living person. Heck, I probably have more. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by the external links. What's all the fuss about? — coelacan talk — 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not (apparently) notable Avalon 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable, although the article may not have done as good a job of establishing it as it might have. I have provided references to articles in the Long Island Business News and the New York Law Journal about Nahason Orenge's case, as well as updating the Wall Street Journal's Lawblog link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bejnar (talk • contribs) 09:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ida manneh[edit]

Article was created at Ida manneh and moved to Ida Manneh per the naming conventions. The article was speedied there, but subsequently recreated at Ida manneh. I'm moving this to AFD instead. No opinion for the moment, but inclined to delete per non-notability. A ecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. A ecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with something notable Citicat 05:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone who almost won Miss Sweden is almost notable. Fan-1967 15:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--Rudjek 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientific howlers in literature[edit]

Delete - I'm reasonably sure we deleted some bloopers articles in the last several days (looking for them but not finding them). Regardless, rather a crufty collection of trivia. If the subject has an article then perhaps some of the information could be merged individually but the article should go. Otto4711 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in addition because of obviously POV title.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, OR and POV. (Jules Verne's information is in fact correct. The fact that it is not complete or all-encompassing does not make it a "howler".) Fan-1967 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary and trivial.-- danntm ^T _C 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was fun in 2004, but it was listcruft even then. Blame me for the Jules Verne, Jack London, and John P. Marquand examples. (I still think Jules Verne was essentially wrong, because in his novel, regardless of the niceties of definition. the Columbians only float within or relative to the capsule for a short part of the trip). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hard to see how it could be decided what goes on this list without editors making judgment calls. Seraphimblade 09:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fiction has crappy science at times. No one cares as long as it doesn't completely destroy the suspension of disbelief (and if it does, it'd probably be best discussed in the article about the work of fiction itself, which is the point of my comment here). If you want good science, go read a research paper or something. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 13:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DasBlog[edit]

Looks like a little known free software. Just because it is free, does not mean it is notable. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, just because it is downloadable software does not mean it even belongs here. We are, after all, neither Sourceforge nor Freshmeat. --Dennisthe2 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Delete It's crap. Definitely won't help to leave it here. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How does it related to the BlogX software that it is based on? It appears to be more notable. John Vandenberg 10:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Vandenberg - I have updated the entry to better explain the dasBlog/BlogX branch. John Forsythe

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:SOFTWARE in any way. Wikipedia is not a software catalogue, and being free doesn't mean it's not spam. CiaranG 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the most popular asp.net blog software being used, also largest XML based, and is as well know as 90% of blog software listed here at Wikipedia, i.e. Subtext, bBlog etc. Most prime contributors are Microsoft employees or MS MVP's, while I would agree it is not WP:SOFTWARE, it is unique as say Greymatter blog also here on Wiki... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.41.206.137 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As a matter of comparison, to an existing Wiki listed blog software Subtext, in accordance with SourceForge it has been downloaded around 13,421 times to date, and dasBlog has been downladed around 140,000 times to date, these asp.net blog software engines are rare, so why does Wiki even have any blog software listed given [[WP:SOFTWARE]? I say all or none! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.109.24.199 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Sounds like dasblog is as good a listing as the other weblog software listed in open source, very few are ever going to be WordPress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom8850 (talk • contribs)

Note - Tom8850's only two contributions to Wikipedia, both since the article was nominated, are to add a swathe of linkspam to the DasBlog article, and comment on this AFD. CiaranG 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged: LinkSpam is in the eye of the beholder or Article, Check out the link spam on all the other open source blog softwares here at Wiki,Apache Roller, bBlog, blosxom,Dotclear,Drupal,Elgg,Geeklog,Greymatter,LifeType,Nucleus CMS,Pivotlog,Subtext,Textpattern. Apprantley its ok for these articles, even forums etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.41.206.137 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

While it's understandable that you might feel this particular article has been unfairly singled out, I can assure you that's not the case. You could, if you so desired, familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and use your new account to help out. As you rightly point out, there is a lot of work to be done. Regards, CiaranG 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why dasBlog does not belong listed among its peers? Blog_publishing_system and Weblog_software make reference as do the features that dasBlog implements such as MetaWeblog. Previously someone mentioned "all or none" and I guess that is a fair point. I think this software has enough of a public impact and history to be included. John Forsythe

At the risk of stating the obvious, it's another single-purpose account. CiaranG 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CiaranG - What about the context of my comment has anything to do with my account? Other than (stating the obvious here) disagreeing with you. dasBlog is notable asp.net software. We have a larger fan base, greater name recognition and a longer history than many of the other entries listed in Blog_publishing_system. Since you place so much importance on registered accounts I'll have you know that over the past year I have contributed to plenty of entries, contributed to more than one WP donation drive, and been a generally active Wikipedia anonymous user/editor. This was the first time I wanted to start my own entry and thought it prudent to provide some reference to the content for those reading it, not those judging its worth. By no means does WP require accounts to do any of the previous activities. Lay. off. please. - John Forsythe

With all due respect, it's directly relevant, and the comment was for the benefit of the closing admin. Further, as a developer of the software under discussion, you have a clear conflict of interest and should think twice about involving yourself in this AfD, and per WP:AUTO, in the editing of the article. CiaranG 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google yields over 2,000,000 results for dasBlog. It's a successful, active opensource project, occasionally

breaking into the top 1000 projects at SourceForge /George 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dasBlog is the leading blog software on the .NET platform with literally thousands if not tens of thousands of installations. Don't believe it, just Google "dasBlog 1.9", "dasBlog 1.8", "dasBlog 1.7", and so on. Just because it's not Linux-based doesn't mean it's not legitimate. I'm starting to see why Wikipedia, once so highly respected, it getting such a bad name... MikeSchinkel 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with the all or none comment, above. If we decide to delete dasBlog, we should be marking most of the other blog systems listed on the Weblog_software page for deletion, as well. Kenlefeb 11:44, 16 January 2007 2007 (UTC)
Keep I believe dasBlog is a worthwhile entry notable for it's active user base, as well as it's very active development status. It is open source non-commercial as well which I believe should be taken into consideration. 70.11.84.3 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an explanation were needed for the sudden influx of anons, new users and dormant users, it might be found here. I can't imagine who the 'Wikitrolls' refers to though. If anyone wants me, I'll be in my cave. CiaranG 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ah cave you have verified the reality, Wikipedia really has gotten as bad as I had heard, sad really, what a sacred cow Wikipedia has become... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.28.110 (talk • contribs)
Merge With all due respect to the nominating admin, it appears that dasBlog is not little known or of little notability. That notwithstanding, I believe all open source blog software’s that are not indisputability notable per WP:SOFTWARE should be merged as subpages to Blog software, including dasblog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.118.9 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha-Ruth Wexler[edit]

Article about one of many characters from a single novel (The Westing Game). Has minimal potential for expansion due to the its narrow scope; currently only exists as a primitive list of characteristics, and could only be added to by summarizing most of the book at the same time. Nominating for deletion rather than redirecting because there is no conceivable reason why someone would be looking up the character rather than the book, and because the existence of an article for the one character at the omission of all the others is a minor spoiler. Unint 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Westing GameDelete per nom. --Dennisthe2 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify from above: I am suggesting that the redirect that would result from a merge should also be removed in this case, because it's entirely superfluous. Also, I would suggest that the contents of this not be merged with the main article; it doesn't really fit in the main article's structure, which already has a superior character description. –Unint 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well said, and good point. Be that as it may, changing vote. --Dennisthe2 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, characters should generally be notable individually from the works in which they appear to have articles. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and Dhartung. --Metropolitan90 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: read the book, but very narrow scope and WP:FICT. TRKtv t c e 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT, not much potential for expansion.-- danntm ^T _C 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. user blanked the page, requesting deletion. alphachimp 03:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cradle of Filth discography[edit]

Unsourced page primarily dedicated to listing generally non-notable, unverifiable bootleg recordings. Fan-1967 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Mhking 03:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilist anarchism[edit]

This is a copy and paste from an anarchist wiki which explicitly does not operate on the principle of NPOV for understandable reasons. However, the entire premise of the article is flawed; nihilism as a movement was quite distinct from anarchism despite some overlap between individuals and a general anti-State platform. "Nihilist anarchism" is a neologism at best; I feel that this entire article is original research, much of it totally off-base (to see Nietzsche as a nihilist is a patent misreading that no competent scholar of the man would take seriously). The information in the article which IS worthwhile should be in the nihilism article, and I suspect some of it already is. --Tothebarricades 03:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant, unapolagetic OR. Perhaps the subject is encyclopedic but you'd never know it from this essay. No prejudice toward future recreation as a real article. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ask for sources first. How do we know it's original research? I don't think that you "feel that this entire article is original research" is good enough. Maybe it's not and much of it can be sourced. I'm willing to give it a chance.Anarcho-capitalism 06:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking why I think this is original research is like asking why I think an apple is an apple. It's written in the form of an essay, synthesizing the works of many writers/thinkers, who themselves are not properly referenced, as well as other statements that could be coming from anywhere. There is next to zero chance this will be sourced to wikipedia's satisfaction. As I said, I think the topic could be used to create an article - beginning with sources and working from there, rather than the other way around - but this version is not salvageable.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems proper to ask for sources first. If no sources are provided then delete everything that's not sourced, which may in fact be the whole article. I wouldn't want someone to delete my edits without at least asking for sources first, just to make sure it's not original research. I know that there is such a thing as anarcho-nihilism. From the Anarchist Theory FAQ: "Closely linked to emotivist anarchism, though sometimes a little more theoretical, is nihilist anarchism. The anarcho-nihilists combine the emotivist's opposition to virtually all forms of order with radical subjectivist moral and epistemological theory."Anarcho-capitalism 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, violates NPOV. --Folantin 09:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any assertion of notability. If I did I would change my mind. JASpencer 09:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dear god in heaven, this is weak. Not a school. It just doesn't exist. I'm sorry whoever wrote this, I'm not a wiki nazi, but come on. Also. It's personally offensive as Anarchism is diametrically opposed to Nihilism (confused 1800s Russians and chaos punks notwithstanding).--William Gillis 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. --Pastordavid 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Presently, nihilist anarchy is more a collection of scattered individuals than a tendency". Well, thanks for telling us. We can't very well have articles about scattered individuals, can we? I might as well start one about my family, at least we aren't scattered. Purest original research. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Move anything useful to nihilism or anarchism. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much better article at Nihilist movement. --Kronecker 23:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry is entirely sourced, though I did miss adding some of the sourcing. nihilist anarchy has become more common political theory within the anarchist movement in the United States. As stated in the talk section, the theories of nihilist anarchy can be found in the two largest anarchist magazines related to political theory in the United States, "Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed" and "Green Anarchy". In addition to this a growing movement is springing from these theories, which synthesize post-left critique and anti-civilization critique with Russian nihilist history, early Anarchist history (which shares a common trajectory with today's nihilist anarchy) and the works of Nietzsche, which act as much as an influence on the theory as Nechayev's Revolutionary Catechism Sourcing: Beginning paragraph and section 1 sourcing can be found at http://www.pistolsdrawn.org section 2.1 did have a source from "The Epic of Russian Literature" notably the connection, between Nietzsche, Dostoevsky and Russian nihilism. Besides this the sourcing on Nietzsche for this section can be found at http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html and from the ubermench wikipedia entry. Pisarev's quote can be found here: http://www.nietzschecircle.com/essayArchive4.htm Section 2.2.2. is sourced from the wikipedia on Narodnik, the Russian Nihilist Movement, Narodnaya Volya and Pervomartovtsi 2.2.3. is sourced here: http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/sergi.html All of section 3 is sourced from http://www.marxists.org/archive/steklov/history-first-international/index.htm The sourcing just needs to be cleaned up and a new intro developed. Grounds for cleanup yes, deletion no.Brokendoor 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's going to end up getting deleted. Just re-create it, but next time put some inline sources in. I'll see if I can add some material too. Anarcho-nihilism is definitely real.Anarcho-capitalism 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on Consensus still?I don't think it should end with deletion, especially when there isn't a consensus. User William Gillis' statement isn't up to date with the anarchist movement and the currents that are coming from it. As a practicing nihilist anarchist, I can tell you that it is distinct in its synthesis. User Tothebarricades, I never implied that Nietzsche was a nihilist nor a nihilist anarchist, I implied that he is an influence on today's current of nihilist anarchy. Even the title of section 2 implies it "Nihilist Anarchy is not Nietzsche's Nihilism nor is it Neo-Russian Nihilism". The title exposes a possessive in regard's to Nietzsche and his theories of nihilism. If that didn't convince "Nietzsche's rebellion against nihilism has little to do with the Russian nihilists and their struggle against Russian autocracy" is also found in the intro paragraph to section 2. So Tothebarricades, I feel this analysis is without merit. I've read many wikipedia articles and footnote sourcing is more than common. I can apply inlines, but I need a moment to do so, I only became aware of this attempt to delete today.Brokendoor 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable philosophy, full of original research. Owen 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit but KeepOkay, after reading more on "original research" I can see how you interpret some of this as original. The nihilist and anarchist history is simply to show the trajectory of influence many nihilist anarchists hold, while the explanation of Nietzsche is ment to overcome a common mistake to confuse "nihilist anarchy" "russian nihilism" and "Nietzsche's nihilism" I'll add the following notes and inlines tonight to justify keeping.
Section 2 intro "An understanding of the Russian nihilism of the 1860s begins with an attempt to understand the concept of nihilism. This is naturally difficult because if there is a word that has even more loaded, and negative, connotations than anarchism it would be nihilism. This is particularly because the primary vehicle of our modern understanding of nihilism is through the fiction of Turgenev and Dostoevsky. Neither of these authors were particularly sympathetic to nihilism and provided nihilist characters primarily as a frame with which to drape their morality tales." from "A History of Russian Nihilism" http://www.pistolsdrawn.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=30 so paragraph 1. Dostoevsky is hostile to the ideas of Russian nihilism.
Because both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche are hostile to "nihilism" I figured a note was in order so that confusion didn't occur between the two terms, as well as expose the connection found in the "Epic of Russian Literature" that Dostoevsky's understanding of nihilism was a heavy influence on Nietzsche, who was also abstract of the Russia situation and developed his definition without its history in mind.
In "Nihilism as Strategy" http://www.pistolsdrawn.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=30 it states "Philosophically much has resulted from the nihilist ideas on value, aesthetics and practice. Most notably in Adorno's conception of Negative Dialectics, a principle which refuses any kind of affirmation or positivity, a principle of thorough-going negativity. The nihilist tradition includes Adorno, Nietzsche, Bakunin, much of classic Russian literature, Dada, punk rock, Heidegger, existentialist, post-structuralist and post-modern thinkers, and much of anarchism." Justifying a further look into Nietzsche and his ideas and exposing the connection to Dostoevsky.
Russian nihilism is declared an influence of nihilist anarchy in "What is Left?" http://www.pistolsdrawn.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=30 and explains the reasoning "What Nihilism provides then is an alternative to the alternative that does not embed an idealist image of the new world it would create. It is not an Idealist project. Nihilism states that it is not useful to talk about the society you 'hold in your stomach', the things you would do 'if only you got power', or the vision that you believe that we all share. What is useful is the negation of the existing world. Nihilism is the political philosophy that begins with the negation of this world. What exists beyond those gates has yet to be written." Because Russian nihilism is an influence on nihilist anarchy, I felt it necessary to detail this, I can instead insert this information in its appropriate channels.
"Fathers and Sons" is quoted because Bazarov is constantly sourced as a major influence and a felt I would expose an excerpt as to why and where Bazarov agrees with nihilist anarchy. To continue with "What is Left" the section entitled "Nihilism meet Anarchism" details "Libertarian Socialists also had another name that may be useful to differentiate from it from its Socialist brethren, anarchism. If Libertarian Socialism is overly concerned with self-management, federations, and workingmen's associations then anarchism may very well have been concerned with how to integrate the Russian innovations of nihilism. Bakunin is the case in point. Revisionists, of the Libertarian Socialist stripe, would focus entirely on Bakunin's positive agenda of arguing for collective action to achieve anarchy; freedom of press, speech and assembly; and the eventual voluntary associations that would federate to organize society, including the economy. They do not attend to his negative agenda of demolishing political institutions, political power, government in general, and the State. As Bakunin provided the Nihilists with a formative gift in his essay "Reaction in Germany" (1842), he also received a gift from the practice of the Nihilist Dmitry Karakozov and his failed assassination attempt of the Tsar Alexandar II. Ten years later this nihilist practice (that was is full swing by this time) became the policy of the largest anarchist federation on the European Continent. This so called “propaganda by the deed” is the primary historical vehicle by which we know anarchism (and which Libertarian Socialists spend much of their time apologizing for and distancing themselves from)." and justifies a deeper examination into this period of time to explain why. the source at the bottom entry for nihilist anarchism = "Nihilism and Anarchy" extends this sourcing to show that they do indeed share a common history, as does various sourcing within the "History of the 1st International" showing nihilists of Russia entering the anarchist movement. Does this explain that I'm not doing original research but in fact clarifying points that already are a part of nihilist anarchy?Brokendoor 02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 02:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoft[edit]

Company that sells chewing gum that will allegedly enlarge your breasts. (Per previous versions of article, they have other gums which will do other things for you.) Only sources listed are a Yahoo copy of a PRWeb release, and their own site. No indication it meets WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I call spam. Speedy Delete accordingly. --Dennisthe2 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. They clearly sell herbal chewing gum and the topic should be left open. I agree that their needs to be more information added though. Sfiore76 03:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC) — Sfiore76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That they sell gum is not a sufficient reason to keep them. Please elaborate. --Dennisthe2 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gum. Herostratus 03:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, I have written several articles about breath mints. I guess the question is, is this a notable gum. I bet we have an article on Wrigley's Gum (and if not we should). So how does a gum show notability? I don't know, I'm just asking. We don't have WP:GUM to look to. I find the claim that a gum gives you bigger breasts to be somewhat different, I don't know if that makes it notable or not. What happens if a man chews it? Herostratus 05:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment see Gynecomastia. Edison 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, the WP:GUM seems a bit of a red herring, this article is specifically written about the corporate entity; not the product. If they throw up a missive on the ever-fabulous Zoft Penile Enhancement Gum, then let's shift topic. Kuru ^talk 00:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What happens if a couple orders both gums, but chew the wrong ones? If he ends up with bigger breasts, what will happen to her? Fan-1967 00:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe they look for a gum that reduces those particular parts? As for what that gum would do to her... erm, never mind. =O.o= --Dennisthe2 01:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article appears to fail WP:ADVERT Orderinchaos78 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not an advert, the article is neutral and cites a source. John Reaves 04:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search changed my mind. Too many "pay for press" sites. John Reaves 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How about actually being in a store as a criteria for gum notability? Or at least major websites. Citicat 05:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corollary I'd say said gum'd have to be available in stores nation- or continent- or worldwide in order for it to be notable. I don't think I've seen Zoft around my parts. --Ouro 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only press releases on Google News. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gum. I mean, Spam. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we need an independent test to see if this gum works. I nominate Herostratus. .V. (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They also sell gum that claims to, uh, help men. Fan-1967 15:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why are we deleting this article? .V. (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the references they used are not correct but I still do not see why this topic should be deleted. I found their official website http://www.zoft.com and it shows they mainly manufacture custom herbal gum products for other companies under a "private label." Their site also says they make herbal chewing gum and have their own "house brands" including breast gum, hoodia gum, stress gum, anti-aging gum, virility gum and teeth whitening gum. I think if the references were changed accordingly the topic should be kept. Sfiore76 18:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have not read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), because you have offered nothing to suggest this company meets the standards there. Fan-1967 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer to try the male-enhancement version for research purposes, but... how to put this... I'm already... I mean, if it worked at all, I'd have to have my pants custom tailored, if you see my meaning... Herostratus 03:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another AfD discussion revealed to be a thin facade for comparisons of penis size. — coelacan talk — 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company, although I would like to have larger breasts. JIP | Talk 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, truly nn corp. Only ref is the company's 'testimonial' page and a press release - which is patently not a 'source'. Kuru ^talk 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Complete bollocks (but does the gum make them larger????)Edison 23:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Reaves. Just spam. — coelacan talk — 05:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an "informercial"-ish product thats only claim to fame is an idiotic claim. Let this be another test case for what doesn't meet the notability standard. --MarsRover 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V and WP:RS, as searches turn up only press releases, and no independent coverage. -- Whpq 17:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails primary notability criteria, WP:CORP and any other basis I can think.Obina 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the right link is here [5]

Web server says 404 - ergo, no, it's not right there. --Dennisthe2 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link works for me, though I don't see its relevance. Fan-1967 04:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete All. Nishkid 64 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Eira city councillors[edit]

- (View AfD)

Delete - The above articles are about a set of non-notable mostly former councillors of the City of Glen Eira, a local authority covering a region of about 100,000 people within metropolitan Melbourne, who can only pass by-laws (parking, building permits etc). The main contents of all but one or two are a series of statistics about how they got elected.

There are about 1000 Local Government Areas in Australia, each of which holds periodic elections. It would be almost impossible to establish notability for any of these individuals. The articles also escalate a single decision which received very little publicity (to sack the council in 2005) into a major event. I know of several Australian councils which have been controversially sacked (City of Joondalup, City of Wanneroo and City of South Perth come to mind) where the parent article addresses the issue adequately. I have left Margaret Esakoff's article off the list only because she is the present mayor and was the only survivor of the above sacking, so *may* be notable. Orderinchaos78 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. LGA councillor is not sufficient notability per WP:BIO, if anyone has notability outside of this role they may be an exception. --76.210.62.6 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or perhaps merge into a parent article (not sure what.)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all without prejudice against recreation if any of them turn out to be notable. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ben Aveling. The sacking should be covered in City of Glen Eira but the list of councillors there linking to these articles should be deleted. --Bduke 08:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Akihabara 09:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, unless someone raises issues here to illustrate that one may be notable besides being a councillor. John Vandenberg 10:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete any of these articles I come here today to inform you all that we are part of making history. How come we don't know who was mayor of Caulfield in 1963? How come I can't find it on Google or Yahoo? Because it is rarely documented. If we delete these people's name, we destroy history. If we are going to destroy councillors' history, then why don't we destroy every MP in the world's history? I beg of you all to rethink and change your vote to don't delete.

These councillors caused the famous and controversial sacking of Victorian local council. Alan Grossbard was Glen Eira's first mayor and a former Caulfield councillor.

Veronika Martens was Glen Eira's first female mayor and was acouncillor for Caulfield and Glen Eira for nearly 30 years, I repeat 30 years.

The mayoralty vote between Jamie Hyams and Bob Bury broke a 140-year tradition of confidential voting before the official vote so that the mayor was elected unopposed - that caused a lot of controversy.

Peter Goudge and Rachelle Sapir were both political candidates for their respected political parties in 2002 victorian state election.

And who can forget Noel Erlich, also a former Caulfield councillor, been involved in brawls with Grossbard and David Feldman (before he was even elected to council). Erlich is said to have been the major cause the Bury vs Hyams mayoralty vote and the sacking of the Glen Eira Council.

The councillors after the sacking also caused history. David Feldman, Kate Ashmor and Nick Staikos are all councillors in the same ward under the age of 30. Nick Staikos is the youngest Glen Eira councillor in history and Steven Tang is the second youngest.

All these councillors are apart of history. Delete them, and you rather's well destroy the Internet and burn every history book on your bookself, because delete them will be deleting history. I rest my case. CatonB 10:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (and I do sympathise with your position more broadly) I still can't see how any of these points establish notability for each of these individuals. Very few of these things matter outside an immediate local area, and probably not even to many people within that area. Most of these records you cite relate to events within one council - extend it to Melbourne-wide or even Australia-wide, and remember this is an international encyclopaedia, and you find the same sorts of things are going on everywhere. Many of these things (eg the 1963 Caulfield mayor) would be locatable in the State Library and various local libraries in the Local History section. My own council, for example, produced a 300 page book offered for loan or sale through all libraries, and neighbouring ones have as well which adequately document many areas, although admittedly have a pro-council POV and leave many gaps.

The councillors under 30 - doesn't Greater Dandenong have a mayor under 30? "Glen Eira's first female mayor" doesn't mean much when the council only goes back 12 years - the one I live in, for example, has 136 years of history and first had a female mayor in the 70s. Political candidacy does not ensure notability without any other criteria - if they don't win, their notability fades. However they would deserve a note under the electorate in which they ran. A decent piece on the sacking (I've attempted to write one at City of Glen Eira based on the published reports) belongs in the council article. If the only notable thing about a councillor is that they've been sacked, there's a councillor in my area who got sacked one year ago and was on the lead on Seven News, but whom I doubt is notable even as a 22-year councillor. There is at least one councillor in WA who has been in for - get this - 62 years. Read WP:BIO carefully - it almost expressly excludes local politicians unless they have some notability *outside* their time in office.

My suggestion would be to do what I'm doing for my home region and write a book about the local area. You'd be amazed what you can turn up in State Records and the State Library, and it may end up being a far more interesting narrative than anything you'd be allowed to publish here. Orderinchaos78 11:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. But I still think we need in the Glen Eira page to mention events and issues that occurred in Glen Eira eg mayoralty votes, sacking (which you've started on), brawls, and catergorise them. How about that in the page, but no biographies? CatonB 12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That IMHO is exactly where it belongs - in the council article. It passes verifiability thresholds (reportage in the Age, the independent report which is online and no doubt other media sources, even local Leaders or whatever, could be used to improve what is there now) and could probably be developed into compelling and interesting prose which meets all Wikipedia standards. If we can get more information (not *too* much though) on its ancestor councils - Caulfield and any others - and put them in a history section that would also be good. Should always be aiming for Good Article/Featured Article status with these sorts of things, even if it only gets to B-class (the level below Good Article). Orderinchaos78 12:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a suggestion that all articles that will be deleted be merged into the same article. But this time it will be part of an article called History of Glen Eira Council and one of the subheadings would be Glen Eira Councillors. How about that? CatonB 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That actually has precedent - History of Burnside (the history of a local council in Adelaide) has reached featured status on Wikipedia. Most of the content of the present articles are statistical in scope, but there is some information that could be brought in, such as the brawl etc. Orderinchaos78 02:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the above lengthy discussion was the creation of History of Glen Eira - an article which, while needing a lot of work, will achieve the aims and intentions of the 16 articles covered in this AfD without the need for them to continue to exist. Orderinchaos78 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nishkid 64 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cohen (British journalist and kickboxer)[edit]

I'm sure Ben Cohen is a nice chap, but is teaching kickboxing to C-list celebrities and having a blog sufficient to merit a Wikipedia entry? Le poulet noir 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nonnotable. Gene Nygaard 10:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Somebody made a copy-and-paste copy to or from Ben cohen (British journalist and kickboxer) which should also get the Afd tag and to this same discussion page, if somebody can fix that. Gene Nygaard 10:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --- RockMFR 03:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of his accomplisments seem like they would pass WP:BIO. Resolute 06:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The common name makes it difficult to discern which search hits refer to him, but what is detailed on this page does not denote notability. Sam Blacketer 09:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable biography. JIP | Talk 15:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced demonstrating notability Alf photoman 16:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, not notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--Rudjek 23:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, but don't let him know where I live just in case. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy G11/A7 by Manning Bartlett. Tevildo 04:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers asylum[edit]

Delete Blatant ad for small gaming center in north floridaCoinopkid 03:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nomination withdrawn. --Strothra 04:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Novack[edit]

Delete non notable individual, fails WP:BIO. -- Strothra 03:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom --Strothra 04:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it does say he was/is vice chairman for AOL and Time-Warner (generalcatalyst.com claims he recently retired from Time-Warner). - considering the size of the above two companies, it would seem to establish notability, however the article needs drastic improvement. I do not know enough about the field, however, to vote keep. Orderinchaos78 03:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Boom[edit]

no assertion of meeting criteria of WP:BAND. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. This has already been discussed on the article's discussion page. From that page:

1. Le Boom is the most popular band ever to appear on Denver's Heartbeat, the largest venue for Colorado indie bands. See my writing below for proof (in 11/22/06 -- updates).

2. Le Boom's album, Got It Tied, received a Critic's Choice endorsement from Westword Magazine, the third largest periodical in the State of Colorado. Proof of this can be found on Westword's web site at: http://search.westword.com/Issues/2004-12-16/music/critics.html 3. The above two are notable accomplishments. 4. The photo threatened with deletion, Leboommainpic.jpg, has now been released as a promotional photo by Le Boom and therefore may be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2.

Go back to the article and click on "discussion" for more details on this topic that has already been hashed out after which the article stayed for good reason.

Delete Appears not to meet notability criteria. I don't understand how it can be documented that a band was the "most popular" ever to appear on a local television show. Yes, the band was mentioned in "Westword," but there don't seem to be any other mentions. It seems that their debut album came out less than a month ago. They may well be a notable band in time, but--barring further documentatation--that time is not now. janejellyroll 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable bands/people who might become notable at some point. This band does not pass WP:BAND.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the discussion page, you would understand how that claim is made. Please read first before making such assertions. The "most popular" claim was made by one of the producers of the show, Denver's Heartbeat, Sherry Lee. Information on how to contact her is also on that discussion page.

From that page: 2) The executive producer of the TV show Denver's Heartbeat has agreed to let me post her e-mail address here. Here name is Sherry Lee and her address is: [email protected]. (This address can be verified at: http://www.denversheartbeat.com/. It is now possible to verify my claim that Le Boom is the most popular band ever to appear on Denver's Heartbeat, the largest venue for Colorado indie bands.

I shouldn't have to cut and paste from the original discussion page. You should have read that first.

Please read the discussion page first! This has all already been discussed. Those who marked it for deletion and then jumped into this discussion without reading the prior discussion are being irresponsible.

I did read the discussion page first. I am just unconvinced by your arguments. I'm assuming good faith on your part, please return the favor. It appears that the "most popular" claim is original research since you cannot cite a published source for it. And I did make a mistake about the release date of the album. However, I'm not sure that the fact that the album was released in 2004 instead of 2006 helps your case that the band is notable. Please don't take this personally. A nomination for deletion is not a statement on the quality of the band. Just the notability at this moment. janejellyroll 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion page first! Go back to the article and click on "discussion." This was already resolved back then.

Also, their debut album came out in December of '04, as is documented in the Westword article. I don't know where you're getting last month.

Please remain civil and avoid repeating and bolding all your arguments. Also, someone named Sherry Lee is not a reliable source. And, please sign your posts with ~~~~ or editors will not be inclined to take you seriously.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was bolding because people didn't bother to read the previous discussion. I'm being entirely reasonable by expecting people to read what has been written about this before. This has all already been discussed, and my frustration that people charge ahead with deletion claims without reading the prior discussion is extremely reasonable. I'm having to repeat what I've already shown last November. I shouldn't have to.

Sherry Lee's name is on the Denver's Heartbeat web site as a producer of the show. The information on how to contact her is both there and in the previous discussion of this article and now on this page too. You have all the means you need to check all this out, including e-mailing her.

tomzc

Your incorrect assumption that people who disagree with you do so because they haven't yet read your argument is compounded by the fact that you appear to have not read any of wikipedia's basic policy pages. Notability and verifiability must come from non-trivial, published third party sources, not by a person with a connection to the subject (someone who has produced one of their gigs, for example) who must be emailed for verification. If Sherry Lee writes an article in the Denver Post explaining how popular this band is, it would go a long way toward helping its chances on wikipedia. Also, if you continue to ignore requests to sign your posts with four tildes, you will open yourself up to accusations of bad faith.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Westword article is a published source and is not a trivial one as the third largest newspaper in Colorado (behind the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News, two publications owned by the same company). You can verify with no problems that Le Boom did indeed get a critic's choice endorsement. And Denver's Heartbeat is not a trivial television program either, at least not locally. And there's no requirement that a media source be national. The opinion of the producer of such a television show is indeed relevant and noteworthy. That someone may have to contact the person is a minor amount of effort, and is a basic requirement of any reputable publication. I didn't interpret Wikipedia's policies to mean that no one should ever have to put any effort into fact verification other than googling.

I had good reason to believe that people didn't bother to read the prior discussion. It was stated: I don't understand how it can be documented that a band was the 'most popular' ever to appear on a local television show. It wasn't stated, "Sherry Lee's opinion is not enough." It was stated simply, "I don't understand..." If you had read the prior discussion, you would have understood. You now claim you did read it. I don't buy that, and neither would any reasonable person.

My arguments made in the prior discussion were sufficient to keep the article published in November. We shouldn't even have to be discussing this now. A decision was already made back then and we should stick with it. I did forget to sign my posts, thinking that my user name would automatically be put in as is the case on most Internet discussion forums. I'm sorry for that. 24.9.0.220 06:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)TomZC[reply]

Let me take a minute to (civilly) dissect several of TomZC's arguements. Firstly, there is no policy whatsoever that previous discussions on the merit of an article are permanently binding. Secondly, while a thorough editor would read a discusion page before commenting on an AfD, this is not by any means a requirement. Evidence that a subject is notable must be either a part of the article itself, or raised on the AfD page and subsequently added, sourced, to the article, for it to count. And thirdly, having to call or e-mail someone to verify information is too much to ask, because we have to remember that these sources are not just for the benefit of diligent editors who regularly contribute to the project, but to all users. If a piece of information takes too much effort to track down and verify, it is increasingly unlikely that anyone will do so, and if that information is incorrect, it is more likely to remain uncorrected and be republished incorrectly. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 16:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC at this point. I wish the band the best of luck in attaining sufficient notability in the future, however. Resolute 06:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. --Haemo 08:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere near WP:MUSIC at the moment. Nuttah68 11:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Boldly based on the fact that they don't seem to have had any last.fm plays. Any modern band with /no/ last.fm plays is clearly non-notable IMO. (now watch people insult my credibility because I'm from an IP addy) -137.222.10.67 12:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MUSIC is a more useful criterion for notability than last.fm, which only concerns itself with music from certain parts of the world recorded in the last 50 years. --Charlene 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nothing wrong with pointing it out a la the Google test, which is also unofficial. But one should cite policy in making one's argument. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Larry laptop 16:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the above arguments and those on the discussion page, the band appears to fail WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 04:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Avalon 07:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nishkid 64 13:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Johnson (artist)[edit]

If you came here because your vote was solicited by Scott Johnson on his blog, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Non-notable podcast host. Google search turns up a lack of independent verifiable sources to lend notability. Wiki page for his podcast "The Instance" was deleted as being non-notable as well. Ocatecir 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete offers no sources for claim of notability. Nuttah68 11:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 15:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not properly sourced and cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no reliable seccondary sources -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his webcomic Extra Life is one of the more important ones. --Energman 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the most notable webcomics and a useful blog, for geeks mostly.. --Yusecki 19:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Yusecki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - One of the most popular geek web comics and one of the busiest men in podcasting, thus notable to a lot of different people. Campaigner80 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The man runs a 25,000 reader per day blog, a webcomic that has been around for years, and is a part of 6 podcasts. He's the creator of MyDrawings.com for Pete's sake! Anyone who thinks this is non-noteable needs a cranial exam. 75.68.27.242 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)--Shaymus22[reply]
Keep - This is not supposed to be a popularity contest. Virtually all notable podcasters know and respect Scott Johnson. I know, I know, this is not sourced, but I have heard him refered to many times in other podcasts. Those of you voting for deletion, why not do some research and cite and source the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curtgunz (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC). — Curtgunz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Extremely creative writer and artist. Understands what "funny" means. Large readership for his web comic. He is a notable podcaster, as he has an extensive user base.--Emerlock 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Emerlock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep – Veltcardio 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC) – This guy runs four different podcasts, the most successfull one named Extralife Radio is probably one of the best for the geek/pop culture. His blog is also a site full with geek information posts from around the internet, he updates everyday. Not to mention that he has a base of 25.000 readers a day for the blog, a three times a week comic for geeks, and more or less the same amount listens to the weekly extralife radio show (also co hosted by brian dunaway from amissiondeep.com and Obsidian from commissionedcomic.com). He also has appear in radio shows and invited to geeks conventions, and also for the portable media convention for all his work over the intenet.[reply]
Keep - His presence on the internet goes further than just the Extra Life comic, so, unlike most webcomic artists, it makes sense to give him his own page, even if it's main purpose would just be to provide links to his various projects. Traitorfish 21:30, 16 Januray (UTC) — Traitorfish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Most of the arguments being presented so far are WP:ILIKEIT ones, especially WP:ILIKEIT#This_number_is_big. Popularity does not mean notability. Independent verifiable sources need to be given to establish notability. - Ocatecir 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In that case: if you have a book that sold 25.000 copies why cant you make an entry about the author of the book in question? This is the same, is like making an entry about the host of an important radio or tv show only that his medium is the internet. The guy is famous enough and has enought merit to have a wiki entry. Yes he is popular, but so it is any other creator/host of a tv program for example. The way to establish notability in the internet is by links to his site, readers of his web page, establishing for how long he has been doing so, his reputation on the net and work he has done for the medium in question. He has been in press articles (he and his podcast ELR), links from other web comic artists (today a web comic artist should have the same reputation as a comic artist), his job like one of the first webcomic artists since 2001 and even one of the first people to start making podcasts (since 2001 too), here. Veltcardio 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — Veltcardio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This argument is exactly what is described in WP:ILIKEIT#This_number_is_big. Notability means reputable outside sources have written on his notability. While you may know of and like the author, these aren't arguments for notability as far as wikipedia is concerned. The link you provided does not mention his notability. - Ocatecir 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is Wikipedia, the whole point is to list things that people know about that others may find interesting or have questions on. Scott Johnson is a very well-known artist and just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean that he shouldn't be up here on Wikipedia. Scott is also a very dear friend and to have his page removed from Wikipedia just doesn't make sense to me. He has many offerings from podcasts, comics, web blog, etc. Check out his work and see for yourself. [6]. bdensley 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC) — bdensley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Comical/political Cartoonist. He's work has been published in local and state newspapers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.83.103.78 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - link to the old layout of the site way back in 2001, you can see how the site evolved to version 5.2 today, it also proves that he was into podcasting then which is quite amazing, the extralife page then you can navigate here. He is also very well known in the web comic space on the internet as one of the guys who started web comics (webcomics like dueling analogs and commissioned comic had done some work about him too or with him in the case of commissioned comic. Also in the web comic world he has gathered a lot of very well known web comics in gamers pair of dice which "is a webcomic group comprised solely of gaming webcomics". He is also part of child´s play, for charity in the gaming industry. His artwork has appear on things outside the web: the post and the book. Extralife Radio and The Instance (two of his podcasts), has made into the main page of itunes several times, like this one. Ryan Clouse made an article about his podcast for Tribune Media for a nationally syndicated column. part 1 of the article and part 2 of the article, "The column was published in papers across the nation... "and was available to close to 1 million readers in the US". He was also a guest once on a local radio Besides all of that i agree with bdensley about what he says wikipedia should be. But that is not what we are talking about. Veltcardio 03:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC) — Veltcardio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please review WP:Notability as these arguments do not meet wikipedia's standards for notability. Also, his podcasts have also been deleted for not proving notability. - Ocatecir 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure what all the requirements for notability are, but his work has been published in printed sources. He did the artwork for this book.
Keep One of the most artistically talented people on the web. Who uses wiki? People who use the net. Who uses the web mostly? Geeks. What is Scoot Johnson all about? Geekery. 'Nuff said. 67.49.19.112 05:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these comments seem to be at the prompting of the subject himself from his site (see here). Please before posting review WP:Notability to review the criteria for notability on wikipedia as no evidence has been presented that satisfies that criteria. Please also read WP:ILIKEIT as all the arguments for "keep" thus far are discouraged in that essay.

Keep Best reference I can think of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExtraLife

The extralife article also does not cite any outside sources lending to its notability and will need to have sources added to it to establish notability as well. - Ocatecir 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I hope the !vote stacking is ignored by the closing admin, and arguments are judged on their merits. This article has no independent sources, so keeping it (as it is at the moment) shouldn't even be up for negotiation. Trebor 22:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Middle School[edit]

I hold that schools are not inherently notable and must make some claim to specific notability. This article makes no such claim, and the school (a middle school, at that) is not notable in any way. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable school. Resolute 06:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute RiseRobotRise 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though 7th grade football is number one! GO HUSKEYS .V. (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Candor compels me to note that in some past debates, some Wikipedians have argued that schools offering the International Baccalaureate were intrinsically notable. I didn't agree then, I don't now, and this school is only an IB candidate school, but it is perhaps the most notable thing about the school. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longmont, Colorado per WP:LOCAL, WP:SCHOOLS, et cetera. RFerreira 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the evidence presented it is hard to see that this school is notable. This is not to say that it isn't a good school, with teachers doing their best for their students, but it doesn't appear notable. Important within its local community, very possibly, but not notable. Delete. WMMartin 17:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect and merge. —bbatsell ¿? 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popalzy[edit]

The article known as "Popalzy" has man flaws. First, the entry is titled wrong - the correct spelling in english is 'Popalzai' or 'Popalzi.' Secondly, there is another article that was submitted to Wikipedia titled "Popalzai" that was made before this article and is rightfully stubbed under categories like Pashtun Tribes, etc. Third, this article has factually wrong information. If you read the articles on the Barakzai, Popalzai, and Mahmadzai clans, this is the only article out of sync from those three. There is other historical flaws in this short article; I beleive this explains why the article has not had any refrences since its creation over six months ago - eventhough wikipedia has placed a sanction requesting them. Veaangeles225 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect then. Popalzy is close enough to Popalzai that I can imagine somebody might type it in, and if so, why not a redirect? I guess you're an inexperienced user and didn't know that was possible, so if you'd like I'm sure somebody can create it for you? FrozenPurpleCube 05:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info into Popalzai. John Vandenberg 10:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info into John Vandenberg .V. (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Venturi[edit]

Unnotable director. The page has been speedily deleted once and was promptly recreated. One or more editors keeps deleting the db tag without discussion or addressing the problems with the article. janejellyroll 05:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, no?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name-dropping is always a sure sign of the non-notability of a subject.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the problems have been addressed. Venturi is notable in that he's a currently working filmmaker and his films can be seen online. And, if you'd give them a bit of time, you'd find that they're actually pretty good. Jung Dresden

Actually I don't think any problems have been addressed, this is still a non-notable subject who has been given an article with dubious sources that consists of idle name dropping and original research.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, no reliable sources. Reads like it was written by the subject himself or someone else in a conflict of interest. Resolute 07:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not written by the subject. I don't know what there is in there that suggests it is. Perhaps it's just written in a style that's slightly different to what you're used to.

And what does it take for someone to be notable? I can't see how Venturi isn't notable. Jung Dresden

Delete no claim to notability given, let alone any sources showing that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability. Nuttah68 11:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if the subject is notable the sources do not demonstrate that, If that changes by the end of this AfD I could change my vote Alf photoman 16:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity puffpiece - flush it. --Larry laptop 16:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the article makes no "claim to notability", yet it's also a "Vanity puffpiece"? If it exists purely to praise Mr Venturi how can it not be making his notability clear? And how could anything be added to suggest his notability without it being attacked for being too favourable to him? Unless what you really want is a claim to notoriety. I noticed that the section referring to David Fox and Venturi's unmade film was removed. If that was showing partiality to Venturi it would've accused Fox of ruining his project. It probably would've called Fox a bastard, or something. All it said was that they had a disagreement. Jung Dresden

Comment 'how can it not be making his notability clear?' Notability is made clear by citing reliable, independent sources as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Nuttah68 17:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and it was entirely unsourced - if you have a source that meets the requirements of WP:V, feel free to stick it back in. --Larry laptop 17:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. John Vandenberg 14:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "entirely unsourced". Perhaps there weren't enough there or some of them were inappropriate, but sources were provided. And there's still one source there despite constant edits. Beyond that, there are probably errors on every page on this site. I was looking at an article about some Australian singer just a few minutes ago, and there didn't seem to be any sources there apart from a picture of him with a bunch of children. If you're going to have a user-created encyclopedia you're going to get errors and it's not going to be perfect. The point, though, is that it can be remarkably broad and cover everything, rather than just a few topics selected by an elite group of editors, whether a result of there own preferences or just their own limited knowledge.

I don’t believe this article should be deleted at all, but at the very least it should be given a bit of time so it can be improved. Keep the tag there if you want. Jung Dresden

Mark - Wikipedia is NOT and NEVER has been intended to "cover everything". Please read WP:NOT. Like many new editors, you think that just saying "honest guv, it will improve, he's a decent bloke" covers it, it does not. There is one very straight forward and simple way for you to save your article - you need to provide sources from verfiable third-party media (such as a newspaper, magazine) that talks about your work and it's importance. That would stop the AFD in it's tracks, so if you want to save the article that's what you need to do. If that material does not appear by the end of this AFD process (which is about five days), this article will be deleted. Oh and "What about article X?" arguments NEVER work - all that happens is that you draw attention to them and people like me AFD them or try and clean them up. A crap article will not survive because you can point to 3 other crap articles. --Larry laptop 17:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said before that the article was not written by the subject. I am not Mark. The fact that you and your fellow Wikipedia editors/moderators/police (I don't know what you prefer to be called) haven't heard of Mark Venturi is no reason to believe that nobody else has.

I wasn't attempting to draw attention to "3 other crap articles", and I don't believe I did. I'm not someone who likes to reports my peers to the teacher. And I actually think there are many more than three articles in this encyclopedia that would meet your definition of word crap, which seems to be 'not being thoroughly referenced'. It was helpful of you to link me to WP:NOT, though I did read it before I contributed. Very early on in that article it says "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover". With that in mind I'm surprised by the eagerness to delete the Venturi article. Having the tag there makes it clear to readers that the article isn't currently meeting the Wikipedia standards, and that there is a debate going on whether it should even exist. Jung Dresden

You are wasting your time with this line of reasoning - The article requires sources from independent 3rd party sources if it is to survive - that's the start, middle and end of it. No amount of pleading is going to change fundemental wikipedia policy. It's also a red herring to say "you haven't heard of him", what matters is that you can show he's notable via sources. I've had a look this morning, there are no sources - he's a nobody in Wikipedia terms. --Larry laptop 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Ducktape count as a source? Much of the information in the article can be found on that site. Jung Dresden

A source for what? that Mark Venturi exists or that he is a notable film-maker? I think we all accept that he exists (which is always a good start). The information contained on that site just indicates that he made two short-films. So the next element is - so what? Lots of people have made short films, What's notable about those? have their won awards? Been the subject of notable newspapers and magazines? Any of that? All the ducktape site tells us is that those films exist. Do you understand what I'm getting at? Something existing is not enought to include on here. --Larry laptop 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep merger can be further discussed on the talk page if desired. Eluchil404 08:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Emacs[edit]

Wikipedia is not a hacker/computer usage or other slang and idiom guide. Should be deleted RWR8189 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or Merge into Emacs.~~ John Vandenberg 10:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or maybe Keep - I've been using emacs for almost 20 years now and I had never heard that term, but google show some 14k hits. Google groups show references all the way back to 1995. Ya learn somethin' new every day. Wrs1864 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep - Basically what Wrs1864 said... .V. (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment going by the last line of the article: What the hell does "Hey Emacs" mean??? Someone please describe further! this should have been placed on the Reference Desk, not in article space. Tonywalton | Talk 15:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to EMACS. Useful information, but too narrow scope to have its own article. JIP | Talk 15:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or possibly merge). I can explain this, even though I am no experienced emacs user. Basically, putting (for example) "-*- perl -*-" on the first or second line of a text file causes emacs, when it opens the file, to assume that it is a perl program and open it in perl-mode. Since the text would be confusing to non-emacs users by itself, it may have become common in some circles to write "hey emacs, this is a -*- perl -*- file" by way of explanation. Emacs will still understand it, but it may be more readable to humans. As for the article, I can't say what the normal term for this is (the xemacs manual doesn't give it a name) but judging by the examples the article's creator has found, this may be it. I'll rewrite the article and make a post on the author's talk page to explain. --N Shar 00:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten and notice posted to author's talk page. Further comments would be greatly appreciated. --N Shar 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Shar's changes make the article readable, and now that I take the time, the article explains something that I have often seen and been curious about. A merge with emacs wouldnt do this justice as people wont read a long article to figure out a nuance of an editor that they dont use. Maybe this could moved to emacs file mode or just text editor mode to allow artifacts of other editors to be added. Maybe a merge into File_format#Identifying_the_type_of_a_file? John Vandenberg 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep or at worst merge to Emacs. I'm going to start doing this myself, to end questions about my code from users of lesser editors!--OinkOink 06:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emacs, a significant emacsism but not really worthy of an article of its own. There's another problem too, I'm not sure if this is actually called "Hey Emacs" anywhere except in slang (and I've not even heard it actually called that, even when I've seen the "Hey Emacs, this is a -*- foo -*- file" expression). XEmacs documentation calls this with a technical term "local variables list" and it can actually have an expanded format. It would probably be worthwhile to have an article about the same phenomenon in other editors as well (jEdit seems to do similar thing, for example). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Emacs or change the name. Hello, I am the author of the original version of the article, in which I stated the circumstances of "Hey Emacs" as a question without knowing the answer. It is not explained anywhere else on the Internet. I think there's a place for it somewhere. --Ajo Mama 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy, major problems, all caps, WP:NOT etc. Tawker 07:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCHOOLS IN SAHIWAL[edit]

Has too many problems to be worth saving. If someone really wants this list, they should just completely remake it. SeizureDog 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - add to main article as needed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cronulla 2230[edit]

Not notable. Had 5 seconds of fame, if that. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per non - not notable. --Bduke 08:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. A trivia mention on the Cronulla race riots article would be sufficient. John Vandenberg 10:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources = notable, and this has that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN - merge into Cronulla riots article per John V. Orderinchaos78 11:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cronulla race riots - but I wouldn't call the game trivial in the context of that article. Ga rr ie 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per GarrieIrons. .V. (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per John -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Garrie. JROBBO 03:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable gamecruft. — coelacan talk — 05:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe the world would be a better place if the media and politicians didn't give the board game free publicity. But that is irrelevant. They gave it oxygen, so it is notable. I hope people don't conflate the issue of whether the game ought to be notable with whether or not it actually is. Andjam 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that it hasn't any oxygen for a while now. Even if it seemed notable at the time, with hindsight, it wasn't. IMHO, of course. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI have summarised the content per my suggestion above. Even if the article remains it is a reasonable addition to the race riot article Ga rr ie 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 01:41, 13 January 2007 Jimfbleak deleted "Kalicharan Banerjee" with reason (very short and contextless). Navou ^banter 12:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been just one sentence for months and has had a {{notability}} on it since October of last year. Who is he? Did he even exist? No expansion. No links to this article also puts notability into question. Delete. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalicharan Banerjee[edit]

Speedy delete under A1 and A7. Iced Kola 06:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1 - no context. Zero google hits outside of Wikipedia mirrors. Resolute 07:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erts[edit]

"The erts are a fictional group of drawing created by Ed Emberley"; appears to be non-notable; some possible nonsense; no relevant G hits [7]. Prod and Prod2 tags were removed by creator. _SUBWAYguy 06:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFT, probably speedy delete, but I can't find the appropriate WP:CSD right now. Sandstein 06:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Probably speedy delete as patent nonsense. Resolute 07:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline patent nonsense. JuJube 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Isn't an "ert" an ancient tree spirit or something? .V. (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Wiktionary or the Chambers or Houghton Mifflin dictionaries. Are you thinking of ent? Tonywalton | Talk 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I hate ents. Also, things made up in one day. .V. (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very much non-notable. JIP | Talk 15:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Genuine, but not really notable even to mention in the main article, hence the change of heart. CiaranG 13:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Merge to Ed Emberley if someone can be bothered to source and salvage the almost incoherent text, otherwise delete. CiaranG 23:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, confirmation that there is indeed such a fictional group of creatures is here. I'm not suggesting it's notable, but as food for thought are we happy that what is probably a very young Wikipedian's first experience of editing is met with phrases such as "patent nonsense" and "incoherent text". It didn't take much effort to research this more thoroughly (initially using Wikipedia). I'm not trying to offend, or point fingers, particularly since having done said research I still came out with the latter phrase. CiaranG 13:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesnt assert notability. John Vandenberg 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. Tizio 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-wing[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:RS as it is completely unreferenced and has no reliable sources either to support notability or to confirm the article's content. Reads like complete cruft as it fails WP:FICT as it is written from a completely non-real-world perspective. No reason to let this turn into yet more listcruft, either. THIS PAGE IS SET AS PRECEDENT, AS PER GUIDELINE STATED. George Leung 06:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 - no assertion of notability Tonywalton | Talk 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean christopher[edit]

Complete vanity pages, fails WP:BIO WP:COI and WP:NOTE, probably should be speedied, but doesn't meet criteria. Haemo 06:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE hard-DE SU 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A7; no assertion of notability.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per Fuhghettaboutit. John Vandenberg 10:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clearly does meet criteria, nowhere in the article does it state why we should give a damn about "Sean christopher". JuJube 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helge Krabye[edit]

autobiographical article, subject may have marginal notability, but fails WP:V Jefferson Anderson 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Respectable number and quality of ghits, seems to be quite notable in Norway and a prolific artist, so there should be no problems with verification. Agent 86 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of him, and I'm from Greece. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When you restrict the search to the full name and exclude Wikipedia (and mirrors giving credit), [8] there aren't very many hits, and his MySpace page is in the top 10. I don't see any independent reliable sources in the top 40. I think the nominator was correct and that this subject is not notable to WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC standards. GRBerry 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand and add sources Alf photoman 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until and unless the article makes sourced claims to notability. Right now it lists projects without any demonstration that any of them might meet WP:MUSIC. I can't find any reliable sources on google. [9] So I have to go with delete until they can be provided. Eluchil404 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless reliable sources are forthcoming. CiaranG 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War 3 Map Series[edit]

non-notable user created maps for Warcraft III. Doesn't quite seem to be a speedy deletion criteria that it would fit under. Prod removed by creator without comment. Resolute 07:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unremarkable WP:NFT content. Delete the images too as probable Blizzard copyvio, no apparent fair use if this article is deleted. Sandstein 07:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creator is also repeatedly removing the AfD notice --Haemo 07:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, he only removed it once, and hasn't done it a second time since I requested that he leave the tag in place on his talk page. Resolute 07:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eminently unnotable. Herostratus 07:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. John Vandenberg 10:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fan-made game maps. JIP | Talk 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not for noting on every mod or fan created item. See WP:NOT, WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 01:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Used 3rd studio album[edit]

Crystal balling an album. Right now there's very little information (the album is not named). Delete and recreate if and when the album is released and gets press coverage. Wafulz 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the article was moved to Berth (album) since I started the AfD. --Wafulz 04:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Berth (album), a duplicate article (right down to the AfD too)
Handsome Awkward, a potential single from the album. Everything in each article is speculation.--Wafulz 04:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete clear crystal-balling--Velvet elvis81 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Tainter 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This debate is confusing. I came to it through Berth (album), but when I clicked on this, it said only The Used 3rd studio album was nominated. Then, when I checked the The Used artice to see where both pages stood on the discgraphy, I saw it only linked to the latter and linked to Berth (CD/DVD), but not the former. Then when I checked what linked to the former, I saw only Handsome Awkward and DumbBOT's archive on the listing. So which page is correct, Berth (album) or The Used 3rd studio album? And are you nominating one of them or both? --Machchunk | make some noise at me 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of the other articles. I think Handsome Awkward and Berth (CD/DVD) are unrelated topics. --Wafulz 04:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I'll nominate Handsome Awkward too actually. This is all confusing- the creator went around and started three articles and essentially crystal-balled them all. --Wafulz 04:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Used. The only usable reference simply states that their next album is due in 2007, so make a mention of that on the band's page and delete this one. —ShadowHalo 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: Please now also comment on Berth (album) and Handsome Awkward, which have not yet been discussed. Note that Berth (album) was apparently cloned (not moved) from The Used 3rd studio album with the AfD tag already in place. Sandstein 07:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a growing trend of speculative articles about upcoming media releases with placeholder names like "upcoming studio album". Is there policy against such articles (if nothing else, it would prevent a clutter of "untitled" redirects being left behind)? Should there be? –Unint 16:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is. --Wafulz 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of WP:CRYSTAL (as if it were possible to come to this page and be unaware). I was hoping for some kind of edict against creating articles for yet-untitled things specifically (as it stands, WP:CRYSTAL technically doesn't apply to the particularly well-sourced ones). –Unint 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable, one album that may be released does not satisfy WP:MUSIC -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 11:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pollute the Sound[edit]

Non-notable song by a band referred to in its article (Drist) as "minor". fuzzy510 07:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, non notable. And check notability of Drist -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its major assertion of notability is POV. —ShadowHalo 04:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Orchids and Ammunition, because the AfD for Orchids and Ammunition is bundled with the one for Drist, so we would only have one AfD to worry about, and it would make things easier. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 10:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 11:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decontrol (song)[edit]

Non-notable song by a band referred to in its article (Drist) as "minor". Song was featured in Guitar Hero, but as you will notice from the sequel's page, even some of the tracks by established major artists don't have their own articles. fuzzy510 07:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, non notable. And check notability of Drist -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Orchids and Ammunition, because the AfD for Orchids and Ammunition is bundled with the one for Drist, so we would only have one AfD to worry about, and it would make things easier. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 10:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why bother merging the articles? Just leave them as is, they'll all be deleted in due time. --fuzzy510 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 11:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arterial Black[edit]

Non-notable song by a band referred to in its article (Drist) as "minor". Song was featured in Guitar Hero II, but as you will notice from the game's page, even some of the tracks by established major artists don't have their own articles. fuzzy510 07:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, non notable. And check notability of Drist -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Orchids and Ammunition, because the AfD for Orchids and Ammunition is bundled with the one for Drist, so we would only have one AfD to worry about, and it would make things easier. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 10:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as obvious WP:POINT nomination. Already tagged for cleanup. — brighterorange (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Enterprise[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Due to precedent with RX-78, I think its notability is about the same, if not less. George Leung 07:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable given the long, long history of the name in the Star Trek universe. Resolute 07:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not meant to circumvent cleanup tags. Love the precedent though. Kyaa the Catlord 07:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep - Certainly notable and verifiable. VegaDark 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment If its notable and verifiable, someone should do the needful and clean up the article. There are no sources, no attempt to fulfill WP:NOTE, and it is filled with fanboy cruft. I'm voting keep cause this should be easily cleaned up but it shouldn't have gotten this far. Kyaa the Catlord 08:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a joke? Fails WP:FICT? Sure the article is poorly written, but Star Trek is one of the most popular franchises on the planet.
Keep But your right, it needs to be sourced. EnsRedShirt 08:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Procedural Keep due to bad faith nomination Violation of WP:POINT by nominator. See this edit. The nominator directly copies the nomination text from another AFD he disagrees with. (Actually the Star Trek Enterprise article is significantly better than the original version of the Gundam robot article in the other afd, so the nomination doesnt even make much sense - the star trek article here avoids the non-real-world perspective to a much more satisfactory extent for instance, and also has significantly better though not great referencing, and it avoids being a dumping ground for a mountain of fancruft the original Gundam robot article was). Bwithh 08:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Bwithh 08:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has quite clearly announced his intention to violate WP:POINT here [10]. --Folantin 08:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I like Star Trek, I have not looked at articles on it before. Of course this is notable and verifiable. I liked the links to real ships called Enterprise. It just needs a bit of cleanup and some sources. The nominator does seem to be trying to drive home a point. --Bduke 08:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep — Disruptive Afd, violation of WP:POINT. Requiring cleanup is not a valid deletion reason. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is part of a fannish WP:WG, nominator may be making a point but he is not wrong in nominating this article. Unsourced original research badly cobbled together. If no one is bothered to bring this article up to shape, may as well delete without prejudice. A lot of the keeps are basically sentimental WP:ILIKEIT due to the Star Trek connection. BUT, if no one is willing to work on it for it to become a proper encyclopedic article, it should be deleted from Wikipedia. --Eqdoktor 09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its just a case of lazy complacency making for a bad encyclopedia. Just because its related to Star Trek does not give it a pass for automatic inclusion into Wikipedia. I consider this a wakeup call to improve the quality of the article. --Eqdoktor 09:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A poorly written article shouldn't be a valid reason for deletion.RiseRobotRise 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Procedural Keep due to bad faith nomination as above. Seriously, WP:POINT is an important guideline. --Haemo 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not making a point. it's about following the general wish, as illustrated by numerous editors who believe that these a lot valid
Speedy keep: explicit WP:POINT violation. --Pak21 09:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Comment: Okay... so I agree at this point it is WP:POINT. However, if RX-78 does get delete, it does prove that such action is valid. I apologize for the inconvience, but from our point of view, Star trek is as much cruff as Gundam. either both can coexist, or both can't. In fact, in Japan, more people know about Gundamthan Star Trek... you know, the whole worldview thing, so honestly, I am real pissed at Gundam being targeted simply because it's not "notable" in Western world. Once again, I hope that the Gundam articles will not get shot down left and right, else next time it's done here, it's no longer a WP:POINT, but by a precedent.George Leung 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bwithh You can either improve Gundam itself, or stop being a troll. I would not mind setting it for only RX-78-2, since that's the only thing really important. No need to delete the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Leung (talk • contribs)

- - Actually, I did not !vote to delete the whole specific gundam RX-whatever robot thingy article (I asked for one section to be deleted and another to be kept so long as its claims could be referenced properly) and there is no afd as far as I know regarding the main Gundam article which I have never commented on or edited. The burden of verifying the article rests on the content creators, not the commentators in AFD. I often run refs searches in afds but the provocative comments by certain Gundam Project editors in the AFD did not exactly encourage me to do so in this case. And notifying others that someone is abusing WP:POINT is not trolling. Bwithh 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, I don't understand the rush to speedy keep. A lousy article is a lousy article is a lousy article. Being related Star Trek does not give it an automatic exemption from Wikipedia guidelines for WP:V and WP:NOR. And if no one is interested in getting it up to standard, it should just be deleted without prejudice. The nomination is correct. In fact, if the original AFD is withdrawn, I will be reinstating it; and it won't be tainted by WP:POINT and it will be a good faith nomination. --Eqdoktor 11:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And i can almost guarantee that if you do that it will be speedily kept per WP:SNOW. EnsRedShirt 11:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Putting cleanup or other relevant tags on the article, or raising questions in the talk page, or even being bold and attempting to directly solve the article's alleged faults, is the way to solve content problems. AfD should be reserved for cases where the existence of the article itself is questionable under Wikipedia policy. Orderinchaos78 12:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and preferably delete the disruptive user. CiaranG 11:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Orderinchaos78 12:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Patently Obvious Keep - Even if you can ignore WP:SNOW and WP:POINT, this is an article on a (if not the) common element in an entire realm of fiction which spans almost 50 years, countless mediums and has been the subject of relatively innumerable articles in third-party sources, many in respectable and reputable mainstream publications. Properly source, properly justified for notability. Written in an out-of-universe perspective, no less. The article should be kept indefinitely and the nominator should be drawn and quartered. (In a figurative, Wikipedia-esque sense, of course) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 12:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I also note that George Leung has also made bad faith nominations of the A-Wing and Luke Skywalker from Star Wars. (these were speedy kept) Bwithh 13:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a WP:POINT nomination in retaliation for all of the mindless Gundam AFDs, (listed here) and I have already warned to nominator not to do this. But regardless, Gundam is just as big in Japan and east Asia as Star Wars and Star Trek are in the West. The three franchises should be treated equally instead of two being speedy keep because they are well known by English editors while the other gets deleted because of WP:DONTKNOWIT. --Farix (Talk) 14:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superkeep Eh? .V. (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I totally disagree with the AfD of the RX-78 Gundam, since its worldwide fame and importance to the story is comparable, say, to Luke Skywalker, the X-Wing, the Enterprise, Vulcans and Klingons, etc., but this is entirely the wrong way to go about defending the most notable Gundam articles from deletion. You say that Bwithh is trolling, and yet you fail to realize you yourself are trolling too, nominator. Maikeru 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trolling in the Gundam robot thingy afd. I objected to the combative tone (in comments to everyone not just me) of one or two Gundam fan editors and I tried to explain what I considered good sources to show "cultural influence" should be, and apparently this is offensive to some people Bwithh
Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination. This person also nominated Luke Skywalker for deletion, so... AGF and all, but this should give you an idea of where his heart is at. -/- Warren 15:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:SNOW. 23skidoo 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator seems to be angry about some Gundam thing or another. I'm not into all this pop-culture stuff, even though it seems to be what Wikipedia is good at, but this is nearly notable enough for a mainstream encyclopedia.--T. Anthony 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Duh. JIP | Talk 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. May this article live long and prosper. Dekimasu 17:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete.--Hús ö nd 15:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thenjscene.com[edit]

Unremarkable web content. Bringing here only because the creator and an anon are repeatedly removing speedy deletion tags. Speedy delete as blatant advertising (G11), nonsense (G1) and probably as an attack page (G10) Resolute 07:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense, etc. Rather than bringing here, you can warn with {{drmspeedy}} followed by escalating templates in that series, and after a final warning, followed by a subsequent removal, post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy delete' It's my site and I did not create this page nor did I ask anyone to do so for advetising purposes. Someone said in discussion that simply existing does not make it notable. The same could be said of some towns that have wikipedia entries. But yes delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chadamir (talk • contribs) 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete, appears to have started as an article on a non notable forum. Nuttah68 12:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as per everyone else. .V. (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. An article being here for the sole purpose of allowing people to remember something is not what Wikipedia is for - Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Core desat 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle For Europe[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, asserts no claim to notability and has no reliable sources. BJ^Talk 07:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not to mention doesn't meet WP:MOS. Evan Reyes 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--Rudjek 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tournament is now ended, this is required by many people to remember the tournament.Crisp

Keep IM SICK OF THIS. THERE IS NO ATRICLES ON tournaments. AND THERE SHOULD BE! [22ndCW]Dell970 16:38, 17 January 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 Merge and Redirect to List of Hispanic porn stars. Avi 04:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latina porn stars[edit]

Already served Category:Hispanic porn stars. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. .V. (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Lists and Categories can easily and happily coexist. Jcuk 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Perhaps, but this one is incorrectly titled (list articles should be "List of..."), and is redundant with List of Hispanic porn stars. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vote changed to Merge with list of Hispanic porn stars upon disclosure of new information. Jcuk 20:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to list of Hispanic porn stars then. — brighterorange (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. We definitely need one of these, since lists are far more informative than cats. For example, it would be nice if the list gave some basic bio details, age, nationality, etc. You can't do that with a cat. --JJay 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep TSO1D 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of species in fantasy fiction[edit]

Already covered by Category:Fantasy creatures. Furthermore, the list is poorly mantained (how are Cosmo and Wanda species?) and it is impossible to list every fictional species. SeizureDog 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not really maintainable even, although I have tried. Also, there's too much overlap with folkloric/mythical creatures, as most authors using such creatures will try to put their own spin on them. The idea of listing the origins of the most important fantasy creatures is a good one, except it will be hard to source their "most important" status. Ben Standeven 09:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. You know. It seems here lately that a large number of articles have come under the gun of Deleation. From list of Television Stations, articles on people and cities, to Monster list. I wonder why thats happening? This list, While it may need a bit of clean up, is fine as it is. Magnum Serpentine 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Making an observation about recent AfD trends is not a valid "keep" reason. Axem Titanium 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered by the category. JIP | Talk 15:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No list is ever "already covered by the category", they serve completly different functions, and should coexist. Seriously, it's getting to the point where I feel like nominating categories based on the fact the list they sit side by side with have been deleted! Jcuk 17:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stating what you do about categories whose "companion list" is deleted is not a valid "keep" reason. A list article that simply repeats what appears in a category is redundant. Axem Titanium 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I really do not see why this should be deleted. 96T 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply misunderstanding the nominator is not a valid "keep" reason. Axem Titanium 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates the category, except in that it also contains WP:OR and misinformation. GassyGuy 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, unmanageable and too broad in the worst way. WP:NOT#IINFO. Not a notable topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Axem Titanium 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A list allows editors to mention topics that do not have a full article of their own, and provide a link to a topic that does. Eludium-q36 11:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we need a list of lists of species in fantasy fiction? With links to articles dedicated to individual worlds?Ben Standeven 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it serves a comparative function for those studying such matters. Zahir13 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Keep Wikipedia has the potential to expand the normal range of regular encyclopedias. for roaming-learners such as myself, this is a very useful tool. Ben Shalom 1:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep though I would ask that this list be annotated. BTW, problem with Cosmo being an entry was easy to fix. Removed, not a problem. If all you can do is provide one minor error, I'm not concerned. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The bigger problem is that it only includes species from a handful of series. There are no standards for which series are included, and it's impossible to list species from every fantasy fiction series ever. --SeizureDog 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider that a big problem, if the list were too long because of that, separate lists for each series would be the thing to do. FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would rather make such a split sooner rather than later; anyway, I think most of the series have their own separate lists already. In fact, several links lead to the separate lists. Ben Standeven 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as a copyvio. BryanG^(talk) 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrystones[edit]

Contested prod. Reason was No third-party independant reliable sources for foundation policy to be met with, and for me is non-notable, and in addition it has become basically spam advertising for the band since I added the prod. Delete. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom (and the article is almost incomprehensible). --Duke of Duchess Street 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#G12, and so tagged. Blatant copyright infringement of myspace page. Ohconfucius 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep All. Nishkid 64 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of species in fantasy fiction[edit]

Group nomination for the following:
Category:Lists of legendary creatures

If all of these lists are deleted.

List of legendary creatures

Covered by Category:Legendary creatures.

List of legendary creatures by type

The only list I can see maybe saving. Some types are covered by their own categories, but otherwise there seems to be too many sections and ways of breaking them up to where it ends up looking like a mess.

List of creatures that pretend to be human

Covered by Category:Shapeshifting. Also, too short to warrent its own list.

List of demons

Covered by Category:Demons. There are also narrower categories for each religion, so not much of the extra information in the list is lost.

List of dragons

Covered by Category:Dragons. List does have some minor description of each which is good for a list, but it is overwhelming dominated by the fictional dragons, which is frankly a bit out of hand. The five redlinks are the real victums here.

List of giants in mythology and folklore

Covered by Category:Giants. We lose one redlink.

List of Greek mythological creatures

Covered by Category:Greek legendary creatures.

SeizureDog 09:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Probably not a good idea to do this as a group, since there are varying article states and reasons for deletion. Here are my comments:

Strong Keep - List of legendary creatures by type appropriate list that introduces information and classifies components. Improve the article or clean it up. List of dragons - appropriate list that introduces much information and classifies components. There's actually scores of redlinks - agreed that it could use a bath. This is also a sub-article of Dragon that is a valuable overflow.~~Delete~~ - Category:Lists of legendary creatures (would be a short list at this point), List of creatures that pretend to be human - not technically the same as Category:Shapeshifting, but I don't think the distinction is necessary. List of demons - fully covered by multiple cats. List of giants in mythology and folklore - fully covered by cat, will stub the one redlink if I can ref. List of Greek mythological creatures - fully covered by cat.

Comment - List of legendary creatures - mostly covered by cat, but there seems to be several sub-topics and quite a few redlinks. Needs cleanup.

And I assume someone is actually adding the category to the articles (it's missing on almost every spot check I did) before the list is deleted? (changed per comments below - this just isn't a good grouping) Kuru ^talk 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy extremely pissed off keep based on my arguments set out above. Wikipedia is not paper, categories most certainly do NOT supercede lists, lists are extremely useful for pointing out articles that need creating. Jcuk 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for one thing Greek mythology != fantasy fiction-Doc^g 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Break group nom into individual noms, this approach is not workable -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Lists can coexist with categories if the list is designed to include more information, which many of these are. Mass nomination of mostly unrelated topics is not a good idea. Resolute 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decide case by case. Categories do not make lists unnecessary or undesirable. Fg2 01:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with the option to review any individual articles for other reasons at a later date. I do not understand people who insist that categories completely replace lists. Perhaps they are more useful for you, but speaking for myself, I would rather look at a well-done list than a category every time. That said, it possible these lists do need to be improved, and I would recommend doing so. At the least, the top one would be much better if it described each species. FrozenPurpleCube 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Manticore. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all without prejudice to re-nominating each article individually. Nominator is trying to include too much in one nomination. Eludium-q36 11:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Lists have definite reference value outside of the detailed categories defining the subject of the lists. Zahakiel 04:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Some of these (like the Giant list) are pretty clear keeps in my view. Others are closer but they the scrutiny of an individual AfD. Eluchil404 09:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 05:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional television shows[edit]

Delete - thoroughly indiscriminate list, collecting everything from shows which play a significant role in another show to one-off parodies to throwaway references to shows that never actually appear on-screen. Otto4711 09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not a big fan of such lists, but this one actually has some potential for usefulness. Needs to be organized, maybe improve upon the introduction, but it looks OK to me. 23skidoo 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jcuk 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reasoning? Guess not. Axem Titanium 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is interesting. TonyTheTiger 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your logic for keeping does not follow, per WP:ILIKEIT. Axem Titanium 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no need for the deletion of these lists. I find them useful for reference and I'm always looking for things to add to them. Sure, some may just be a passing reference by title, but some people do search for them. Tartan 23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people are actually searching by fictional show title, which is preferable: to be taken to a list of thousands of other shows or to be taken to an article either about the show (if it's notable) or to the source material? Otto4711 23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would like the option of all. We shouldn't have to choose. Tartan 23:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable list, fictional television shows, if you see a problem with the current criteria, suggest a more limited one if you feel it is appropriate. That may be a sustainable argument. However, that doesn't mean deletion, just clean-up. Since I see the value of having such a collated list (especially when most of the entries do not deserve an article of their own), I say keep. FrozenPurpleCube 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-organizaed and acceptable scope.-- danntm ^T _C 03:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, thoroughly unencyclopedic and nonnotable topic, completely WP:NOT#IINFO. Axem Titanium 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another fictional list nomination and discussion citing non-existent WP:NOT criteria, or misapplying the "indiscriminate" guideline, none of the points of which apply here. Scope and discrimination of list seems perfectly acceptable to me, also seems pretty well-organised and annotated where appropriate. --Canley 13:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding only to the idea that "none of the points" of WP:NOT apply here...the points noted at WP:NOT#IINFO are nt exhaustive and nothing in the document indicates that they are intended to be. Is "collection of every non-existent TV show ever mentioned in passing in some other medium" one of the listed points? No. Does that mean that the policy precludes such a collection from being considered an indiscriminate collection of information? Of course not. As I noted in another of these, List of all Americans who own cats isn't prohibited by the letter of the policy. Do you think such a list wouldn't get deleted as indiscriminate and unmaintainable? Otto4711 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional companies. --Canley 12:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Not a straw man argument at all. You're misunderstanding WP:FICT. Otto4711 13:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw cat argument then. So, would you agree that WP:NOT is an incomplete guideline, which can or may never satisfy any objective standard for completeness? --Canley 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure as to what you think quoting that portion of WP:NOT does toward supporting your case. WP:FICT advises to use lists for minor items within a work of fiction. It does not suggest using one list to try to capture every single example of something fictional regardless of its importance to the work from which it's derived. WP:NOT instructs that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. If there were a List of fictional television shows from X then that would be a reasonable, focused list in line with WP:FICT and, most likely, a discriminated list in line with WP:NOT. A list of fictional television programs drawn from every source which includes such a program regardless of whether that program plays some actual roles within the real show or whether the program is merely mentioned in a line of dialog in a single episode, never to be heard of again, does not conform to WP:FICT or WP:NOT. Otto4711 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to clarify, I'm not saying that WP:NOT supports my case - I'm saying that WP:NOT doesn't support your case either. And in the lack of policy on the matter, all we're left with is your opinion, my opinion and the community's opinion, which is looking more and more like it wants to keep these lists. --Canley 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't an absence of policy. WP:NOT is policy and it prohibits indiscriminate lists by virtue of prohibiting indiscriminate collections of information. There is certainly a difference of opinion as to whether this list is indiscriminate which, frankly, I don't get because of the tremendously wide net the list casts in capturing material, but trying to consense on whether the list is indiscriminate or not is not the same thing as the policy's not applying. WP:FICT is a guideline for lists of fictional things and it counsels against lists across multiple source materials. Otto4711 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to keep harping on about this, and I promise I'm not being deliberately obtuse or obstructive here, but where does WP:FICT counsel against lists from multiple source materials? I've read and re-read it and I can see nothing that even remotely backs up that assertion. I'll happily admit I'm wrong about this if you can point out the line or section you're referring to (I assume you don't mean the discussion page). I see what you mean about WP:NOT, but, perhaps unfortunately, policy is formed by consensus, and there is no consensus otherwise there would be an explicit reference to lists. As I said, we'll have to rely on the community's judgement on a case-by-case basis - decisions I'll be happy to accept. --Canley 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:FICT is the notion of creating lists across works supported. Every example is presented in terms of items within a work of fiction. The broadest capture that WP:FICT endorses is within works set within the same fictional universe (such as Horses of Middle-earth) "Counsels against" may be a bit on the strong side but not by much. But even setting aside WP:FICT I still contend that the plain language of WP:NOT is more than enough to delete a list which seeks to capture every fictional television show from every medium with no regard to the importance of those shows either in the fictional universe it's from or outside it. Just because there is not a specific entry in WP:NOT that talks about lists does not mean that WP:NOT does not justify this and other similar deletions. I honestly do not understand how someone can look at this list and think that it isn't indiscriminate. I don't get how someone can legitimately look at this list of however many hundred or thousand entries it is, gathering everything from The Alan Brady Show which was actually integral to its source program to something like Admiral Baby from The Simpsons which was a two-sentence joke in a series that's generated hundreds of hours of content, and think that it's useful for research or encyclopedic or discriminating. Usually when a debate about something like this gets contentious I can still see some merit in the argument of the other side but here I can't. Otto4711 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good list, not indescriminate. AndyJones 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable list for reseaching fictional works.Lumos3 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep This, like many other lists in this group of nominations are good for both browsing & research. A reason for deletion is not: I'll never use it.DGG 19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete All. Nishkid 64 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tralix[edit]

The article does not establish its notability, and a web search on Tralix (800 hits) indicates that third party sources are unlikely. John Vandenberg 09:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also not notable:

John Vandenberg 09:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created more than a year ago and still non-notable. Delete also the related pages. Mushroom (Talk) 09:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's pretty obvious this is spam. .V. (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in this WP:WG per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete all, advert/non notable -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictitious films[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list of items drawn from wide variety of unrelated sources, ranging from films which figure to an important degree to one-off parodies to films mentioned in passing throwaway lines. Otto4711 09:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's certainly a very extensive list. .V. (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reasons I gave in the TV Show version. Potentially useful, and it's worth noting several of these "fictitious films" are in fact notable in their own right, such as See You Next Wednesday. Could use some improvement in terms of formatting, but that's grounds for deletion. 23skidoo 15:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jcuk 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per Otto4711--SUIT⁴² 18:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is one of the lists you have put up for deletion which I believe deserves to stay the most. A lot of people have obviously put a lot of effort into it and quite a few of the entries have their own articles, which is always useful to have in the one place along with others that do not have them. It is a substantial list and very useful! Tartan 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, very few of the fictitious films have separate entries. Almost all of the linked film titles link to the film that the fictitious film is parodying. Otto4711 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you disagree with the current criteria for the list, suggest a change. There is no reason for deletion here. FrozenPurpleCube 03:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a well organized list of defined scope.-- danntm ^T _C 03:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It will constantly need to be updated, however, it's quite well put-together as is. SkierRMH,04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with the Strong Keep above. This is a really cool list, too. Horcado 05:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, the subject is not notable, the list is indiscriminate and unmanageable, just because the concept of fictional films exists doesn't mean Wikipedia must document it. Axem Titanium 05:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Excellent list: useful navigational tool, full of valid and encyclopedic information. Squarely within WP:LIST. Not indescriminate. Tag it for WP:V cleanup then nominate it as a featured list. And don't delete it. AndyJones 13:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST largely deals with the form of lists, not the content of them. Otto4711 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valuable list for reseaching fictional works.Lumos3 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry (racehorse)[edit]

Nonnotable and very little content. K e rowyn ^{Leave a note} 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess, although I'm not sure what the notability criteria for horses are. The Grand National is apparently "the biggest betting race in the United Kingdom," so winning it seems fairly notable. "Very little content" is not necessarily a reason to delete -- mark it as a stub instead. Zagalejo 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, racehorses are athletes and running in the Grand National is surely competing at the top level per WP:BIO. See also the several blue-linked articles at Grand_National#1836-1849. --Dhartung | Talk 21:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Grand National is one of the very few horse races with general name recognition in the UK, and can reasonably be seen as the pinnacle of horse achievement. Would suggest that all Grand National winners are notable. Eludium-q36 11:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the convincing arguments made above. RFerreira 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid 64 14:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jain irrigation[edit]

Already deleted twice as spam/advertising for a non-notable company. I was tempted to follow suit, but it seems to be a fairly large corporation — I was hoping that editors who are familiar with Indian culture could help out here. In any case, an AfD would settle the matter and open to door to protect the article in the future if necessary, since the creator seems determined to keep posting it up. Tijuana Brass 09:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this organization is big multinational. Operating in more than 100 countries, they have open to all large 500 Acres Research and demonstration center, training institutes for farmers, government officials. First time in India who brought drip irrigation and currently on top with 60% market share. Struggling to give farmers a status and drip irrigation as infrastructure industry within India. I like there mission of Organization 'Leave this world better than you found it'. Chairman respected Bhavarlal Jain bestowed with 'Significant Contribution to the Irrigation Industry outside the United States.' instituted by Irrigation Association, U.S.A. I will like to add there page in biography. Lisasam 10:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page for review, please see talk page of Jain Irrigation

Thanks Tijuana and Lisasam for your views,

In my views I am creating informative page, already page was under review by another administrator and need your attention to it's talk page. Request to review it with WP:CORP guidelines for the page, if you have any suggestions that are welcome. Deletion is a extreme step, and persons who have worked on it, they got there time & resources in vain need to consider it. Deepm 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a leading hi-tech agriculture Company and more... Jain Irrigation is the only company in the world that produces complete Drip Irrigation Systems including PVC Pipes, PVC Fittings, poly tubing and fittings, emitters, filtration equipment, and fertigation equipment under one roof. Had lot of other product manufacturing, service and support divisions. Subsidiaries of Jain Irrigation are in the USA, Europe and Africa, In India it has more than 8 plants, 58 Offices, 23 depots and 1262 distributor's. Other than India approx 5 offices, 380 distributor's, 7 Agents. Manufacturing more than 1000 products. I think this is enough to add this organizations page in WIKIPEDIA. Jisl 14:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spy a conflict of interest... Guy (Help!) 16:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, sales of 150 Mio EUR is not small, but not gigantic either. Same for third largest dehydrated onion producer in the world. In any case, rewrite to make it less promotional and change the history, where the family history is included back to 1887 -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this is a notable company. However jisl should not be editing it; I suggest jisl read and understand WP:COI. I've moved the page to give it an appropriate name and capitalization. Akihabara 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that — I should have done so before creating the AfD. Tijuana Brass 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, Akihabara — As a newcomer I was unaware of the WP:COI, sorry for contributing this page, stopping to edit it any more. Jisl 05:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if notability cannot be asserted using reliable sources (WP:RS) - at present I dont believe it meets the requirements of WP:CORP MidgleyDJ 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's in the BSE 500. While I'm cautious to claim being in an index as broad as 500 necessarily denotes notability, I think if you look at the link it would be in the top 200 by market capitalization. Akihabara 05:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keepIf we delete this there are a few thousand other ones. Do I perceive a certain amount of skepticism about Indian organisations?DGG 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ya, its a big and notable organization, I personally met founder chairman, a notable person and very impressed for his & his families devotion for farmers, society (They have founded Jain Charities for social responsibility and environmental concerns). See lot of remarks include Christopher Forbes, Vice Chairman, Forbes Magazine, Vice President, Chiquita Brands Inc., Processed Fruit Ingredients, U.S.A./Mexico etc. who visited the organization. Corrected 1887 reference hope it is up to the mark Aldenan 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the article a little today to try and give a better idea of what there is to look at. The history section is actually a copyvio of the Jain website and will need a big rewrite (if kept at all). I'm still holding off from offering any opinion about the notability of this company, but I wanted to let it have a fair shot of surviving this AfD. It can be tough to work in articles on subjects that are foreign to the mostly Western editors here (myself included, of course). While there are plenty of poor reasons offered above for keeping the article — the founder may be a nice guy, but that doesn't make him of encyclopedic importance — I wouldn't want to be too quick to delete this one. Tijuana Brass 10:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's part of the BSE 500 stock market index, a direct qualifier under WP:CORP. The comments in the AfD suggests "Lets delete this article in order to save it". --Oakshade 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Let it grow! not seems an advertisement, better than Microsoft and other WP:CORP pages. This is a big fast growing orgnisation from India refer List of conglomerates in Maharashtra and lot of news links, like [11] [12] [13]. You can visit there link or google if you don't know about it. We have to work (like Tijuana Brass) on pages similar to this to improve Wiki and not only argue. I agree with DGG if need to delete there are thousand, including said. Yogita t 12:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but edit out POV comments like "they came to be recognized as a reputable, trustworthy and prestigious house", "high standards of performance", "strong sense of commitment" etc unless it can be sourced. Comments like that is the reason the original article (Jain irrigation, see log) was speedy deleted in the first place. - TexMurphy 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional radio stations[edit]

Delete - another indiscriminate collection of insignificant stuff. Otto4711 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Otto4711, not sourced either. Gan fon 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly good list. Jcuk 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is fine and is useful. To Ganfon: I don't see how you can get sources for everything, especially TV episodes and books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tartan (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Well, that you can't get sources for it, kind of means it isn't verifiable and as thus... unencyclopedic. And then it should be gone! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable, unverifiable, unencyclopedic. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced article. Note that there is no article on Fictional radio stations. In general, there should not be a "list of X" unless there is a valid, encyclopedic article on X. Fictional radio stations is not an encyclopedic topic, so neither is a list of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no need to have an article on fictional radio stations to justify this list (though I suppose one could argue for the creation of such a page, I wouldn't know where to start with it myself). however, this doesn't change the fact that fictional radio stations are real, used in fiction, and as such, someone interested in such a thing might want to have a collated list of them. It is completely sourceable, and verifiable. IF you don't believe me, take WNYX or WKRP. Completely easy to verify that they are indeed fictonal radio stations. If there are any entries on the list you can't source, then remove them. Exaggerating by claiming the entries on the list itself aren't verifiable is not a reasonable argument though. FrozenPurpleCube 03:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm not crazy about the organization, but it is verifiable (thru cross-checking the fiction source material with the FCC database) and a manageable scope.-- danntm ^T _C 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with danntm that the organization/presentation needs a bit of work; and for sourcing, a goodly number of these are already linked to articles, and several have external links. SkierRMH,04:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the twelve stations with links, three of them (including both of the external links) are for real radio stations (which I will be removing as soon as I finish typing this) and one just links to the article for Brixton as opposed to anything to do with the fictional station. Another argument for deletion IMHO, if people can't figure out not to add real stations to a list called "fictional radio stations." Otto4711 04:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is open to anybody, any page can be impacted with that sort of mislinking. The solution to that is fixing it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, just because they exist (sort of) doesn't mean a Wikipedia article needs to be made listing them. WP:NOT#IINFO, all the way. Axem Titanium 05:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily maintained, absolutely verifiable from both primary and secondary sources. WP:NOT#IINFO? I'm baffled, which part applies so rigourously to these fictional list articles, Axem?--Canley 13:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As already stated above, this is a useful and maintainable list. The basis for deletion of this is a bit murky at best. RFerreira 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not indescriminate, not unmaintanable, content not insignificant. AndyJones 14:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list Lumos3 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's usefulness does not matter. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That page clearly says it is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Tartan 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Verifiable and useful. Doesn't fail any WP:NOT - Peregrine Fisher 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional television stations[edit]

Delete another indiscriminate trivia list. Otto4711 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly good list that provides far more information than a mere category could ever hope to do. Jcuk 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another list which is useful and interesting. I really don't see why you want rid of them. Tartan 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topic is so interesting, why isn't there an article on Fictional television stations? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced article. Note that there is no article on Fictional television stations. In general, there should not be a "list of X" unless there is a valid, encyclopedic article on X. Fictional television stations is not an encyclopedic topic, so neither is a list of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, WP:NOT#IINFO, just because these fictional television stations exist (sort of) doesn't mean Wikipedia has to list them. "Useful" and "interesting" are not valid keep reasons. These are of questionable notability besides. Axem Titanium 05:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought I had weighed in here as well, but I guess I missed it. Complaints about sourcing are meaningless, if a given entry can't be sourced, it can be removed. Others easily can be sourced though, as their information is already found on Wikipedia. If it doesn't belong here, then it should be removed from there as well. Complaints about no article existing on fictional television stations misses the point that articles do exist for both television station and for the media these fictional stations appear in. See also other nominations on this same subject for further argument. FrozenPurpleCube 04:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep annotated and useful as a research/navigational tool and not indescriminate and squarely within WP:LIST and lots of information would be lost to the project if deleted and not redundant with a category and blah-di-blah-di-blah AndyJones 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable list for reseaching fictional works.Lumos3 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of "It's useful" here, it seems... may I suggest a reading of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But remember it is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Tartan 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Otto4711 and I are having a major disagreement across several AfDs over the definition of "indiscriminate information" and other aspects of policy. I don't agree with such subjective application or interpretation of vague guidelines as a deletion criterion, and in such cases I'm happy to bow to the community's wishes to delete if general consensus considers a list too obscure or too broad. In this case, I believe the inclusion criteria are sound, the article is well maintained and annotated, so I suggest keep. --Canley 06:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping. "Useful" is also not a reason unless accompanied by a reason why its useful. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. WP:NOT explicitly applies here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep TSO1D 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional companies[edit]

Delete - another indiscriminate, unmaintainable list. Otto4711 10:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This list collects in one place what may otherwise be created as separate stub articles. It also avoids the creation of one or more categories for these stub articles. Val42 16:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet another useful list Jcuk 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Val42. I don't see what's indiscriminate about it. — brighterorange (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's indiscriminate about it is that almost every book, TV episode, film, comic book, etc. has at least one fictional company in it. If every such example of a fictional company were added to this list, the article would have tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of entries. There is no way that such a list can be useful or encyclopedic. Take a show like Bewitched as just one example, that takes place partly within the context of an advertising agency. Would Wikipedia become more useful if someone added every single client that Darrin ever wrote copy for to this list article? Otto4711 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unmaintainable -Doc^g 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list would have several million entries if it were to ever be complete. I would guess that more fictional companies are created than we could possibly add to this list. How many books, stories, films, television series, plays, video games, etc. come out each year? Who decides which of those are notable enough to add the fictional companies mentioned therein to this list? This isn't really an encyclopedic topic and would be impossible to complete and maintain. VegaDark 20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I might just be a fan of list of fictional things, but it is interesting and useful. If it gets too long why not just split it up? Tartan 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc glasgow. Also, where in lies the encyclopedic value? Really? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable collation of material that would otherwise be too diffused for access. No more inherently indiscriminate or unmaintainable that Wikipedia IMHO. I could agree with arguments to develop better criteria, but that's not the same as outright deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 03:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep the list could be better, but I think the scope be reasonable enough.-- danntm ^T _C 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the formatting of these lists is something to be taken up in another forum (some standardization in sorting/format), but this is a good cross-reference for an e-encyclopedia. SkierRMH,05:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, WP:NOT#IINFO. To the closing admin, please note that none of the "keep" votes has managed to cite any form of Wikipedia policy, instead falling into the trap of WP:ILIKEIT arguments. "Valuable collation of material"? Valuable to who? Just because a writer/director/whatever invents a company for their fictional work doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to document it. Notability questions abound. Axem Titanium 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Useful navigational tool. Not indescriminate. Squarely within WP:LIST. AndyJones 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply to this article. List of FAQs, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual, internet guide, textbook, plot summary, lyrics, something made up in school. Clearly none of these guidelines apply. --Canley 13:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come now. You should know better than that. WP:NOT#IINFO is not limited to just those things. A list of all the people in the US who own a cat doesn't fall under any of those guidelines, are you suggesting that such an article would not correctly be removed under the policy? Otto4711 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this argument is that you haven't yet connected this article and the one about cats. People can recgonzie the problem with an article about every cat owner. But that doesn't mean we don't have list of cat breeds or other such lists. The real problem is, there is no policy argument that supports your position, and I just don't see a good articulation of why this list is bad. Sure, it's hard to maintain, it's potentially vast...so is Wikipedia. This list isn't any more impossible to manage than Wikipedia itself. Even if it reached the point where it was far too long, it could be broken up into "list of fictional X from American Media" or "list of fictional X from 20th Century Media" or whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unencyclopedic" and "unmaintainable" and "indiscriminate collection of information" are more than sufficient justification for deleting this article. It does not benefit Wikipedia to have an article consisting of nothing but the names of fictional companies that appeared in some piece of fiction or another. Is there any significance to the vast majority of the named businesses, even within the works themselves? Hard to say, because vast numbers of them offer no assertion of their notability or indeed any indication of what role they play in the narrative from which they are drawn. There is no value to Wikipedia in having a list to include business names that appear on billboards in video games and otherwise play no role in the game. There is no value in a list that gathers the names of, say, fictional groceries where the hero of the story buys his toilet paper. To which your answer undoubtedly will be that such entries should be excised. Which then brings up the inevitable maintainability issues, not to mention POV issues. If you don't like WP:NOT then how about WP:FICT? If this were a list of characters rather than a list of businesses there would be no question that the article should be deleted. Otto4711 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be only your opinion that it's not encyclopedic. However, I disagree. These companies themselves may be the subject of articles themselves, or they may not, but that they can, demonstrates to me that there is potential encyclopedic value to them. This content is real, and if any of it in particular doesn't belong, remove that. And yes, the criteria for this list is very important, and as far as your concerns go, clean-up is an option instead of deletion. I'd say establishing some good criteria would fix your concerns just fine. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to do it. Leave it to someone else to maintain. And I would not agree that there would be no question that these lists would be deleted or not. Your past experience with nominating members of various professions should demonstrate to you that there are questions to it, and valid concerns. So I'm not sure why you think it would be automatically done. While you may think there's no question of deleting these lists, obviously other people do. So perhaps you need to work on either improving your argument, or recognizing where it's not applicable? FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as nominating lists of professions, it remains my opinion that many of the keep opinons were in respnse to procedural concerns rather than the quality of the articles themselves. But that's neither here nor there in regards this discussion. If you can demonstrate in any convincing way that an encyclopedic article can be written about, oh, just picking a few at random, Big Bud Dean Construction from Heathers or Monumental Pictures from Singin' in the Rain or Ace Tomato Company from Spies Like Us then I will cheerfully concede your point. Otto4711 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to convince you of any of those companies, because I don't believe that they should have an article, though admittedly, I don't know much about any of them, so I really would refrain from expressing anything about them. Of the three entries you named, I only know I've seen one, and that was years ago. I wouldn't even know if they really were in the material. Personal ignorance therefore trumps argument. If you're concerned about those entries, bring it up to the people who added them. Besides, there is no requirement than a list be composed solely of entries with articles. Or even primarily. Still, even if they were, that the material they appeared in has a Wikipedia article is enough for me. And I think the general consensus is that almost any non-self published fictional work is going to be kept. Therefore, I believe that the standard you've created is a false one, and unsupported by Wikipedia practice. If you want me to agree to it, you're going to have to convince me of it first. And as far as the fictional professions go, while some opinions were on that reasons, many others were for actual ones. You should go back and look at them. There are real arguments there, not just procedurally kept ones. FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's precisely my point, and the point of WP:FICT and WP:NOT. That something has a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that every aspect of it should be noted somewhere on Wikipedia. In tonight's episode of Desperate Housewives, Lynette mentioned two companies in single lines of dialog that she wrote ad campaigns for. These companies have never been mentioned before, it's highly unlikely that they'll ever be mentioned again, and we know absolutely nothing about them other than one of them once ran a commercial involving fleas dancing the tango. By your standard, those two companies which mean absolutely nothing in the grander scheme of the work of fiction should be included in the list article. If the criteria for the list are such that these two companies warrant inclusion, then the list is indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody is asking for every aspect of everything. I do not watch Desperate Housewives, so I don't even know if the companies Lynette mentioned were real or not, or whether or not they would be mentioned in a biography about her, or in the episode of the show. The real problem is, your arguments are worth altering the criteria of the list, not arguments for deleting the page. And as far as it goes, I have not developed a standard for this list, the principle I expressed above was not a criteria for inclusion on this list, but for existence of it. Sorry if that was unclear. I thought I had made the point that I did not disagree with the potential value of better inclusion criteria earlier, but I guess you missed it. However, it is still applicable, and you are certainly welcome to bring it up on the talk pages of that page. That's a clean-up problem, not a deletion one. FrozenPurpleCube 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can come up with some criteria that won't make the list become a nightmare of POV and verifiability (which it already is anyway) then feel free. I don't see the value in the list as it stands and I can't think of any inclusion guidelines which would make it any more valuable. Otto4711 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What bugs me in debates like this is that those who want the "lists of fictional whatevers" deleted continually cite policy as an argument, to the point of notes to the closing admin that those recommending to keep are not citing policy. WP:LIST, WP:FICT and the oft-cited WP:NOT - none of these explicitly rule against such lists (and my reading of WP:FICT is that it practically recommends lists instead of an article for each entry). There is no black-and-white policy that "lists of fictional entities" are violating, and you have to ask yourself why? I would say, and this seems to backed up by the keep/no consensus results of the frequent AfDs on the topics, that there is considerable community consensus to keep these lists.

Then out will come a logical fallacy like the straw man argument or the slippery slope fallacy - naming a ridiculously broad and unverifiable list criteria (such as "List of Americans who own cats") and the assertion that if I think some lists are OK then I must want to keep the "List of straw men" as well. I'm not the ardent listcruft inclusionist you may think I am, I'll happily recommend delete where I think it is warranted (see List of fictional time travelers who have visited the Reign of Terror), but until it's there in black-and-white in a policy or even an unambiguous guideline, then I will continue to ~~vote~~ and argue as I see fit based on the merits of each list as I see them. --Canley 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the list component of WP:FICT. The policy doesn't suggest making lists of every fictional thing. It states that minor but encyclopedic things should be listed together rather than broken out into separate articles. So a dozen minor but important characters from the same film or book would have one "list of" article rather than a dozen separate articles. Similarly, if there were a fictional work with several minor but important businesses then a "list of businesses in X" article would be appropriate. Nothing in WP:FICT endorses the notion of gathering thousands of unencyclopedic bits of information into a massive list like this. Otto4711 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that WP:FICT does not forbid or even recommend against these lists - a guideline you have mentioned at least twice above as if it backs up your argument. I'm not saying it justifies or recommends creation of these lists... I am merely questioning your use of these same guidelines to back up your arguments when they do nothing of the sort. If I'm fundamentally misunderstanding these guidelines, which is entirely possible of course, please point out to me the statement(s) you think make your point, rather than saying that what isn't in the guidelines does. --Canley 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT doesn't explicitly forbid creating a list of right-handed fictional characters or fictional characters who are shown milking cows or all sorts of other trivial things. Nor for that matter does WP:FICT explicitly bar creating a list of all characters who have ever appeared in fiction. Would any such list hold up under an AfD? Lord, I hope not. Yet this is exactly the sort of list this is. Even if one were to accept the argument that WP:FICT doesn't explicitly forbid this list so it's therefore acceptable under WP:FICT, it is still a violation of WP:NOT because the list is an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Otto4711 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valuable list for reseaching fictional works. Lumos3 15:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keepSome of the above discussion misses the point . It is not necessary for everybody to find a list useful. The analogies given to justify deletion are all about much more arbitrary subjects. There is a way to avoid redlinks, however: on the page for the work of fiction make a section for the company, and redirect to that sectio (assuming its important enough for a section.)DGG 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list is indiscriminant and overbroad. There are many thousands of possible entries, most with dubious notability. Eluchil404 09:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political cult[edit]

POV essay reflective more of Dennis King's personal views than anything else. General Idea 10:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove content, and rewrite There is a case for a sociological examination of this phenomenon but sadly I can't see anything in this article worth salvaging. One possibility is to get some more sociologically-inclined people in, hit the textbooks and make it a proper article with NPOV assertions with a wide range of sources. I now wish that I had passed first year sociology so that I could more directly assist with this. Orderinchaos78 12:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove content, and rewrite I'd be glad to help out with the rewrite of this article. .V. (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Upon further consideration, I find that the article is in fact well-sourced (or at least sourced enough). Perhaps it needs a bit of editing, but it certainly should be kept. .V. (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The initial suggestion to delete the article is phrased in the same language used by BabyDweezil (a follower of political cult leader Fred Newman who vehemently opposes the inclusion of the Newman group in the list of purported cults in final paragraph of article) on the Discussion Page. The entire paragraph listing purported political cults is properly cited. Any essay by me is on the discussion page, not the article. Most of the article was written by other people although I did add or rephrase stuff to correct what I regarded as misleading impressions. As a recognizedexpert on political cults, I believe that there is no basis for deleting this article, but for vastly improving it. Much of it is properly cited and citations can be found for the scattering of sentences that are not cited. The attack on all writers and scholars in the field as allegedly being former communists turned anti-communists was put in by BabyDweezil to create chaos and can be easily deleted by anyone (if BabyDweezil keeps restoring it, demand arbitration). Again, there is no real basis for deleting the article and I urge readers of this post to go to the "Fred Newman" biography on Wiki and see the totalitarian and demented games that this group is playing on Wikipedia, often using sock puppets.--Dking 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Political cult" is an invention of former Marxists who now oppose their own former groups and involvements. It is not a concept accepted or used outside the "anti-cult" field other than via occassional tabloid coverage of the subject. This is a simple fact, and relevant to any entry on "Political Cults." If Dking has evidence of sock puppetry he should present it instead of attacking those who disagree with him with false charges and his incessant cult-baiting of fellow editors. When I corrected his misleading claim that a book was "praised", King deleted the entire section. When the Marxist Leninist backgrounds of all the authors he cites are noted by me in the article (which seems emininently relevant background on authors who are charging various Marxist groups—in some cases their own former groups--with being "political cults"), King deletes the properly referenced section, claiming in the edit summary "Deleted ad hominen attack by follower of Fred Newman." It's annoying enough that Dennis King continued to use Wikipedia to attempt to publish personal essays, such as this entry and International Workers Party that he cannot find a legitimate publisher for. Yet in addition, he is using personal attacks, cult baiting, charges of sock puppetry, against anyone who challenges this. Very silly. BabyDweezil 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to correct the idea that opposition to political cults is a manifestation of a grudge against former M-L groups that some cult experts were once involved in. First, I was never in a political cult. The PLP, which I left over 30 years ago, has never been accused of cultism by any ex-member to my knowledge nor will one find complaints about it that are much more than criticism of what ex-members or opponents regard as extremely dogmatic politics or the typical Marxist top-down leadership. This is a group that banned Maoist style criticism/self-criticism in the late 1960s and encouraged its members to spend their time with friends, family and co-workers OUTSIDE the party rather than hanging around with each other (that's still its "line" today). As to Janja Lalich, she and most of the leadership and membership of the DWP rose up and expelled their leader (an unstable alcoholic) and voluntarily disbanded the party--who is she supposed to have a grudge against, her fellow rebels? As to Alex Stein, I believe from reading her book that her experiences inside the "O" gave her valuable insights into the nature of cults that she could not have attained in any other way; her former membership in the O speaks to her credibility, not to any prejudice. The same could be said of Tim Wohlforth. I am not aware that the group Prof. Tourish was in was a cult (most Marxist groups are not cults although they tend to elicit high commitment from their members). As to the dean of political cult watchers, Chip Berlet, he was never a member of any communist party or pre-party formation to my knowledge.--Dking 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please keep any discussion here relevant to the AfD. As far as I can tell, the article needs more sources but is otherwise acceptable. The sentences that are marked with a fact tag seem like they could be sourced very quickly (as this idea is certainly not new.) I see no particular POV here; this is an idea that has been in existence for a long time. I see there's an edit war of sorts going on here, but there's no need to start slinging around accusations. .V. (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thoroughly cited. It doesn't matter who made up the term, they made it up a long time ago and lots of people are using it now. Passes WP:N and WP:V. If there's a WP:NPOV problem, that is not an argument for deletion, per WP:AFD: "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." So if there's problems with the article, fix those problems, but there's no grounds for deletion. — coelacan talk — 05:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per General Idea. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Tsunami Butler 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with cult. As it is it's a badly written attack article and a fork of cult. NPOVify and move anything useful to cult. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no sound basis for deletion of this article; it still needs revisions but it is properly sourced and deletion is absurd. Deleting an article simply because certain groups of people disagree with the content/subject matter is not a reason to delete this or any article. GrownUpAndWise 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, term and concept are in wide usage, article is well referenced and cites numerous uses in several different contexts. Article needs some cleanup to remove unsourced POV assertions... Dragomiloff 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with cult or simply delete. The term has scant or no usage in the scholarly literature uotside of the so-called "cultic studies" journal and is simply used pejoratively by political partisans, tabloid journalists or former members of groups with an apparent axe to grind, as elaborated in the article. As a largely pejorative, unscholarly term, doesn't seem any more worthy of an entry than "Bleeding Heart Liberal." BabyDweezil 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "Political cult" is different from a religious cult and deserves some discussion of what it is etc... (and the cleanest and easiest way to do it is in its own article). I'll assume good faith, but casual observors of this debate should be aware that some of those voting for deletion might have mixed motives.... for example I know at least one is a follower of political extremist "Lyndon LaRouche." It's neither surprising nor nefarious that groups that are often labelled as "political cults" would oppose the existence of a Wikipedia article. It's a fairly obvious point, but I just thought I'd mention it so that casual readers are aware of the issue. Mgunn 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course it would be neither surprising nor nefarious that some self-proclaimed "experts" who have a vested interest in giving legitimacy to vague catch-phrases and neologisms like "Political Cult" via a Wikipedia entry might have mixed motives and vote for keeping the article. BabyDweezil 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I favor the inclusion of the "Political Cults" entry. The term is widely accepted by academics and professionals who study the dynamics of group behavior. I will cite just a few examples: Robert Jay Lifton, M.D. Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at John Jay College: "Any student of cultic behavior knows that it can find both political and religious expression." Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer, who recently passed away and was a clinical psychologist and emeritus adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley lists ten major types of cults including "Political" in her book "Cults in Our Midst." Dr. Marc Galanter, Professor of Psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine and editor of the American Psychiatric Association's official report on cults and new religious movements, lists "political groups" among the charismatic groups that form cults (see: "Cults, Faith, Healing and Coercion.") It is understandable that current members of political cults will respond to the term in 2 ways: (1) while recognizing that political cults exist, deny that the particular group they belong to is one or (2) insist that political cults do not exist. If they were to recognize the group they belong to as a cult they would leavce voluntarily, or be forced to leave. I am reminded of the evolution vs. creationism dispute. That a few people disagree with the theory of evolution does not negate the fact that evolution is deeply rooted in fact and accepted by almost all professionals devoted to studying the matter. It is not POV. The term "Political Cults" is not a POV matter either. It is a commonly accepted term to designate specific organizations that do in fact exist and that function in a cultic fashion. I do feel the entry needs some more work. Most important is an explanation of how politics works in such groups just as religion works in other groups. This again is neither POV or OR. There is extensive research on this available that can be cited in the text of the entry.

Tim WohlforthTim Wohlforth 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if citing the book jacket blurb from Lifton from your book qualifies as an example of "wide acceptance" of the term :) BabyDweezil 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a fairly large academic literature on the subject, not all of which is associated with King. 172 | Talk 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama[edit]

Unsourced, unencyclopedic list. Belongs in a TV guide or fansite, not an encyclopedia. Only internal link from an article is from Futurama. Was deleted via prod, and later restored at the request of Suoerh2. --Slowking Man 10:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 11:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --GHcool 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete vandalism. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Topsy-Turvy Show[edit]

This page is a hoax. The IMDB page it lists to in its profile is nonexistent, the infobox is a cut-and-paste from another hoax article, Giddy Goanna (TV Shows), that infobox was dated "2007" yet claims to have 67 episodes, and the article itself is nonsense. The vandal removed the prod tag from it this morning. Vashti 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Del, i encountered a whole bunch of fake TV shows on WP:NPP today. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've been deleting bunches of them for three weeks; unfortunately I can't get anyone to block the vandal. Vashti 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was using at least two usernames User:Topper1235, and User:Ronnuhel that I am aware of. Any others? -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh, hell yes? Have a look here - that's what I've traced and reverted so far. I've been trying to get this #?@* blocked since the 28th December, but blocks are not forthcoming for whatever reason. He's been doing this for at least *three months*. (I'm sorry if that's a little abrupt, I'm just so glad someone else has finally noticed this bastard.) Vashti 00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 12:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete vandalism. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind in the Willows (2007 Film)[edit]

This page is a hoax. As shown in this diff, the page linked to several nonexistent pages at its creation; the vandal removed those links when he reverted my prod this morning. It claims that there was a 52-episode series before 2008 and 2009. The IMDB link in the infobox links to another film entirely. If any admins are reading this, I'd really, really appreciate a block on this guy (AIV documentation here and my ignored AN/I post here). Vashti 11:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the TV show article as hoaxalicious. JuJube 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another one? *aims prod stick* Vashti 14:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted prior to debate end by Chris 73 (talk · contribs · count). Navou ^banter 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another hoax page that I put up for prod yesterday. The prod text was as follows: I strongly believe this page is a hoax. I've left it alone until now because there clearly is a "Giddy Goanna" in Australia, but this page was created by a vandal who specialises in creating fake children's programmes. The IMDB link is a 404, the run date is "2007 onwards" with a run of 306 episodes for a page created in 2006, and the infobox appears to be a cut-and-paste from another article, down to the names. As you can see from this diff, the vandal removed the prod tag and changed the year in the infobox to 2006. Vashti 11:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giddy Goanna (TV Shows)[edit]

Delete Seems to be a hoax. .V. (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted, one of many sock puppet accounts creating TV series hoaxes, blocked indef -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farrell's Theory of Reflection[edit]

Hoax? 35 Google hits except Wikipedia Anthony Appleyard 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost assuredly a hoax. Furthermore, provides no context, not even the name of the eponymous author. Were that not enough, the page's "references" are nothing of the sort, being a copy-paste from our article on mirror. Serpent's Choice 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Rewrite. The interesting part about this is that it's true. I'm not quite sure if this is the right name for it, though. Perhaps it would be better to rename the page to whatever the phenomenon is actually called and rewrite. .V. (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wrong title, plus wrong content (look at the typos, for a start). Guy (Help!) 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a hoax or vanity, so delete unless citations to the study and something establishing its notability can be provided. — brighterorange (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infructuous[edit]

It is only a dictdef. Anthony Appleyard 09:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. JuJube 13:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this already has an entry at Wiktionary.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, dicdef, unencyclopaedic tone. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the word does exist, but dicdefs don't belong in Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 18:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's a definition, and definitions belong in Wiktionary, where it's already defined. If there were encyclopedic information about topics such as why the word is more often used in India, its history there, writers who popularized it, then the word might merit an encyclopedia entry. The author of the article can expand the Wiktionary entry. Fg2 01:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional media[edit]

Delete another indiscriminate list of items which range from having some measure of importance in their source materials to near-random minutae. Otto4711 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JuJube 13:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary as an arbitrary thing. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list Jcuk 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too vague -Doc^g 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I think it should be divided up into seperate articles. I don't see why it should be deleted when there are other list of fictional things like it. I can make a start to it by moving the operas out of the theatre section and into the already existant List of fictional musical works where there is already a section for them. The publications section could easily hold it's own article and the tv/radio shows already have their own articles so they aren't needed here. That leaves the slogans and the plays from the theatre section. Slogans just needs a bit of work and additions from Ninteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World and it could be it's own article also. Not sure about plays, could be merged with another article though. If this does happen I'll add all the sections/articles to my list of things to watch out for in works of fiction. ;) Tartan 21:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that several other of these fictional lists are also up for deletion, and more nominations may follow. So "there are other lists of fictional things" is a pretty slender reed to hang a "keep" on. Otto4711 22:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen stranger articles than this on Wikipedia, although maybe it should be split up. PatGallacher 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general, there shouldn't be a "list of X" unless X itself is an encyclopedic topic, in which case it is more important to have an article on X. Logically, if X were encyclopedic and important you'd expect to see an article on X, which might contain a list of X, which would be broken out when it got disproportionately huge. There is no article on Fictional media. It's not an encyclopedic topic. You couldn't write one, because there are no books or other sources on which you could base it. Since it's not encyclopedic, neither is a List of fictional media. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't disagree with people who are suggesting clean-up to this list, but if you don't agree with the criteria, suggest changing it. I also don't see why an article of "fictional X" has to exist. Is this from some policy, or just a personal opinion? And have you considered that articles on X existing may be a good substitution? FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, WP:NOT#IINFO, just because fictional things exist doesn't mean Wikipedia must list them. The subject of the article is not notable AT ALL. It is also completely unmanageable and criterion for inclusion are terribly defined. Hey, I just made up a fictional company and wrote it down. Can I add it to Wikipedia? Axem Titanium 06:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if your writing becomes notable enough for an article, yes. This appears to be the discrimination that you so desperately seek in these articles: that the sources containing the fictional entities are notable in themselves. The statement that if you wrote something down it becomes fictional and can be added to the list is just a fallacious straw man argument. And as I've said in the other AfD's you've commented on: how does WP:NOT#IINFO apply? --Canley 13:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful, verifiable, annotated and well organised list. --Canley 13:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic in its own right, contains useful and valid information, not indescriminate and squarely within WP:LIST. (Could be tagged for WP:V, though.) AndyJones 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but divide by types of media. This sort of a list is useful not just for research but for browsing. DGG 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping. "Useful" is also not a reason unless accompanied by a reason why its useful. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. Tizio 11:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Skywalker[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:RS as it is completely unreferenced and has no reliable sources either to support notability or to confirm the article's content. Reads like complete cruft as it fails WP:FICT as it is written from a non-real-world perspective. Does not assert notability in the slightest, so it could technically be speedied. No reason to let this turn into yet more listcruft, either. George Leung

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fish[edit]

Unnotable person, with only links to MySpace blogs about this person Evildoctorcow 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article looks like a textdump. JuJube 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy, text dump, links, work of WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like someone ran a foreign text through Babelfish and created an article with it. My problem is that I can't make head or tails of it. Alf photoman 16:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete myspace is not a reliable reference. - Peregrine Fisher 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V. A bulk of the keep votes is ILIKEIT. Nishkid 64 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating in Counter-Strike[edit]

I know this is a 2nd nomination, because of a total different argument than the 1st. Encyclopedic worthy or not, this is all 100% orginial research :-( --Jestix 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. There's a lot of stuff that could be trimmed, but also a lot that is verifiable. The chronology of cheat and anti-cheat software can certainly be verified from documentation for the software itself. The section about why gamers cheat and why gamers cheat in CS specifically are pretty much unsourceable, though. So fix it! There are also some legitimate references already included at the bottom. — brighterorange (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First nomination: Cheating in Counter-Strike at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheating in Counter-Strike (22 October 2006 – 2 November 2006) keep and cleanup
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I rarely, if ever, support the claim of original research as a reason to delete. If something is original research, there should be an attempt to source it instead of delete the article entirely. And even if some of it is OR, that can be deleted. However, as Brighterorange said, there's plenty of documentation about cheats from Valve. As for the section of why gamers cheat, I believe that it can be sourced. .V. (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where have you been for the past while? EVERYTHING needs to pass WP:V and WP:RS, otherwise it gets trashed. After 18 times, that's what got the GNAA. There is no original research allowed at Wikipedia. None. Zilch. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, of course. I'm just saying... we should make our best attempt to fix an article before deleting it. .V. (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the hacks and cheats for Counter-Strike, and the anti-cheating mechanisms spawned from it would pass WP:SOFT, for example, Punkbuster. I have a multi page magazine article from PC Zone listed at WP:CVG/M regarding Counter-Strike cheating, I know there have been more published since I stopped getting the magazine. Of course, it doesn't mean the article isn't rubbish. I think there is a problem however with how cheating is presented on Wikipedia, there's no overarching organisation so we have other articles with overlap such as aimbot and wallhacking and Cheating in online games. Maybe a Cheating in online first-person shooters article would be more appropriate, I'm not sure. - hahnch e n 15:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated above, much of the information in the article does qualify under WP:SOFT, though I feel that the information would be far better served if it was combined into a general cheating in FPS games article. This article, should it remain, needs to be seriously trimmed and rewritten. It's got sources, but it comes off as if the original editor researched all the links (which aren't referenced properly, probably why the nominator tagged it as WP:OR) and wrote a personal essay rather than a properly referenced Wikipedia article. --Scottie theNerd 16:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Maybe a general article about gaming cheating is required but a general's readers encylopedia having an article about cheating in one particular game? come off it. send it off to a counter-strike wiki. --Larry laptop 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Merits a couple of paragraphs in the main article and perhaps one more in an article on cheeting in games. We are WP:NOT a HOWTO nor a history of howtoing.--Doc^g 19:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cant we just make a Wikibook about Counterstrike? There they can do their fan cruft stuff unhindered without limits (that is beyond free speach ;o)). --19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Not an unreasonable article. Wikipedia has far worse; I suggest the editor who proposed deletion peruse some of the 350,000 Buffy The Vampire Slayer articles on Wikipedia, for example... Killdevil 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POKEMON is not a valid reason for keeping or deleting any article. Please do not use the existence of another problem to justify this problem. There is not a single in-line citation in this article, which means that it looks like total original resarrch. Hbdragon88 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejeduce to all other strategy guides per WP:NOT a stategy guide or a place for external links (which there are many at the bottom), all articles must have reliable sources (which doesn't include forums), and WP:V. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. If you find this article useful, perhaps you might enjoy www.gamefaqs.com, which is where this sort of thing should go. Any article about cheating in Counterstrike, if we had to have one, would be about the cheating, listing the history in a structured and referenced manner, the articles people have written about the cheating culture in Counterstrike, perhaps. Unfortunately, there are no reliable references, and there are no articles written about cheating in Counterstrike, so what we have instead is a shitty big list of ways to haXX0rz the game and a load of namedrops for a bunch of user / anon's awesome scriptkid buddies. Not even remotely close to an encyclopaedic article. And then for good measure, a crapload of original research about 'why Counterstrike is subject to so much cheating', with theories pulled out of the air, blogs, and forums. It will be unfortunate if the special interest groups get this one kept with keep it because I like it arguments, when there is not a single redeeming feature about it. To summarise based on policy, this article ought to be deleted because it fails Wikipedia is not a game guide, is irredeemably original research, lacks reliable sources, and is 99% unverifiable. It might just about be NPOV, and hey, one out of 5 pillars is enough, right? Proto::► 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Proto's outstanding comments. This is in violation of WP:NOT, and is an original research magnet. Mart inp23 20:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Proto's excellent arguments, and mainly per WP:NOR. – Elisson • T • C • 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keep arguments above. A lot of the historical information can be sourced, it just hasn't been done yet. As well, this article is in no way a "guide" to cheating, nor is it a "strategy guide" on how to play while cheating. To imply so merely brings into focus an apparent lack of knowledge in relation to gaming and specific gaming communities. To claim that this article is a guide would imply that using soley this article and the tools it specifically cites you could thus go cheat, and cheat successfully in Counter-Strike. This is not the case. While the article definitely needs to be rewritten, and some portions of it need to be cut out, to say that the topic as a whole is a "shitty list of haxxors" would be a mistake. Xenocide85 21:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's claims like this that are the problem = 'a lot of this information can be sourced'. If you can reliably source just 20% of this information, of the article as it stands right now, I will withdraw my delete vote, delete User:Proto/gc, and never vote delete on any article to do with gamecruft ever again. If the article can be sourced as you claim, then prove it. Otherwise, it's just arm-waving. Proto::► 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never did I say that I could cite sources for the entire article. Just in case you did not catch this the first time: A lot of the historical information in this article can be cited. So if you aren't taking what I said totally out of context or just being plain wrong, I could in fact cite sources for 20% of a lot of the historical portion of this article. In addition, you are not voting on one person's ability to add sources to this article. By voting to delete you are suggesting that the article should not exist in the first place. You are removing even the possibility of adding sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xenocide85 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Proto --Pboyd04 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Proto -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I suggest improvement, not deletion. This article is not a "strategy guide" or a "how-to". Anyone who thinks so is clearly crazy. Adraeus 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you need to prove that the article meets WP:RS and WP:V first, then WP:NOT later. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Explaining things is not original research. This isn't taxonomy or virology. --Soakologist 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, unless something is sourced/cited, then it is original research. Remember, everything needs to be sourced. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - per Proto. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it would do better in the Valve Anti-Cheat page, BUT the information on this page is important. 15:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The discussion is not about importance, importance is always a difficult meassure, and is in fact none. My barber is important for me too, nevertheless he has no wikipedia page. In this case here it is about original research, and therefore unfit for an encyclopedia. --Jestix 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Ostara[edit]

non-notable organization, gets 34 Ghits, excluding Wikipedia and mirrors. Fails WP:V, no third party refs. Tunnels of Set 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like I've always said. If crazy whacked-out magick goes head to head with an AfD, the AfD's going to win. .V. (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They would not want to be here anyway and enjoy their privacy --Hengest 16:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--Rudjek 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. — coelacan talk — 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dragomiloff 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Odinic Rite article. Robert C Prenic 13:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears unrelated. — coelacan talk — 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark spirituality[edit]

fails WP:V, reads like an essay, appears to be original research. Tunnels of Set 13:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Dark spirituality is actually a term, and it means what this article says it means. It's also relatively common in certain circles. I think it could be salvaged with more editing. .V. (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork of Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path. — coelacan talk — 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV OR. I don't think that there is anything salvegeable here to merge or edit. A redirect wouldn't necessarily be out of place, but it's probably better to delete this article first. Eluchil404 09:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Storm[edit]

non-notable organization, fails WP:V, the orgs website link leads to a domain parking site, kept in a previous AfD, but I'm not sure why... Tunnels of Set 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but previous Afd closure wasn't right. People cited some odd sources to support a keep and apparently this was enough to produce a no consensus result. Sources produced to verify the article were 1) An article by an author whose article has been subject to an deletion-protection action[14] hosted on now-defunct "Catholic Revolution" website which also reprinted a Nazi-era German article on the history of "Jewish Ritual Murder"[15] as well as an older article about "The Jewish Conspiracy to Enslave non-Jews"[16]; 2) A link to a personal website[17] with summary/reviews of a book by the purported founders of this purported organization - the summary/reviews do not even clearly assert that the specific organization named The Storm existed/exists. 3) an essay on the Storm organization's website itself[18], which a keep !voter remarked "had enough details to convince me it's not a joke." Great that he thought that, but that doesn't make this an reliable, independent, verifiable source. I'm going to do a research run for better evidence, but this isn't looking good. Bwithh 14:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the Catholic Revolution hosted article by William H. Kennedy which was so persuasive in the first afd would seem to be a summary of a self-published book by Kennedy. He is a self-publishing Satanic Conspiracy Theorist who isn't afraid to ask the urgent questions that must be answered like (I quote) "Is George W. Bush the grandson of Aleister Crowley? and urges: "A member of the Bush Family and a descendant of Aleister Crowley should take a DNA test to set the record straight!"[19] (his evidence is a ridiculous-scandal-mongering blog entry by some other random satanic conspiracy guy who concludes "I leave the matter for the reader to decide.") Bwithh 14:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Zeena Schreck article could do with some checking out too, as its mainly sourced from the Storm website, and a book she wrote herself Bwithh 14:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero hits for "Zeena Schreck" + "storm" on Factiva, Google Books[20] Bwithh 15:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This still fails WP:V. I would like to see this addressed, as last time most of the keep opinions argued on notability grounds and just sorta sidestepped this issue. GassyGuy 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't notable. Zeena is notable maybe, but her organization barely makes a blip on any radars. I had never heard of it until I came to Wikipedia really. I've never heard of it anywhere. It's websites seems to be a ghost really, there but not really active. I don't see any updates. Keep mention of the Storm (and a link) on Zeena's page of course, but keep the actual Storm article? No WerewolfSatanist 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gagliano[edit]

WP:BIO states that the players must have made an appearance in a fully professional league, which the PDL is not. Bigdottawa 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. м info 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Required sources were provided. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Hossain[edit]

This article does not meet the minimum threshold of notability, rather it is more of a fan page for an individual with some fame. Hence should be deleted, or placed within the main ITN/ITV News article.

Delete unless properly sourced and cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newsreader on national news of a major channel. Definitely notable. -- Necrothesp 17:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Necrothesp. We have biographies on plenty of less well-known newsreaders - Nina works for the popular & national ITV. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She was the head anchor of the BBC national evening news for a while and is now an anchor with ITV. Roughly as notable in the UK as Roger Mudd in the US. --Charlene 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO, notable as the presenter (anchor) on a key BBC newscast. Agent 86 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent 86. --Davidbober 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know it's not as important as a list of what bottles a character in a video game likes to collect, but hey, a real person who has been a regular newsreader on both of the main UK news channels would seem to meet notability requirements. --Larry laptop 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete. There are thousands of articles like this one on Wikipedia which are clearly meant to be deleted. Even if there are articles of less well known newsreaders it doesn't justify keeping this article. Wikipedia has strict guidelines on what should be included, and this article should be judged according to that, not how it compares to articles of other newsreaders.

Keep Subject enjoys name recognition in the UK; while such fluff as this from The Sun and this from the Daily Mirror have no place in the article, they demonstrate notability per WP:BIO Eludium-q36 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article pretty much finishes off the question of notability. She's been the subject of articles in various notable publication (the mirror, the sun and the telegraph). What more needs to be said. In March, when Emily Maitlis went off to have a baby, she was given the highly noticeable London regional news slot after the BBC's 6.30 bulletin. Next week, she takes over from heavily pregnant Mary Nightingale presenting ITV's early evening news with Mark Austin. The two prime-time slots in the UK. --Larry laptop 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally I feel neither name recognition nor fame are enough to justify the existence of the article. Neither is comparing it to other, less important articles, if they don't stand up to wikipedia's standards they should be deleted too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigredmonster (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC). _{first edit - from the timing and history of this afd - I would suggest that it's likely this is 87.125.38 but it's not worth a checkuser to confirm. --Larry laptop 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)} _{Sorry about that, yes that was me. Just to add to my original point, this article caught my attention because I tried creating one just like this about a journalist, and citied all my sources and followed all the rules. It got deleted, twice, and the justification was pretty much the same as this. It's just I feel wikipedia needs to be consistent when applying such rules to these articles, else it's a clear case of double standards.Bigredmonster 20:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment I would agree with you - articles should be deleted in accordance with our policies. If other biographies exist which should not, they should be deleted in accordance with our policies, rather than used as justification for keeping equally non-notable other articles. However, you've failed to point out how Nina Hossain is not sufficiently notable to merit an article here. As you suggest, we do have a consistent set of rules to apply to such articles: it's WP:BIO and I see no reason why Nina Hossain is not sufficiently notable per these guidelines. How can "fame" never be "enough to justify the existence" of an article? Isn't that, in essence, what notability is? It sounds to me that you want this article deleted out of jealousy for the deletion of an article you authored. I'd suggest you could use your time more profitably discussing the reasons behind it's deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad you asked. The Central Criterion of WP:BIO includes the following:

- The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.¹ - Whilst the Telegraph article comes under this, it is practically the only one out there. Those of The Sun nor The Mirror, as mentioned previously by one poster, aren't credible enough (i.e. don't contain enough info) to back up the Telegraph. In short, only one published works of her exists (to the best of my knowledge)

- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries² except for the following:
  - Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.³
  - Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.⁴See above, both The Sun and Mirror artciles fall partically under this

"in passing" - how is an article that is about a named person (where the name of the individual forms part of the article title) "in passing". So neither fn2, fn3, or fn4 apply unless you can explicitly tell me how they "fall partically under this" ? It's not a media reprint, it's not a trival mention in passing. please explain further your reasoning. --Larry laptop 14:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for "only one", Guardian Story about her, another guardian story about a prime-time show she hosted that got 4 million viewers. So that's stories in the Guardian, others from the guardian here. That's before we even bother searching the notable specialist media publications. I'm sorry your article got deleted but WP:POINT is a waste of everyone's time. --Larry laptop 14:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Larry: I never said it was to do with "in passing". this has no more then a few lines on the subject hence my reason to cite it as trivial coverage. However having seen you're newly posted links, I concede. For future reference however, would an independant article be enough to justify a new article/prevent deletion? Bigredmonster 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the point you raised about 'fame' equating notability, I don't think fame alone results in notability (at least not in the domain of wikipedia), and it's also highly questionable just how much fame can be attributed to Hossain. In fact, some would argue that whatever fame the subject has is down to sex appeal, and I would be inclined to agree with that. As a journalist if she achieved something significant in her field then fair enough, she deserves to be included. Sir David Frost is a journalist worthy of notability because he has achieved much in his field and is highly recognisable both in the United Kingdom and outside it. And not only that, but if Hossain did something outside of newsreading that increases her fame, then that too might merit her an article. Natasha Kaplinsky, for example, is notable not only as a newsreader but also as a popular celebrity thanks to her appearance on prime time television programs in the UK. But as it stands, being an ITV newsreader alone is not enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and I don't see how knowing about her snowboarding and iPod passions are relevant for inclusion either.

However, please feel free to raise any other points from what I have said. Bigredmonster 13:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, as somebody who regularly features on a mainstream television channel she is notable. You seem to be a little confused about the function of AfD. It is not to judge whether what has been written is notable, but whether the subject written about is notable. Nina Hossain is certainly notable enough to have an article written about her, although all that is currently in the article may not be encyclopaedic. Note that WP:BIO states that one of the criteria for inclusion is: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: (e.g.) Name recognition". Since she appears regularly on national news on a major TV channel in a populous country she blatantly meets this criterion. -- Necrothesp 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I take this opportunity to remind contributors of the notability rules, in particular

"Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.

As a rule of thumb, triviality is a measure of relevance, not length. Eludium-q36 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just as notable as comparable US-based news reporters. --lquilter 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anchor and reporter on major national television networks. --Oakshade 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I[edit]

This article is a FORK created in parallel to the Ottoman Armenian casualties article. It also lacks references, is poorly written, and has very few links outside of discussion and user talk pages. This article was nominated for deletion earlier with a conclusion of no concensus. -- Aivazovsky 14:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ for reason above. -- Aivazovsky 23:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Ottoman casualties of World War I" or merge into World War I casualties. -- Aivazovsky 23:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Aivazovsky, but are you making fun of other editors or something? First you nominate it for deletion, then you say rename, then you say that you withdraw your nomination [21], then you go back to rename. You also nominated this article for AfD and withdrew the last time. What is going on? Baristarim 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in Terminologies[edit]

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

The article is an historical article, using an historical terminology (MILLET), which developed and used for centuries, however disbanded with the Empire's partitioning. The terminology is significant, as not just many articles but also books published. It is impossible to explain a period without "first" grasping the realities of the period. It is advisable for all sides to consider (before developing tharguments) if the words (are using words) in their arguments which are based on current (modern nationalistic) concepts or if they are using how they were developed in its time. There is a section to clarify the issue in the article. --OttomanReference 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Keep we have been over this already in the last AfD that you had proposed and withdrew. It is a valid topic, and it is true that it lacks certain references, but that's not a criteria for deletion. Many articles lack references, and this one has "expand" tags all over it. The reason why it is titled "Muslim" is because Ottoman census figures only took into account religious affiliation, which means we cannot have any "Ottoman Turkish" or "Ottoman Kurdish" articles. Just give it some time and contact the creator of the page to see if he can further help the article out. As for copy-edit, raise the points in the talk page. And the reason why it didn't have so many links at the time of the nomination is because you took them out of related articles [22], [23], [24], [25] :) Not a good sign :) I mean, we have many articles about fictional Star Wars and Pokemon characters and planets, why not give an opportunity to this article to develop? Please see systemic bias about this. Baristarim 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the links. There were very few article links to the article to begin with. I just merely finished off the remaining four article links (most of which - with the possible exception of World War I casualties - were irrelevant to the article). In any case, Baristarim reverted my actions and I don't see a point in pursuing an edit-war with him on this until the status of this article is determined. -- Aivazovsky 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aivazovsky, please do not take the links out of relevant articles. It doesn't look like a good faith move. I reverted your deletions and you reverted back again. If the regular contributors to those articles have refrained from taking those links out, you should too as the AfD nominator.
Comment Going back to the topic :) The question is: Have there been Ottoman citizens of the Muslim faith who died during the World War I? Yes, and many. By famine, war etc etc. If the answer is yes, then there is no reason why the article should be deleted. Again, please see systemic bias about this. Cheers! Baristarim 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Ottoman Armenian and Muslims are two different group. One is Christian and other is Muslim. The content is significant as both of these populations were involvedly in World War One. OttomanReference 14:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims were the ruling majority and the ones waging a war in WWI. We have no article for British casualties of WWI do we?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing here to indicate a POV fork. It is a completely separate topic. --A.Garnet 14:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The topic seems reasonably encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree with British casualties of WWI? Or German casualties of WWI?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely yes. The casualty count was sufficiently horrific that it had definite political and other effects in the aftermath of the war. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator did not put it right. Would you agree on Christian Brits casulties? Jews, Alawis, Christians, Muslims all served and died in that war. Fad (ix) 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been explained, and the article also explains this in its first section: Ottoman censi grouped together Muslims under one heading. If someone can propose a way for us to distinguish who was a Turk, Kurd, Azeri etc from that population - then go ahead. There is also a fundamental difference between that example: religion was an important factor in many casualties of the Ottoman Empire; which was not the case for the British for example. British were fighting Germans, also Christians: therefore such a categorization would be redundant. But it was not the same thing for the Ottoman Empire, therefore the religious angle makes sense. But in any case the main thing is still the fact that Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims, which means there is no other way to talk about them. That's all. Baristarim 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm less than happy with over specific lists. 'Ottoman casualties' is fine, but why limit it to muslims? Are the Christian and Jewish subjects of the Ottomon Empire to be given a separate list? I know what the reaction would be to British Christian casualties of World War I - we'd disallow it as a weasel way of needlessly excluding minorities that will be too minor to mention elsewhere. Unless a very good reason is forthcoming then rename to Ottoman casualties of World War I. I find the reason so far unconvincing: the difficulty of sourcing minority casualties is not a reason to exclude them per se. We should simply leave the list open, so that if sources are forthcoming at a later stage, then other casualties can be added.--Doc^g 19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the article, there is a specific reason: Ottoman census figures were done upon religious affiliation (the Millet system) - that's the only reason: It is not possible to have "Ottoman Turkish casualties" or "Ottoman Kurdish casualties" etc. This is about a specific topic among the casualties. There would be no problem developing another article for the overview for the global Ottoman casualties, nor about specific articles about Ottoman casualties for Jews or Bulgarians etc. Baristarim 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just about Kurds and Bulgars, much of this article refers to Syrian and Anatolian civilian casualties - not all of whom would have been muslim. I now say strong rename to remove 'Muslim' - if there is, as you say, muslim specific data, then there is no reason that cannot be contained within a broader article.--Doc^g 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccessarily.. The article is being worked on anyways.. Please have a look at Millet (Ottoman Empire) for the specific demographic situation of the Ottoman Empire. In the Ottoman census, all the Muslims were grouped together, and the non-Muslims were seperate. That's why we cannot have anything other "Ottoman Muslim". But there is no reason why we can't have a specific article about the Muslim casualties - it is a valid topic. In any case - this is the deletion discussion, as I suggested before any other suggestions about references, clean-up or even possible renaming should be discussed in the talk pages of the article. As of now, no Wiki policies to merit deletion are violated, and the topic is a valid one. Did Muslim citizens of the Ottoman Empire die during World War I? Yes. That's all.Baristarim 20:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is bogus. Just because that source keep muslims separate, doesn't mean we need to. Much of this article is relevant to casualties in Anatolia of whatever religious persuasion. As to the notion this has noting to do with AfD, that's also spurious, because if there is not an agreement to remove the intrinsic and unnecessary religious exclusivity of this article, then I say strong delete. --Doc^g 20:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, it is common knowledge that Kurds, Turks, Azeris etc are Muslims. It is also a fact that many wars and ethnic strife happened along religious lines. Baristarim 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, if Doc can find any citations for us. What is he referring to by saying Ottoman? Traditionally Ottoman was a term referred to the Ottoman Dynasty, are we going to give statistics on how many princes and princesses died? Is he going to claim the same argument with Ottoman Armenian casualties! I belive there is a very big misconception on Doc's part on how Ottoman empire was organized. Besides I would like to see him explaining his argument to Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia--OttomanReference 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sections on civilian casualties in Syria and Anatolia not also equally apply to Christians and Jews living who were resident in that area at the time? There was a particularly large Greek contingent of Ottoman subjects in the area at that time. Did the hostilities miss them?--Doc^g 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really welcome you to bring your citations, THAT is why we are here! If you can substantiate your arguments we can included them in the article. Thanks. --OttomanReference 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, not at all. There are specific articles that cover casualties for other groups as well :) I still can't see why this discussion is relevant to the AfD: The references, clean-up and possible renaming belong to the talk pages of that article, not an AfD. AfD is to delete articles that violate Wiki policies. Were there Muslim Ottoman citizens who dies during the WWI? yes. That's all - the topic is valid. There are expand tags all throughout the article, there is not much we can do if there are no editors who are working on the article 24h a day :) Ottoman, it doesn't matter. Those issues belong to the article's talk pages. Baristarim 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject this article covers seems NPOV. Perhaps this article could be merged with Ottoman Armenian casualties to create another one named: "Ottoman causalties of World War I".Bless sins 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete What is the logic behind this topic? Are there Russian casualties during WWI? Should there be a casualties article for all the major warring factions of WWI?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into World War I casualties, Seems like the only logical thing to do here.

-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have .... article is not a good excuse. It doesn't state whether the topic is encyclopedic or not. Here, we will keep encyclopedic articles and delete the others. If we lack .... article, then why don't we just create them rather than deleting the existing ones? Caglarkoca 13:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I very much fail to see why there couldn't, in principle. If there's enough verifiable material, of course. Casualties of WWI must be an important enough topic for the demographic history of every country involved that there's likely to be some amount of research on estimates and such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks info, no outside links what so ever doesn't seem notable. Nareklm 01:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - lack of outside links has never been a relevant criterion for deletion, and the suggestion that the losses sustained by any of the combatant countries of WWI might be "not notable" (to whom???) is simply absurd. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteArticle remains an obvious fork to the Armenian casualties page which was created in regards to the Armenian Genocide. The information here can easily summarized into a little footnote and be merged into the World War I casualties page.--MarshallBagramyan 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does MarshallBagramyan want to integrate Ottoman Muslim casualties into Ottoman Armenian casualties, as he says "fork to the Armenian casualties"? From his reasoning, information contained in the article is meaningful, but needs to be integrated into an single article. Does he want to see all the Ottoman millets side by side? I personally thing that is a can of worms, and only an Armenian can handle such a thing. I was surprised that it is coming from a MarshallBagramyan. I do not believe it is a fork, but if MarshallBagramyan wants to turn into a good process, just for the end result, I would like to see how he is going to handle it. --OttomanReference 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only an Armenian can handle such a thing? No what I was advocating that on the WWI Casualties page you can easily insert a footnote that states that X amount of the troops killed were Muslims. Anything else that you could have surmised from my comments is on the bounds of your imagination.--MarshallBagramyan 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, I do not understand! Do you personally think that the casualties on the rest of the empire is so insignificant that it only deserves a footnote. Are you going to use the same argument for the Ottoman Armenian casualties, are we going to summarize them as a footnote. Also, does your statement "X amount of the troops killed were Muslims" assumes all the Muslims were troops, and no civilians? Why do you think that there should not be an article summarizing this side of the issue? If you help us, we do not have to "as you say imagine" on the duality of your thinking (Ottoman Armenians deserve - but other millets do not). I believe, WWI was hard on anyone. This does not come out of you. OttomanReference 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the value of a human being here and the cost of war. The Ottoman Armenian casualties article is strictly talking about those who perished during the Genocide. What's so hard to understand about that? Its the exact reason why they are no Jewish casualties and no Greek casualties of World War I articles. There's no special preference to one millet or the other but its specifically talking about the Genocide, which thus makes it relevant. This not even mentioning the fact that most of the sources on this page lack credibility and are unreliable (Zurcher? McCarthy?) because they not only deny the Genocide but claim that the most of the internal deaths of the Muslims were at the hands of Armenians.--MarshallBagramyan 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just plain ridiculous. To put it in perspective think of an article titled British Christian casualties of WWI. How stupid is that? This is just a silly pov fork. The Armenian casualties article directly deals with the Armenian Genocide!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been explained, and the article also explains this in its first section: Ottoman censi grouped together Muslims under one heading. If someone can propose a way for us to distinguish who was a Turk, Kurd, Azeri etc from that population - then go ahead. There is also a fundamental difference between that example: religion was an important factor in many casualties of the Ottoman Empire; which was not the case for the British for example. British were fighting Germans, also Christians: therefore such a categorization would be redundant. But it was not the same thing for the Ottoman Empire, therefore the religious angle makes sense. But in any case the main thing is still the fact that Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims, which means there is no other way to talk about them. That's all. Baristarim 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Right -- perhaps we should consider splitting the page into separate pages such as: "Turkish Casualties of WWI", "Kurdish Casualties of WWI" and "Azerbaijani Casualties of WWI"? --AdilBaguirov 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian casualties article, is a block box study (1914 population-1918 population) covers all the Armenians including the French Armenian Legion. I hope you really know the difference. OttomanReference 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouting over and over again that you find the idea stupid doesn't make it so. Knock it off already. Let's keep some style in this AfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MarshallBagramyan and Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! -- Fedayee 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Aivazovsky and Ευπάτωρ Ldingley 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, the main article about that part of WWI. We don't currently have separate casualties articles on the other combatant nations. Sure, that alone doesn't mean there couldn't be any; it is in principle a valid topic and might warrant a sub-article of its own if there's enough good material. However, right now the article is so poor in structure, sourcing and balance that it just fails to demonstrate that need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hakob 01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize and Merge to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I per Fut.Perf.. Once there are sufficient information and sources, I would alternatively suggest having a separate article on the Ottoman army casualties that would not include civilians so as to avoid the religious exclusivity of the content. Ordered to Die: a history of the Ottoman army in the first World War By Edward J. Erickson (ISBN 0313315167) can be one possible source. I don’t know much about the neutrality of this book, but Appendix F on p. 237 contains a lot of info on the Ottoman army casualties organized in tables. --Kober 06:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and merge~~ (see below) whatever salvageable non-WP:OR content to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I per Fut.Perf. I am also concerned about Doc's observation that the title and focus is on a particular cross-correlation of a religious group and an ethnic group, which is not uncommon per se, but it forces exclusion of material that could help in NPOVing. NikoSilver 10:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This user was specifically contacted by the nominator of this AfD here: [26]. Baristarim 10:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Niko cited my action and I apologized for doing it. I didn't realize that it was against Wikipedian policy. -- Aivazovsky 11:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you sure that "You didn't realize that.."?Must ^TC 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. This article already has references, and an editor has been working on it for some time. The article is already long, and there is no reason why there can't be such an article: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there are no limits as to what can be written. What Wiki policies this article's title breaks has not yet been shown. It has been explained why "Muslim" has been used, and considering the religious nature of many conflicts, it makes it an even more valid topic. There is no reason why we can't have a Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I either. I sense that people are assuming bad faith on the parts of the editors who created this article, and that's not helpful either. Have there been Ottoman citizens of the Muslim faith who died during World War I? Yes. The article's title is valid. The article also has many sources, it is long, and has expand tags where need be. Clean-up etc can be addressed in the article's talk page. Baristarim 10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Baris, I still feel that the cross-correlation of the religious group "Muslims" with the ethnic group "Ottomans" forces exclusion of material that could WP:NPOV the article, and that a whole article on this segment of the populations affected is WP:NPOV#Undue weight, given the existing relative articles for much greater scale of casualties. As I said, I want the salvageable content retained; but under a significantly larger umbrella (such as Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, Middle Eastern casualties of World War I, or even Casualties of World War I to begin with!) IMO, there is no need to create summary style articles, when you do not have a {{main}} article (or main section) in the first place! NikoSilver 13:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - World War I casualties already exists. I am sorry, but the fact that someone hasn't created another article doesn't mean we can't have a seperate article for this. Nobody is stopping someone from creating Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I, either. that's all. However, please keep an eye on this article for NPOV that might develop - that's not only legitimate, but common sense. Baristarim 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perfect! Include it there! I'm leaving a note in that article's talk; and I refer you to the hidden note which says: "" Niko Silver 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh.. Why does it have to be merged there? This article is quite long already. If any thing, a section should be created in that article and give a seealso to this article. What is your main argument as to why this topic cannot have its own article? Because deaths of X are not notable enough? The FORK argument still hasn't been explained, either. How is "Muslim" a fork of "Armenian"???? Are we clear on the definition of "Fork"?? If anything, it can be a "parallel" article, and parallel articles are more than legitimate to explore a topic further (WWI casualties in this case).. Nikos, still no argument as to why this article doesn't merit its existance has been demonstrated, nor has it been shown what Wikipedia policy this breaks, except a few allegations of "non-notability", which can be considerd, at worst, as racist. This AfD is better, but in the last one nearly all the arguments said "non-notable"... People cannot AfD this article until they get the result they want, every single time pulling new arguments as if haggling for a carpet. Have there been Muslim citizens of the Ottoman Empire that died? Yes, and many. Is the article only a paragraph? No, it is longer than half the articles on Wikipedia. Why should it be deleted or merged? Baristarim 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict)Again, the "Muslim" thing has been explained... There are no figures as to the ethnic repartition of the Muslim Millet of the Ottoman Empire. How are we supposed to talk about the casualties of Muslims in that case? Lots of conflict happened along religious lines. Religion has practically been the only source of conflict in the Middle East for millenia, that's why it is relevant. There is no cross-correlation by the way, "Ottoman Muslim" means Muslim citizens of the Ottoman Empire, it doesn't imply that all Ottomans were Muslims.
    - Undue weight argument doesn't make sense either. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no limit to what can be written, as lons as no Wiki policies are violated. You are saying that this article cannot exist because there is no Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I, or that similar articles are shorter. I am sorry, but that's not valid - pls create such an article. Nobody is stopping the expansion of other articles either, right? All casualties are notable, nobody can say "because X casualties article is shorter, Y casualties article must be deleted" - particularly when Wikipedia contains much longer articles about fictional Pokemon characters or Star Wars planets. Why can't real world deaths of numerous people have its own article? It still has not been explained why this topic is not notable or POV. It is a perfectly legitimate topic. Baristarim 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no need for a merge, you should ask them to expand that article. Baristarim 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changing my vote accordingly: Either rename to allow addition of the other POV's material; or merge into World War I casualties. Don't delete content. Niko Silver 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this article. Grandmaster 11:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ottoman Empire was one of the major parties to the WWI, how can one deny its losses?

--Ulvi I. 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think you understand what the problem is here. I was one of the first defending an article on Ottoman casulties. This article single out Muslims, all the point raised in the article also includes the Alawis, the Jews, the Christians etc., not only Muslims. Other groups are humans too, and they too conscripted in the army, they too starved during the war. Are you denying their losses? This article existance is justified as a FORK of the Armenian genocide article, OttomanRefference who is the major contributor confirmed this by his attempts on the Ottoman Armenian casulties page. Fad (ix) 02:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has also been explained, and the article also explains this in its first section: Ottoman censi grouped together Muslims under one heading. If someone can propose a way for us to distinguish who was a Turk, Kurd, Azeri etc from that population - then go ahead. There is also a fundamental difference between that example: religion was an important factor in many casualties of the Ottoman Empire; which was not the case for the British for example. British were fighting Germans, also Christians: therefore such a categorization would be redundant. But it was not the same thing for the Ottoman Empire, therefore the religious angle makes sense. But in any case the main thing is still the fact that Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims, which means there is no other way to talk about them. That's all. That user has been editing many Ottoman history related articles, so it is normal that he is editing related articles. Nevertheless, per WP:OWN, nobody owns an article, therefore the supposed initial intent of an article's creator is not relevant since the article is free to be edited by anyone, and as such the only thing we have to decide is if the topic is valid or not. Baristarim 11:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody is stopping anyone from creating a Ottoman Jewish casualties of World War I, nor the expansion of other articles. This is a subarticle of World War I casualties, that's all... Baristarim 11:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's scholarly and practical value in the study of that period of region's history is invaluable. --AdilBaguirov 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep baristarim made ggod argument. And if Wikipedia has article the Ottoman Armenian casualties why can't be this. We either remove all and merge it in one with some neutral title or we can have several.--Dacy69 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Barış. The article is on a valid topic and will be expanded in the future. E104421 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cretanforever 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not believe the article should be deleted but cleaned up. There were huge losses in the Ottoman Empire during WW1. The article is biased because it ignores the massacres of Armenians and other Christians that ended in 1923. The Allied blockade caused food shortages and famine plus the Spanish Flu caused additional losses. The numbers of dead are difficult to determine and are a topic of intense debate. What is need is a person who is familiar with the literature on this topic to step in and clean it up to eliminate the one sided POV that deals only with Muslim losses. The section on military casualties was relevant to the WW1 Casualties article so I included the link.--Woogie10w 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Must ^TC 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - inexistance of orange does not legitimize the deletion of apple given that articles dealing with 'fruits' do not violate principles. No need also to rename it since particular meaning of the title in the Ottoman context is explained in the article. Apart from these, what remains is the accusation of Ευπάτωρ that 'it's stupid, silly, etc.', which is far from constituting a substantiative argument for deletion. Okan 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. You can merge anything adequately sourced into World War I casualties. //Dirak 22:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into World War I casualties, the causes for the Muslims' deaths apply also to non-Muslims. (eg. famine, epidemics etc). //Dirak 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pff.. We went over this already: how is "Ottoman Muslim" a fork? Of what precisely? This article is long enough, and the topic is more than valid, as pointed out above numerous times. There is no reason why there can't be a seperate article as pointed out above by many users, and it still has not been shown what Wiki policy this breaks. The choice of the title was also talked about many times. It is really sad that how there is this insistance on doing everything possible to not to have an article about this when there are thousands of articles about even fictional Pokemon characters. I really fail to understand.. Nobody is stopping the creation of Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I or "Ottoman X casualties during World War I". All of them are legitimate encyclopedic topics. Particularly since religion was such an important factor in the wars et al in that part of the world, the title is more than valid. In fact, seeing the size of this article, a seperate section should be created in World War I casualties and give this article as main. As pointed very well above by Okan, inexistance of orange does not legitimize the deletion of apple given that articles dealing with 'fruits' do not violate principles. Nobody is stopping the expansion of other articles, their supposed shortness is not a reason why this article should be deleted. If anyone thinks that other articles need an expansion, please expand them - Wikipedia would appreciate it. Baristarim 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So basically what you are saying is that the war only affected the Muslims, the famine only affected the Muslims, and death targeted Muslims. Not only per population more Christians died, but even on absolute figures as much Christians died.
    - Pff.. Nobody is stopping the creation of Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I or asking the deletion of other articles, nor stopping their expansion. The article's title is valid, and what you are basically saying is that X casualties article should be deleted because Y casualties article is shorter - it contains the assumption that X is less important Y. Expand the relevant articles, it is not a "either/or" situation. Baristarim 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On Dardanelle, Jews and Christians were dragged in a labour battalion composed of non-Muslims where the casualty was reported very high (See Gilbert book on WWI). Every point raised on that article, other groups have faced. It is claimed that unlike Christians and Jews the Muslims did not get missionary Hospitals help. As I am sure you are well aware of the Red Crescent camps, how many were they? Did they have any of the restrictions imposed on the missionary hospitals? While the Red Crescent camps would only receive Christians after treating Muslims, the missionary hospitals would receive on the spot, read Ussher memoirs. In the East they were requisitioned by the army after the departure of the Armenians and would only receive the remaining, that is the Muslims. Some of the relief camps were even attacked by the Ottoman army, the Red Cross mission on Van for instance.
  - This article contains such irrelevancies, that cleaning them will place it in a shape that its title would have to be changed for Ottoman Casualties’, but since you claim alone it could and should survive, I have no other option than opposing. Fad (ix) 02:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sorry, but I can't quite get how casualties and related events can be irrelevant.. In any case, it has also been explained why it is used as "Muslim" - if someone has a way of splitting them into Turkish, Azeri etc, then go ahead - but do not forget to mention how we are supposed to know who was Kurdish, Turkish etc since the Ottoman censi figures only took into account religious affiliation and categorized them as such. Baristarim 10:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To quote you from another case "are you having fun up there?" NikoSilver 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - :) Baristarim 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Delete We have here another example of a RfD which abuses the system and uses targeted interest to pass an unencyclopedic article as valid. This article is indeed a FORK, as I have explained previously on its talk page. We are not talking here about if an article regarding Ottoman Empires casulties of WWI should be created, because that could be justified, we are debating here on whetever or not this article is a FORK yes or not. It is indeed one. Singling a population based on its religion in an event having affected the entire Ottoman Empire is clearly a FORK. This article has been created as a parallel to the Ottoman Armenian casulties page and seems to be indeed a diverted gimmik to be a "counter answer" to it. I already explained why the Ottoman Armenian casulties article is not a FORK while this one is, but I will once more explain it. Ottoman Empire was at war, any article about Ottoman Empires casulties of WWI accademically speaking will be in that context. There aren't any article on Ottoman casulties and we realise that one about Muslims is created. Baristarim justification doesn't make sense because no, Ottoman Jewish casulties during WWI can not be created in that context without being a FORK. For that to happen, there must be an encyclopedic justification of its existance, such article about casulties can not be an end. We can creat an article about Accadians casulties in the context of the Accadian deportation, this is not a FORK, because such an article will not be an end by itself. On the other hand, we can not creat an article about ethnically 'anglo-saxon' losses of life in the American army in the last years of the second world war at the door of Berlin. That would clearly be a FORK, unless so conscription system has been imposed on place founding a unite on ones anglo-saxonism to then sent on the front. In the context of war, and the context of the article, it would be like creating an article on the casulties of people with blue eyes during the American war of independence. Having said that, I don't think it is difficult to understand why the Ottoman Armenian casulties is not a FORK, it is because there were measures imposed against the Armenians which led to those casulties. The Christians and Jews were conscripted in the Ottoman army as well as the Alawis etc., the situation of war as justification, creating an article and singling the Muslims is definitly FORK. I don't expect my words to change anything, since I am convinced that those having voted keep for the most part clearly understand why the article is FORK. Fad (ix) 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not at all certain you have understood what a "FORK" is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I do, for a user who fought against it for over a year. But I admit I wasn't clear there in that I have skipped parts above. The main being that the 'varriable' article being disputed is not raised there, the hypothetical 'varriable', call it x for all it matters, but rather a way to skip it to creat a subcathegory to not have to raise issues. Lets say someone has a problem with an article 'x', and won't be able to get what he wants in that article 'x' because concensus will never be achieved or because it will be against guidelines or policies, the person start creating segments of the subjet as article, the 'end' by itself which existance could be justified by its own existance. In short, the user tries to get away with controversies by creating a parallel article and then using the argument that it is not a FORK because no prior article covers it (simplifying there), when the subject itself could not have found its place the way it is in this article in the already existing articles without violating policies and guidelines. The failure in incorporating(in another article, in this cases either the Armenian Genocide article or the casulties page attached to it) it should not be equaled with a value the subject could have as an independent article. Fad (ix) 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting it. Why on earth would anyone want to incorporate this material in the Armenian Genocide one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them, check the talkpage of the Armenian Genocide page and the numbers of time they have requested it. They want to 'balance' the Armenian genocide page, they can't, and there is the Armenian casulties page..., so the bet is to creat a parallel page, when there is even no Ottoman casulties page. 'Muslims' used in parallel to the 'Armenians.' Fad (ix) 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use "they", and assume good faith on the part of the creators of this article. I am not one of them, but I still cannot see why it would be a FORK. You are now saying that it is a "parallel" article - well parallel articles are more than welcome in Wikipedia to analyze a issue further - that's not what a fork is. With your reasoning Islam is a fork of Christianity or Judaism since they are "parallel" articles. Inexistance/shortness of other articles do not bear on another article - nobody is stopping anyone from creating a Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I or the expansion of other articles. However the most ludicrous assumption is the claim that "Ottoman Muslim" is a fork of "Armenian" - uh, sorry, it is not. The article also talks about the Gallipoli campaign and Syria etc. It is also true that there were huge famines etc back in the day because of the war. This is a sub-article of World War I casualties, and nobody is stopping the expansion of that, or any other, article either. Fadix, your claims are bordering on fantasy and paranoia - it still has not been explained how "Ottoman Muslim" casualties is a fork of Armenian. Are you saying that no Ottoman Muslims died in the Middle East, Gallipoli, because of famine, blockades etc?? It has also been explained that the reason why "Muslim" is used is because of the Ottoman censi, and this combined with the fact that lots of conflict happened among religious lines, it is valid. Fadix, you are trying to guess and assume bad faith on what the initial creator of the article might have thought - that is not appropriate. Baristarim 10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Fadix said, the exact same reasons for the casualties applied to the whole population, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation, while that is definitely not the case for Armenians or whatever. You can't restrict article usage to muslims. Niko Silver 11:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? I am sorry, but nobody is stopping the creation of Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I or any other related article. This is a direct sub-article of World War I casualties, of which similar articles are also as such. There are shorter articles in Wikipedia, even about fictional characters and planets, I do not understand why the casualties of Ottoman Muslims cannot have its own article. The choice of "Muslim" has also been explained: it is not because of religious reasons, but because Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims together, which means we do not have reliable information in a way which would permit us to have "Ottoman Kurdish" or "Ottoman Turkish" casualty articles. The choice is not religious, and it is explained in the article's first paragraph. Nevertheless, we all know that religion has always been an important factor in the Middle East for all sorts of wars and casualties. Nikos, as I said before, people cannot AfD this article forever until they get the 'right' result, every single time pulling new arguments. What is this insistence as to why there cannot be an article about this? The topic is valid, the title is valid, the article is long, I still cannot see how "Ottoman Muslim" is a "fork" to "Armenian".. I am sorry, but such insistence is very unWikipedian: there is no reason why there can't be articles as long as a article's scope is notable enough and it doesn't violate any guidelines. People can expand other articles as they wish, that has no bearing on this article. Baristarim 12:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same reasons for the casualties applied to the whole population, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation, while that is definitely not the case for Armenians or whatever. You can't restrict article usage to Muslims, and Jews and the like should be allowed by the title to be added in this article because they suffered the exact same suffering for the exact same reasons. Selecting to isolate a fragment of the exact same case is WP:FORK in my book, and I would suggest you to revise your opinion. Niko Silver 13:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, since even the Martians know that religion has been a very important factor in many wars and casualties in the Middle East, just like it was during the World War in the Ottoman Empire, Balkans and the Middle East. I tried to mention this somewhere above: having "British Christian casualties during World War I" would not neccessarily make sense, since the British were fighting the Germans et al, who were also Christians - therefore such a categorization would simply be redundant. In any case, still: The choice of "Muslim" has also been explained: it is not because of religious reasons, but because Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims together, which means we do not have reliable information in a way which would permit us to have "Ottoman Kurdish" or "Ottoman Turkish" casualty articles. If you can tell us how we are to proceed to such divisions, please say it. That's why the article is not a fork - and it is definitely not a fork of Armenian casualties article. The choice is not religious, and it is explained in the article's first paragraph. This is about the casualties of a particular Millet of the Ottoman Empire - and therefore the casualties they suffered is valid - particularly considering that the post-war partition of countries, and the foundation of many other states that arose from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire also happened along religious lines. Listen, it is common knowledge that many Muslims died, and not neccessarily for the same reasons - some of them did, some of them didn't. But again, the casualties of every ethnic and religious group had consequences for the political situations in the aftermath of the war. I said this in the last AfD: if there is anyone who can say with a straight face that no Turk/Kurd/Armenian/Greek/Sunni/Shia/Azeri etc was not killed by Turk/Kurd/Armenian/Greek/Sunni/Shia/Azeris during World War I for religious or ethnic reasons, sometimes with the involvement of many, then he should seriously get a reality check. The article explores a valid encyclopedic topic - however please keep an eye on the article for any POV issues. Baristarim 13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely fails to illustrate how the reasons that the Muslims suffered were any different from the reasons that all other Ottomans suffered. I don't care if the Ottoman censi had data on blue-eyed tall people, as long as these fell in the same misery for the same reasons. If you find sources that discriminate casualty reasons on a religious specific nature as opposed to the rest of the Ottomans, then you'll have a point. But you don't have such sources now. The Spanish flu and the famine, did not discriminate on religion LOL!! Same didn't the Military and the others (per your sources). Niko Silver 16:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just about famine. The article is trying to focus on the Muslim millet of the Ottoman Empire, and the casualties they had suffered. The article is not short, and it has expand tags all over it. What is the rush of not waiting for this article to be developed even further? Many Muslims also migrated during the World War precisely for the reasons that have to do primarily with religion/ethnic conflict, either in the Balkans, Middle East etc, and those also fall under the scope of this article. Many Turks/Kurds ended up moving from one place to the other during the war - and the reasons that caused their migrations were not always the same that caused the migration of other people. That's all.. Baristarim 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can't focus on something whose same causalities have made more people miserable. Why do you work your way backwards? When you find such sources differentiating Muslims from non-Muslims and expand it, then you can definitely {{main}} it out of the other broader article (World War I casualties). For now it is a subheading (Ottoman) of a subheading (Ottoman and Muslim) -which is too far for the sources given! Why not first expand the existing article and then garner consensus for {{main}}ing it out? I will support when I see adequate differentiated content! Niko Silver 17:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Caglarkoca Let's not be childish. Any page referring to the casualities would look a bit the same, wouldn't they? It doesn't mean that all cauality pages are FORKS of each other. If this informations is to be added as a footnote to the WWI casualities, then the same can be done for the Armenian casualities. We already have a Genocide article, which is far from including a tiny tiny Turkish POV section, so anything on the Armenian Casualities can be merged with it. It is a suprise to see that a lot of Wikipedians lack objectivity. If your arguments are correct, all casuality pages must be merged into a single article for each war. But I believe all such pages must be kept, because they are encyclopedic.

I also don't like the classification of Muslim. But it is explained clearly, in that period religion constituted the identity of the people instead of nationality. I would prefer an article with the name Turkish casualities of the WWI, rather than Muslim casualities. But he problem is, we do not have any sources on the nationality of the casualities. So it must stay so.

Baristarim explained it very clearly, we have many Pokemon articles which even become featured, Harry Potter character articles, a great deal of plot spoilers; so why do you focus on this article instead of trying to clear wikipedia from such articles? Caglarkoca 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked through the list at all the users who voted "delete" and with much certainty I can say that all of them are either ethnic Armenians and a few Greeks. With all respect to these two nations, I do not think these editors assumed good faith when they voted for deletion. The entry name is legitimate and this issue deserves separate consideration. The Armenian side of the story has at least three similar entries - Ottoman Armenian casualties, Armenian casualties during World War I, Armenian casualties of deportations, not mentioning the entry called "Armenian Genocide". Why Turks can't have one entry acknoledging their losses?.. --Tabib 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I looked through the list of keep, and mostly they were Turks and Azerbaijani's. What is the point? Fad (ix) 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fadix, concentrate on the Armenian losses articles (three significantly on losses) rather than the nationality of the voters. Tabib is quite right. Why don't you merge all the three articles to Armenian losses on the WWI. (Keep two articles: One is genocide, one is losses) Caglarkoca 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caglarkoca, I don’t care on the nationalities of the voters, Tabib brought it out, as usual his prejudicial remarks directed at Armenians. Simplistic comment answered in kind. I forgot to answer though that the two other Armenian casualties’ pages are delete materials and OttomanReference was responsible of their creation, he created those to justify the keeping of the Muslim losses entry. Britannica had an entry on Armenian population and losses an any works covering the genocide at least cover a chapter on such issues. Fad (ix) 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fadix, I don't get why Armenians and Greeks want this article to be deleted. Since this article is on the Ottoman Muslim casualities, Ottoman Muslims (i.e Turks, Azerbaijanis, Kurds and Arabs who were Ottoman Muslims) would like to protect the article from deletion. If someone tries to delete the article Armenia, mostly Armenian poeple would oppose deletion. It is the same for the article Turkey or any articles related to Turkey. But I do not really get why Armenians and Greeks try to delete this encyclopedic article. Caglarkoca 10:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not quite, there have been many votes from many other nationalities with different degrees of support or opposition. Nevertheless, let's try to keep some style in this AfD at least and let's avoid such categorization (of either way), unless we want this to go the way of the previous AfD which was nothing but a mess and thus had to be withdrawn. In any case, I still fail to see why "Muslim" is somehow the opposite of "Armenian". Baristarim 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baritarism, this article was created before any articles on Ottoman casulties, wich I would have supported and even contributed in. Pay attention to the justifications for keeping it and you will see that my claim of the article used as opposition to the 'Armenian.' Muslims died too. They talk about of Christian losses. etc. (I am paraphrasing) It is clear in the mind of those wanting the keep, at least the majority that this page is used advocating the Muslims died too. (a wording coined by McCarthy himself), it is a promossion. We are not debating here on Ottoman casualties. Fad (ix) 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV-fork, references are missing and for reasons mentioned above. Anything valuable can be merged in World War I casualties. Btw, WWI was not a religious war, so there is no need for such articles. Hectorian 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of "Muslim" has also been explained: it is not because of religious reasons, but because Ottoman censi grouped all Muslims together, which means we do not have reliable information in a way which would permit us to have "Ottoman Kurdish" or "Ottoman Turkish" casualty articles. If you can tell us how we are to proceed to such divisions, please say it. That's why the article is not a fork. The choice is not religious, and it is explained in the article's first paragraph. This is about the casualties of a particular Millet of the Ottoman Empire - and therefore the casualties they suffered is valid. There are references, and there is no rule against having casualties articles. In fact, another section should be created in World War I casualties and give this article as main, if anything. Baristarim 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but i still consider it a fork... Just as i would consider a fork a possible article about "Greek Orthodox casualties" (still a millet). Hectorian 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, however "Greek Orthodox" would simply be redundant since "Greek" is already an ethnicity, whereas "Ottoman" is not - it is just a nationality status. How can we create "Ottoma Turkish" or "Ottoman Kurdish" casualties if there are no reliable figures at all for the ethnic repartition of the Muslim Millet? I would also be ok with Ottoman Turkish et al casualties - but, as things stand, this is the only way. "Muslim" here is not a religious classification per se, it is a demographic classification used in Ottoman censi.

As for the other point, it wouldn't be fork and it could be a valid article. Wikipedia doesn't have a limit on what articles we can have as long as the topic is notable, and if the subject matter is valid. People are welcome to keep an eye on this for POV, but I cannot understand why it is not notable enough that it cannot exist among +1,5m articles in Wikipedia. But it is ok if you consider it a fork, and you are more than welcome to keep an eye on the article to make sure that it focuses on topic and doesn't stray from NPOV. Baristarim 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Orthodox is not exactly "Greek" in the sense of an ethnicity... And surely, was not considered as such in the Ottoman times (e.g. in early times, this millet included the Serbs and Bulgarians). Merging this article in World War I casualties, or, even better, in Middle Eastern theatre of World War I (as Fut.Perf. proposed) would be the best, IMO. Hectorian 16:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to be able to find a way to split this article into "Ottoman Turkish" "Ottoman Azeri", but it is not possible since there is no way of determining who is of what ethnicity among the Muslim Millet - not to mention the fact that ethnic identification was quite blurry to begin with. Why not create a section in that article and give this as main? This article is longer than half the articles on Wikipedia anyways. If it were a paragraph, I could understand... Baristarim 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to delete articleTrichnosis 15:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then Delete, with Casualties of World War I. It is poorly sourced and POV. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - "Merge" and then "delete" is not technically a valid option, for GFDL reasons. If things are merged, a redirect remains. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is being worked on, and the article already has references. Lack of references is not a reason why it cannot be a seperate article, however.. Baristarim 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject matter deserves its own article. I'll be able to help Baris in citing sources next week, currently not much time in my hand. Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article is (inadvertantly) an insult to the Ottoman Empire and to the human losses it suffered. The military and civilian casualties were Ottoman Muslims who were native speakers of Arabic/Albanian/Greek/Kurdish/Laz/etc... as well as of Turkish. There were also Ottoman Christians casualties who even spoke Turkish. Thousands of those casualties or commrades in arms often lived in mixed regions. How dare we impose on those victims a post-modern, pseudo-nationalistic segregation? After the Young Turk revolution, all Ottoman citizens were equal. Indeed, there was no 'purefied' ethnic or linguistic unity - just Ottoman citizens. Likewise, I would ask for the deletion of an article on 'Greek Orthodox casualties of WWI' or whatever. Politis 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The choice of "Muslim" has also been explained: it is not because of religious reasons, but because Ottoman censi grouped all Muslims together, which means we do not have reliable information in a way which would permit us to have "Ottoman Kurdish" or "Ottoman Turkish" casualty articles. If you can tell us how we are to proceed to such divisions, please say it. That's why the article is not a fork. The choice is not religious, and it is explained in the article's first paragraph. This is about the casualties of a particular Millet of the Ottoman Empire - and therefore the casualties they suffered is valid. Baristarim 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is a war going on and you are losing it (actually you don't have to loose it, remember the fall of Britain after WW II), you will probably have really big problems to support your citizens because you have to give all your sources to military. Problems in health care, food supply etc. will cause huge civilian deaths. The situation in the Ottoman Empire wasn't different. Deliogul 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So there was only Muslims in the empire. Right? Fad (ix) 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is time we show some focus on the Ottoman Muslim casualties which has always been neglected. I don't think we can say that for the Christian subjects of the empire, can we Fadix? I'll support Baris with sources from the university library next week --Doktor Gonzo 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Baristarim. You are pulling my leg again. I never said casualties related articles are irrelevant, what I pointed to is the irrelevancy of singling Muslims when none of the cases provided single Muslims. We do not create ‘anglo-saxon’ American casualties’ of the Vietnam War, can we create such articles? We could if there were some policies back then, which would only send ‘anglo-saxon white Americans to Vietnam, if no such policies existed singling them would even be prejudicial.

As for the term ‘they’, ‘they’ refer to the active contributors, it wasn’t used in a pejorative way. As for the main contributor, no, I do no assume good faith, he already admitted his intentions when he tried modifying the Armenian casualties’ entry to fit the purposes of existence the Muslim casualties’ page.

Now coming to Judaism, Islam and Christianity articles. Look, you are an intelligent person, so please don’t include comparisons you know don’t fit in. The Torah is not the Koran, those elements differentiating them each justify them. Check all the factors presented in the Muslim casualties’ page, which one was specifically proper to Muslim? The answer is none, there is no specificity justifying it, I don’t say had their been an Ottoman casualties’ page and that in such a page the specificity of the Muslim deaths would have taken too much space, a page on excess deaths could not have been created, but you know that is not the cases. So for those reasons, I think you pretty much understand why this article is a FORK, I don’t need to tell you that the major contributor is the same contributor who toyed with the Armenian genocide page as well as the Armenian casualties’ page, the same contributor who added irrelevancies attempting to dump the Ottoman Muslims and will find himself now working on a Muslim article. That’s the FORK.

Lastly, I never said there were no Muslim casualties’, I do believe that there were heavy losses. But none of the cases mentioned would justify singling them when other Ottoman subjects were also victim, the excess Christian mortality reached per population as much in some region as over the 4:1, and I was the one opposing the creation of a Christian casualties’ page. If you want to create an Ottoman casualties’ page including all the groups go ahead, very good idea. But you will not make me believe that this article is not a FORK to the Armenian articles when there is even no page on Ottoman casualties’ of WWI, and then one on the Muslims pop-up, and this worked by the same person having disrupted both Armenian articles. Fad (ix) 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my example with the religion was an exagerration and some lame straw man, and I also can see your point about the tensions that might have existed before with some other editors. However, I really would like, somehow, to find some sort of working ground where we can encyclopedically cover many aspects of this part of history. I also disagree that "Muslim" is somehow the opposite of "Armenian". In any case, I said before that, per WP:OWN, any editor can edit any article, and the supposed initial intent of the creators of an article do not have much bearing on the validity of an article. Listen, unfortunately I have never had enough time to get involved with many related articles, and I know that there is a lot of work to be done.. I just think that we should give an opportunity for this article to develop and that any editor can keep an eye on the article for NPOV. I know that there are always some POV games going on in many Wiki articles, but at least let's try to marginalize such games and try to concentrate on content. Baristarim 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baris, i'm still not buying that this article has any other purpose other than to pursue denialist arguments of the Armenian Genocide. I want you here on record saying that you have absolutely no problem with an article like Russian Christian casualties of World War I ? AFter all Tasrist Russia had many Muslim subjects just like the Ottman Empire ha Christians. So your argument of British vs Germans wont fly here...-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with reservations. I am not per deletion; the article IMO can stay, because it offers useful info, but I have a huge problem with the article's quality. For instance, claims such as "Ottoman Empire's casualties can be certified to have been enormous regardless of the method used in the calculations." definitely need citing. And something ever more important: I admit I read the article quickly, but, nevertheless, from this reading I got the impression that the article does not adequately explains me what caused these casualties? How was exactly Ottoman Empire and Ottoman muslims involved in the war? I think some clarifications should be offered. I must also say that I would prefer a more general title like Ottoman population casualties of World War I or Ottoman citizens casualties of World War I, because I do not like the discrimination between Ottoman muslims and Ottoman christians. But I suppose a possible renaming or merge of more articles in one should be the subject of another discussion.--Yannismarou 18:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll improve the article, Yannis. --Doktor Gonzo 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Will second that. Baristarim 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! per MarshallBagramyan and Eupator--FHen^(ru) 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarshallBagramyan and Eupator. --hayk 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry, but two editors from another wiki turning up seven minutes from each other and voting exactly the same way is way too suspicious. In any case, this is not a vote - please keep that in mind. There have been extensive discussions above. Baristarim 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On 16 January, within 7 hours, 9 users voted in a row with no difference on their vote (at least two of them have no other contributions on that date). This also seems too suspicious to me... Hectorian 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True.. In any case, with these kind of AfDs word gets around pretty fast, especially if people are checking each others contributions.. Baristarim 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I don't understand, whats a problem. Is the any rule according which this votes can't be considerated? Can you point it to me? And what kind of suspicious do you have? --FHen^(ru) 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, first of all: this is not a vote. Baristarim 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that Baristarim and I have come to an (admitedly rare) understanding in my talkpage. I suggest interested readers to give it a look here. I'd post it here too, but I hate flooding. NikoSilver 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was basically the points I brough. Fad (ix) 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure!.. If it smells like gas, chances are it can blow. Lack of quality and reliability of Wikipedia articles will eventually damage its prestige as a useful information source. Let's not turn it into a garbage can. Let's be positive, objective, friendly and more perfect!.. Avetik 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An article about the Ottoman Muslim casualties is not a "garbage can". I also would like to know how come three Armenian editors from the Russian wiki turned up here in the space of 1.5 hour. At least if they were primarily around English Wiki I can understand that they ran into it, either because of their watchlists or because they were checking into each other's contributions list, but not when people start showing up en masse from other wikis. Baristarim 22:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, let's still try to keep some style in this AfD. However, at least let's make sure that no-one solicits the involvement of editors from other wikis. This is really not a gang war. In any case, I am still not getting why this has become a Turkish-Armenian thing in the first place: how is "Muslim" the opposite of Armenian??? Oh well, better not to delve too much into this :) Baristarim 22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I was wondering how several Azeri Turkish users with accounts in the Russian Wikipedia and who haven't been active in months all of a sudden popped up in this AFD to vote...-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and within or around the same time as each other too... -- Aivazovsky 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you guys do it? Mondays for Greeks, Tuesdays for Armenians? We still learn from you...--Doktor Gonzo 07:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into World War I casualties in order to be put in context, but the Armenian genocide should also be described there... -- Davo88 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need for a merge if the article is long enough. I am still not getting how "Muslim" is somehow the opposite of "Armenian". There is no rule that says any particular casualties cannot be talked about. The article is longer than half the articles on Wikipedia, and the topic is valid. What is the reason that it cannot exist seperately? If anything, a paragraph should be created in that article and give this as main.. Baristarim 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article as it stands now is not encyclopedic. No matter how many times you mention the concept of the millet as an excuse. Ottoman casualties is a valid topic within the context of WWI casualties but alone it doesn't justify the existence of this article. You didn't answer whether you think Russian Christian casualties of World War I requires a separate article and that WWI casualties isn't enough to cover that topic?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let then creat anglo-saxon white American losses during WWI. Fad (ix) 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see what you are trying to say Eupator.. It is true that it is a fine line. But the main thing is still not religion: "Muslim" is not there for religious categorization - think of it like "Ottoman Turkish, Kurdish and Azeri" casualties.. Pff.. I know that there is a mess to be cleaned up and probably a higher "Ottoman casualties during World War I" needs to be created, along with probably sections for military and civilian casualties. Listen, I have listened to so many arguments from all sides that I don't know what to think any more :) I seriously have to get some sleep.. Baristarim 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do the Hemshens qualify as Muslim or Armenian? Many have found refuge in the mountains during WWI, what about the Alawis? What about Christian Albanians? etc. :) Fad (ix) 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: I just today from Tabib reference have seen that OttomanReference has acted in bad faith. Three Armenian casulties pages exist, two of them Ottoman Reference is responsable of the existance off, one those, the Armenian casualties of World War I. When one was redirected, he had cut the redirect to created an independent article and created another one to justify the existance of those two articles which I STRONGLY OPPOSE their existance. Let me reinterate, the page which I have created long time ago on the Ottoman Armenian casualties deals with figures and inspired by the Researchers Note on Armenian population and losses, an encyclopedic article on Britannica. It's existance is in regard to the controversies in the accademia, and one reading the article like the one on the Ottoman Armenian population will clearly view the differences. Those two articles(Armenian casualties and population) were created because they would have taken half of the Armenian Genocide page put together. I am hating OttomanReferance way of working, he had in the past a history of using socks to implament his edits, and now had used a cheap tactic to creat two other Armenian casulties pages to justify this article. I welcome anyone in creating an Ottoman casualties page as it is the only way to stop this unti-Wikipedian way OttomanReference has to implament what he wants here. Fad (ix) 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! OMG, this article is soooo informative.--71.107.167.245 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename, and Expand I support renaming the article to take out Muslim and also expanding the article to reflect the changing demographics of the OE over the preceding 50 years or so.

There is a major encyclopedic topic buried in all this hate-mongering:

The Ottomans had been in non-stop war-fare and military actions for far earlier. The result is that the stub of the OE left at the time of WWI is already filled with refugees, war-time orphans and a dearth of men of military age. This is the background against which the OE participates in WWI, not in isolation. The change in numbers due to the previous several decades is significant enough to change the demographics of the Ottoman lands, let alone the social and economic fabric of the land. Any discussion of the casualties of the WWI does not make sense without this background of a country with most of its strength already sapped.

WWI is a time of great divisiveness in the OE - when the Millet system collapsed etc. I think this is the reason why the name of the article is "Ottoman Muslim Casualties". But, few as they may be, some actually believed in a different reality and died for it. This article totally neglects the existence of hundreds of non-Muslim officers who participated in the war, on the Ottoman side and lie, buried with their Muslim brethren in "şehitlik"s. Mostly military doctors, a few combat positions, but they are there, along with common infantry, who can also be traced. The OE may not have been successful in its attempt to forge a nation-state, but it does not mean these people did not exist and die for it. And I, for one, consider ignoring them to be deeply irrespectful of their memory. Aside from the respect issue, this is also significant since the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Ottoman armies was a relatively recent reform (I believe 1908) and is part of the reform attempts of the early parliamentary monarchy period.

Gallipoli.... What a human story and one that does not get mentioned at all in this article. How can you have an article about Ottoman casualties of WWI and not mention that the 1919 graduating class of Galatasaray does not exist due to Gallipoli? Again, put it into context and show that an entire nation's intelligentsia perished in the war. 1,000,000 or so casualties in the WWI when the newly founded Republic of Turkey had 13 million total population is what puts the meaning of WWI into context.

To wrap up... This is a major topic. An article about the Ottoman casualties of WWI should exist. It should have the proper context showing the change in the demographics of the land due to the previous several decades of constant warfare and military action. It should not be about Muslims only and should not trample upon the memories of the few that actually did believe in a multi-national OE, but should be about all that fought on the Ottoman side. It should also show, rather than just numbers, the meaning and context of the numbers. -- only then you can put it into context of what a total annihilation has been lived through in these lands. Best regards. --Free smyrnan 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free smyrnan; The problem is that article is using “ottoman statistics” to bring validity. Even in this form there are a lot of people (read the discussions) who want to delete it. They do not want to see the existence of the terminology. Even in this limited form, it generates hate and raises the guard of (“defenders”) to what they are protecting. When you move from ottoman realm to what you are talking about, you will loose the ground that Ottoman Empire build with its own documents, reports and etc. You have to remember, Ottoman classification is not based on true devotion to a religion, it was based on ones affiliation to a community. British documents of its time classified Turkish Revolutionaries as Muslim millet of Anatolia. Turkish Revolutionaries end up abolishing the Caliphate. If you want to tell your story, dissolution of the Ottoman Empire has a lot of free space for you develop that idea, and you do not need to rename this article. Besides who is going to deal with Armenian casualties (deal with the "defenders", by the way I'm not a "denier" so take me out of that list), if you want to have a document that covers all the sides.OttomanReference 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, there was a definite distinction between the Muslim and Christian subjects of the Ottoman empire. There has to be seperate article covering the Muslim casualties. Besides even the "deletists" here prefer to distinct the Christian casualties.--Doktor Gonzo 06:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I am against re-writing history to make it black/white and to make the distinction of religion synonymous with distinction of side. As for statistics, for example you can refer to the statistics of Tıbbiye - Istanbul School of Medicine, which has published books about army doctor casualties of WWI. For example, in 1917, they held a memorial service to 215 of their graduates who had recently fell in war - 75 of these were non-Muslim. I, for one, am firmly within the Ottoman realm, how about you? --Free smyrnan 08:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are. As OttomanReference pointed out, Ottomans made distinctions by religion so we have to study in that sense.--Doktor Gonzo 08:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keeping anyone doing what they want to do. If Free smyrnan wants to develop a the concept (what he is talking about), he should go along with it. Does he have to do it by deforming an original valid concept, do you? However, one note for Free smyrnan; there are reasons behind this article, and they are sound reasons. You do not have to accept and live with it, but unedrstand and respect to it (I woud like to see even if you can add one or two points). I belive the term muslim millet was used as a community and did not have the same contenation of our times (Free smyrnan wording in the message does not reflect this difference). By the way ottoman casualties are close to 5,000,000 (? Armenians, 500,000 in Syria (as an ottoman region) and it continuous... ) and tibbiye is only 215 (lets double it 500, not even 1% of the story). OttomanReference 08:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is she, not he. The point I am making, and I see that it is not understood at all, is that there were two sides -- Ottoman and non-Ottoman. Name the article thus, and of course, the majority of Ottoman casualties is Muslim and you have the statistics. You are then also free of accusations of racism, religious bias and what have you. --Free smyrnan 09:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other point, which is also not well understood, is the significance of the casualties among the intelligentsia. A human life is of course a human life. But in this war, the OE lost the majority of its very few well educated people. --Free smyrnan 09:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is to be renamed as Ottoman Casualities in WWI, then the article Ottoman Armenian Casualities and any article regarding to the losses of Armenians in the alleged genocide and WWI must be included in that article rather than staying as independent articles, because they can also be classified as Ottoman casualities. Any article related to the alleged genocide except the main article Armenian genocide is to be merged into this article or to be deleted. This wouldn't be helpful, because all the non-Christian casualities would be presented as Muslim casualities, due to the fact that there is no source for the casualities of Turkish, Azerbaijani, Kurdish or Arabic casualities other than the Muslim casualities. Such a page would most probably have four subtitles: Armenian Losses, Greek Losses, Assyrian Losses and Muslim Losses. Why do we try to make things more complex? It is quite simple and understandable now. Caglarkoca 10:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman casualties -- those who died from the Ottoman side. This does not include (e.g.) an Ottoman born Greek who fought in the Greek army. There were two sides to this war - those who would have liked to see the Ottoman state continue and those that did not. --Free smyrnan 13:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that we shouldn't create a Ottoman casualties during World War I article, however as it has been pointed above, the inexistance of orange doesn't mean we cannot have apple. There were definitely more than two sides, by the way. Smyrnan, I think you are missing something: we are not neccessarily talking about only military casualties, ie soldiers who died in combat. Baristarim 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. I see that the only way to navigate the murky waters of intracine warfare is to make the separation at "those for and against the OE". --Free smyrnan 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that users from both sides (and numerous third parties) have expressed agreement in either renaming it to Ottoman casualties of World War I or merging into World War I casualties as the most sensible solutions. Notably from the Turkish users, User:Baristarim (in my talk) and User:Free smyrnan here above. It seems that this solution would allow the subject to evolve to the possible state of being capable to become {{main}}ed out into a separate academic article. I propose we start working constructively towards that direction now, and stop all other displays of passion. A number of users, including myself, will support a separate article when sources presenting different causes for Muslim deaths (vs non-Muslim deaths) are brought forward. Niko Silver 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikosilver, by saying that users from both sides agree on renaming the article, you most probably mention of me. I haven't said that we should rename it. I used that argument to say that it would be more than disfunctional to rename the article in that way. Please read properly before writing about a comment by someone else. Also we don't have two sides here. Here is a big group trying to improve wikipedia. Caglarkoca 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention you, so "please read properly before writing about a comment by someone else" too. Niko Silver 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- What I don't understand however is why we can't create that article, move some stuff from here to that article and keep this. In that case let's merge the Ottoman Armenian casualties to Ottoman casualties during World War I, since another article at Armenian Genocide also exists; then divide that article to military and civilian casualties etc. I am still too suspicious of a possible rename. My point to you earlier was the fact that we had an awkward situation because a sub-article was started before another possible main article was created. In any case, this article is still a sub of World War I casualties, and it is too long to be simply merged. However, that awkward situation notwithstanding, I still think that there can be a seperate article. The article is being worked on, at least let's give it some time. Nevertheless there should be another article for Ottoman casualties anyways.. Baristarim 13:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The Ottoman Muslim casualties’ page is very, very different than the original Armenian casualties’ pages. The Armenian page does NOT concentrate on the reasons of the death, it relate to a controversies and in a cold way relate to the different statistics, much like the Ottoman Armenian population page. The reason of the death could go in the Armenian genocide page or a page on WWI and a page on the Ottoman in WWI. The page created about Muslim casualty is not the same sort of article, it is not an encyclopaedic article on losses, it is an article regarding the condition of Ottoman Muslims which led to their deaths. I did need to create a page on population statistics controversies and casualties controversies, because both put together would have taken half of the main Armenian genocide page. There are no real controversies and debates on Muslim casualties, the figures could be presented in one paragraph, placing figures. But there clearly are controversies and different positions on the Armenian population and Ottoman Armenian casualties, each position should have been explained. So in no way could the Muslim casualties be compared with the Armenian casualties’ page, the Muslim casualties could rather be compared to the Armenian Genocide main page. If the article should cover the Ottoman situation during war, civilian losses etc, OK, this could be legitimate. Fad (ix) 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My prediction is that this poll will close with no consensus. Anyway ... Some thoughts just in case! Ottoman Armenian casualties refers to a period broader than the World War I; I am not sure if it should be merged into an article named Ottoman casualties during World War I. IMO Ottoman casualties during World War I is a better title for the article in discussion here, because it passes over the discrimination between Muslim and Christian Ottoman citizens. After all, they were all equal citizens of the same state, and they all suffered dring World War I: I suppose suffering was not limited to one religion. And even with a different title, the emphasis of the article will be inevitably on the muslim citizens, because they were the most populous in the empire. But in order to adopt the title Ottoman casualties during World War I the scope of the current article should be expanded and cover the other religions as well. Are the editors of the article willing to expand its scope? Would they accept collaboration by other editors (not me, because my program is a mess right now!) to expand it.

On a different note, I agree with Baris that "we had an awkward situation because a sub-article was started before another possible main article was created". This is the real problem here! If we had the broader article Ottoman casualties during World War I ready, then Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I could be a sub-article of it per WP:SS, and other articles could be created such as Ottoman Christian casualties of World War I or Ottoman Greek casualties of World War I or Ottoman Armenian casualties of World War I or Ottoman Maronites casualties of World War I etc. Is anybody willing to create this article umbrella Ottoman casualties of World War I, whose Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I would be a sub-article? Do you get me or did I confuse you more?!--Yannismarou 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that while the Ottoman Armenians have mostly died from 1915 to 1916. Most Muslims died from mid 1916 to 1922(Muslim death were also very heavy after WWI). There are many events which are problematic. Excess mortality during the Arabo-Turkic wars, the Kurdish rebellions etc. There are also the fact that the east was starved to death after the eviction of the Armenians. Fad (ix) 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save yourself doing a POV talk. Why don't you give us references, so that we can check your claims. Better!; instead of talking at Aft page, put it in the article. Than, we will decide the article name based on what you will put into it. That sounds good to me. But the chance that would happen, I do not bet on it.--OttomanReference 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which claims you're talking about? After this is closed, I am saying you before I do it, I will be putting the two articles on Armenin casualties you have created for deletion. Fad (ix) 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Claims regarding "Muslims died from mid 1916 to 1922", where did they die? How did they die? why don't you tell us? 2) "Armenin casualties you for deletion", Only a person who has something to hide wants to delete basic concepts. The Armenian casualties during World War I, died in Ottoman Empire+Russian Empire+Persia during WWI also in the European battle fields; Armenian caulties during WWI is a valid topic. How are you going to explain that Ottoman Armenian casualties exist, but the rest of the Armenian casualties does not. We have an article about Ottoman Armenian casualties, but we can not have an article on how the "Armenian casualties of deportations" performed. We are not going to tell the techir, if we obey your logic. That is good! I personally belive Tehcir Law was a "bad thing", thousands died. It deserves its own article to explain how it happaned, and I am not an "Armenian" to belive that. Only YOU fadix, you dare to remove these concepts. Only you think this is the best way to represent Armenian cause or "Defend the genocide". Do it, if you think this is the best way of being an Armenian. Keeping the history real and truthful. Get rid of "Ottoman Muslim casualties". It will help you in your cause. OttomanReference 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times were the articles you have created placed for deletion? Do you damn know what an encyclopaedic article is? I have already explained why that particular article about Armenian casualties’ exist. Since you seem to either not understand or don’t want to understand, let me capitalise that: IT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT POSITIONS ON THE NUMBER OF OTTOMAN ARMENIANS HAVING DIED, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN COVERED IN ONE PARAGRAPH, THAT ARTICLE ONLY PROVIDE STATISTICS FROM ALL THE MAJOR PARTIES CONCERNED. That article should have been part of the Armenian genocide page but since it would have taken too much space it was created. The two articles you have created about Armenian casualties have no justification to exist, neither the one on the deportation, and we have Tehcir, with don’t need a thousand of articles created on the same issue, I have really tried in vein explaining you, but you refuse to understand. The Armenian deportation is already covered in the Armenian genocide page, the article on Armenia, World War I article too and many others. You have created multiple articles and are being disruptive such behaviour is the sort that endanger the integrity of Wikipedia. I have kindly asked you on various occasions to stop this disruptive behaviour and what best you have found to do is accusing me to hide the ‘facts.’ What facts? That Muslim suffered? Where have I ever tried denying that? Where were you when I have said in the WWI that the Ottoman casualties presented there were too low? Does it seem that I am hiding anything at all? What I ask, is to respect few simple things. Check how many articles you have created about the Armenian cases, the executioners, the lists you had created in the past, two involving the deportation, 2 on the casualties. All disorganised, with no rational reason for their existence. Many Turks who voted here were quick on the gun believing that this was about erasing the history of the Muslim suffering, but I am confident that if they take time to understand the issues I have raised, they will see that what I am opposing is not that, but rather opposing to your irrational way of 'founding' articles.

Now, tell me since you opened the subject yourself, why could Russian Armenian casualties of WWI and what followed should not be included in the Armenian republics history section? And what about the other Armenian casualties’ page you have created? What about the deportation page, the Tehcir page? In this case, the easier way is to create an Ottoman casualties page, since it will be a way to stop your disruption, and I will even accept the Armenian casualties’ page to be merged there if it could help fighting against your disruptions. I think I have made my point very clear and need nothing to add more in this page. And about the Muslim deaths, check professor Panzac review of McCarthy's work which I have previously refered to. This was one example I brought. Fad (ix) 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are swimming in a different place. You can create an Ottoman casualties of WWI, and begin to work on it, I will help you as much as I can. There are Armenians who are not Ottoman; they were also died; they were even forced migrationed in the Soviet Republic, they are called Armenian casualties during World War I. So if you take the risk of creating and keeping it without POV tags and edit wars go head with the Ottoman casualties of WWI, we will put a link to your article. If you also take the risk of Ottoman casualties of WWI, we can put a link from Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I and summarize this content in your article. None of these are reasons to get rid of a VALID concepts, such as Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I. Instead of spending your time here; begin to work, we will catch you up. Otherwise , "Ottoman Muslim Millet" is not something that I come up with, you and Armenians can delete this from this place, by voting! But it exists, what can I say more about this issue, and other concepts, too. (PS:for the personal trashing that you always do; my silence does not mean accepting or understanding, but I can't help you. Good luck with your life) --OttomanReference 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You argue thus that neither the "of World War I" part of the article's title is accurate?--Yannismarou 18:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is also what I am arguing. Fad (ix) 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This revisionism must end. World War 1 was not a religious war. Aristovoul0s 18:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Aristovoul0s can provide us reliable sources stating the number of casualities of Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic, vs casualities, then we can rename it as Ottoman Turkish, Ottoman Kurdish vs casualities. And I didn't get the revisionism part. Can you explain us more clearly? Caglarkoca 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 05:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Coast[edit]

Fail WP:NOTE two primary criteria as the article is self published advertising Gnangarra 14:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias.2
"Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject

this AfD discussion has been listed/noted at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/AfD Gnangarra 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep This is not some plot of land but a defined, named area of a major geographic region. 69,000 google hits for "'Sunset Coast' perth" with detailed, non-trivial treatment of the area in multiple websites about perth in general. Ten book hit on google books. Here's an article in the New York Times mentioning the "magnificent beaches along the Sunset Coast." Per WP:LOCAL, there appears to exist "enough reliable and verifiable information ... about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it."--Fuhghettaboutit 15:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect is used by WA Government planning and promotion agencies and the like - eg this one from WA's Tourism Commission [27] - I remember when it was officially launched during the 1990s. The article seriously does need cleanup however, "most favourable beach" smacks of POV, and nothing about the history or application (figures and dates would be nice). Any categories or other stuff using "Sunset Coast" as an umbrella can, however, be shot on sight. Orderinchaos78 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind a bit. It merits about a paragraph in the main article for Perth, doesn't really need an article of its own. Redirect to Perth, Western Australia. Orderinchaos78 02:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep !!! Definite keep. Moncrief 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a crappy article, but I don't understand the assertion of non-notability for something this well known--even if it is from its extensive advertising as a tourist destination and the work that went in to develop the concept. Slap it with the approriate clean-up tags if it needs WP:CLEAN, but please don't waste time in a AfD if it needs cleaned up, not deleted. KP Botany 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-freaking-men! Moncrief 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not one of the responses so far have addressed the actual reasons for deletion. The simplest google search would find the commercial promotional web page most of the information initially came from. Which begs the question of plagiarism from a website. The term is not commonly used by local news media, it is a commercial construct. It is not a major geographic region - it is a narrow coastline - a mere small component of the Swan Coastal Plain. On the basis of possible plagiarism, and lack of addressing the actual reason for deletion - from my perspecctive the keep comments carry no weight whatsoever. SatuSuro 02:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is to change it to a redirect - but to what I'm not exactly sure (possibly Perth, Western Australia). If it survives as an article, it should be purely about a name and campaign devised by the WA Government's tourism department and its success or failure based on a range of sources, rather than about the region - the fact is that as you said, very few people in Western Australia use the name. I might see what I can find and propose an alternative article. Orderinchaos78 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You haven't established that it is self-publicity. I don't think the Sunset Coast is a Wikipedia editor. The article is a stub, and doesn't seem to have enough information sources to verify your second point. However, please give me a link to the exact guideline which says that the article should be deleted for this reason, and I will look it over and repsond. Rock climbing sucked as an article, but no one thought it should be deleted because of that. Does this article simply need to be referenced properly and cleaned up? Orderinchaos, also city governments may have documentation on this, often in the US this is available on the web.KP Botany 02:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Response" The nomination for afd is specifically what you say is not established - a simple google search will find a web site with the words and images more or less replicated in the first edits of this article - what more do you want? Also three separate editors have stated that the term is in not common usage - it is indeed the remains of a tourism promotional material that does not really exist in Perth anymore SatuSuro 03:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pretty much most of the content there now is irrelevant. As for the name - It's a bit of a weird one, in that it is an official (tourist) name that is not used extensively locally, that seems to have been "sub-let" by the Tourism Department of the WA Government to a private tourism association who promote their own members. So it's not WP:CORP, but the current article verges on it. Orderinchaos78 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Certainly exists and is verifiable, but noteworthy? Maybe. Very few locals use the term and I suspect it was designed as part of a minor but now largely defunct marketing campaign. The article needs some more focus on that campaign. Could possibly be merged with a future Tourism in Western Australia article.—Moondyne 03:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if thoroughly cleaned up. As mentioned above, it needs to be cleaned up not just thrown into the afd pile. The article now has had a few rewrites, deleting information thats impairs its standard as an article. If not kept, Merge to Perth, Western Australia. --Ali K 03:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment merge to Perth, Western Australia isnt appropriate as the defination by the commercial site is MRS area the defination by WATD includes areas outside the MRS, Moondynes suggestion is more appropriate. When the article was created a number of "It's part of Sunset Coast." sentences were scattered(spammed) through various WA articles with no apparent attempt to inculde into the prose of the articles. The editor was asked to clean the article up. As nothing had been done to clean the article when the spamming occured again I nominated for AfD. It fails 2 WP:NOTE primary criteria being promotional advertising, and being trivial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs) 04:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - needs thorough rewrite and cleanup, but there are several of these areas around Australia with unofficial names for the region - eg. part of the south Coast of NSW is known as the "Sapphire Coast", even though that's not an official name (like the Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast are). Cleanups should not be thrown into AfDs. JROBBO 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this isnt a cleanup article its a spam article used to advertise a tourist company. Gnangarra 12:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Gnangarra - Please cite any wording if that has been used to promote the tourist company in the Sunset Coast article! Please note that it has been linked up to various WA relevant articles, because those coastlines or beaches are in fact part of Sunset Coast, as a Wikipedia editor, this is my responsibility and right to make supplement based on GFDL. In practice, most significant places used to attract tourists that locals are always seldom go even don't know it exists. For example, the Pinnacle Desert in WA, the peak in Hong Kong, the Hollywood Boulevard (Hollywood Walk of Fame )in Los Angeles etc. Those all usually ignored by locals. But it doesn’t mean they don’t exist or not important. Again, this is one of evidences show that Sunset Coast is an official name used in the current Website of Department of Planning and infrastructure Government of Western Australia (designed for locals) - http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/cycling/1926.asp Widen the sight!--Alfeewusy 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

resp "While the official Sunset Coast promotion website " Gnangarra 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response and Question Let me see if I understand you correctly. It's a name coined for the purposes of tourism, so discussing the promotion of tourism in the article is tantamount to advertising for the tourism agency? So, discussing tourism on Wikipedia is not allowed? What about advertising? Is there an article on Super Bowl Commercials? If this mentions a specific commercial, it should be deleted because mentioning a commercial is the equivalent of advertising that commercial? Tricky. KP Botany 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An example of its use - "Promote beaches - expert". The West Australian. 25 November 2002. p. 11. "Mills said that WA's politicians, planners, developers and the community had to decide whether they wanted WA's beaches, particularly the Sunset Coast, promoted as tourism destination, and if so, how that could be achieved. Sunset Coast Tourism Association vice-president, Andrew Slomp, said the Sunset coastal strip had to develop its own identity, like Fremantle and the Swan Valley. However, Slomp added that the association was not interested in development similar to the Gold Coast." In a real estate writeup in September 2002 from the Sunday Times: "WITH land prices booming along the Sunset Coast, the shack at 40 Branksome Gardens must be one of Perth's hottest properties." So as you can see, it's not used in the same way as one would use the Gold Coast as a location, or Perth as an area (any Perth person would just say "Perth" or "northern suburbs" or "Scarborough") - but does exist from a tourism promotion point of view. Orderinchaos78 04:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a real designation of an area, kind of like French Riviera or Gold Coast (Florida). --Oakshade 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC) --Oakshade 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatriz Marbella Corella Sias[edit]

Questioned speedy. Loser in a reality show, no other notability offered. Nuttah68 14:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely not notable. .V. (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the above. JIP | Talk 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something of notability is added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the sentence "Her favorite color is green" says it all. Rettetast 22:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my bad, I should have added a WP:PROD when denying the speedy. Mango juice^talk 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet and Gray (Ohio State)[edit]

Unencylopeadic and what Wikipedia is not. Colours should be mentioned on the university's article but the pantone colours, let the officiall sites cover that. Nuttah68 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unencyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete The may be some other universities where the colours are used fo rthe title of an article about the athletic teams, but in those cases there's information about the athletics. Listing the pantone/rgb values somewhere is not useless, but it doesnt make an article. DGG 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus -- Long arguments on both sides by a few editors, but no consensus is demonstrated by those debating here. Give it some time and relist. Avi 05:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sahaba not giving bay'ah to Abu Bakr[edit]

Delete, I nominated this article for deletion for the second time because as I started reading the first nomination, a "no consensus" conclusion was made and the article was removed from nomination before I got the chance to voice my argument. Here is the reason again (sorry if this is redundant, but I'm not sure where is the proper place to put this note):

This article represents the Shia point of view which sharply contradicts with the foundation of the faith of the mainstream (Sunni) Islam. Worldwide Sunni Muslims (comprising 90% of world Muslims) believe that this list is nothing but a fabrication by the Shia sect. This is not new; this has been going on for centuries. This online encyclopedia is NOT the proper place for those kinds of extremely controversial issues, especially when they represent points of views of a minor sect (Shia) of the global religion of Islam. Of course the Shia scholars will continue to claim that their views and deviant beliefs are supported by Sunni references and sources. However, all they have been doing over centuries is misinterpreting those references, taking them out of context and twisting them to support their views. They've had a historical enmity towards the 3 rightly-guided Caliphs of Islam which are revered by over 1.2 Billions Sunni Muslims and have been revered for the past 14 centuries, while Sunnis never carry any sort of enmity towards the sacred figures revered by the Shia such as Ali ibn Abi Talib or Fatimah. There is not one single Sunni Muslim or Sunni scholar that will accept the Shia interpretations of the references otherwise, if they do, then over a Billion Sunni Muslim will convert happily into Shia. Therefore, further attempts to quote the so called Sunni sources to support those Shia views should be discredited and not to be accepted a valid argument in any way. According to Sunni Islam, this list does not even exist. Ali, Fatimah and all those Sahaba enlisted in this list have given their full allegiance to Abu Bakr and to believe that they were at odds with him is totally absurd. Again WIKIPEDIA is NOT the proper place for those minority views.TrueWisdom1TrueWisdom1

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrueWisdom1 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC). POV fork of Shi'a view of Abu Bakr. Completely redundent and should be merged. Terrie12 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nominator account has only contributed to his afd. --Striver - talk 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for deleting, not for merging. Use Template:mergeto on this and Template:mergefrom where you want it merged. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe controversial merges can be nominated here, can't they? — coelacan talk — 04:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep

This is not a view, this is a list that does not represent any particulate view and is in fact wrong to attribute it to the Shi'a view alone, just look at the sources.
The Shi'a view of Abu Bakr article is clearly focused on a single person, while this is focused on an event involving multiple person.
This article linked from a number of other articles, and it does not make sense for those links to be links to a Shi'a view. --Striver - talk 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge what is salvagable into Shi'a view of Abu Bakr. most of it is a "list of sahaba not giving bay'ah" according to shi'ites. others (i.e. the rest) in the list are redundant, as they only briefly opposed then subsequently offered their bay'ah, making their inclusion in the list pointless. furthermore, the some of the sources used are extremely poor: a fundamental source is the comical "Peshawar Nights", which narrates of a so-called "Sunni-Shi'a" discussion (which some believe simply did not happen and was frankly made up - the Sunni character clearly doesn't know his stuff), and is used nowadays solely as a polemical device. ITAQALLAH 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain to me why you ignored the following sources in your argumnent:

Muhammad al-Bukhari, a 9th century Sunni Shafi'i Islamic scholar
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, a 9th century Sunni Shafi'i Jariri Islamic scholar
Ibn Qutaybah, a 9th century Sunni Islamic scholar
Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, a 10th century Sunni Shafi'i Jariri Islamic scholar
Ibn Abu al-Hadid, a 13th century Mu'tazili Islamic scholar
Edward Gibbon, an 18th century non-Muslim Islamic scholar

Do you regard those scholars as Shi'a scholars? If not, why are you suggesting that their information is of Shi'a origin, and more importantly, why does it belong in an article about the Shi'a view of a single person? Further your argument of "as they only briefly opposed then subsequently offered their bay'ah" is an straw man argument, since nobody has nowhere stated that this is a list of person that opposed him indefinitely but in fact, the article clearly says "was initially opposed" --Striver - talk 15:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bukhari/Muslim/Tabari are narrating hadiths, not their opinions, so the material becomes a primary source, which is something which generally shouldn't be utilized. Ibn Qutaybah/Ibn Abi al-Hadid may too be narrating hadiths (seems unlikely in the latter case)- however, their attributions have seemingly been obtained from media less than reliable -- one being a wordpress ppt presentation, the other a Shi'a website. what is really needed is independant verification. Gibbon is one i overlooked, yet he has only been provided in verifying the existence of the dispute, and not for verifying the individuals in the list. this is why i suggested that whatever can be salvaged should be merged into the proposed article or in Succession to Muhammad which can then give it an appropriate overview.

if the opposition was temporary, 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months even, then what's the point of making a list about a period of time as brief as this, apart from forwarding a particular view about this general dispute? thanks. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your civil and to-the-point arguments :)

Tabari is admittedly only narrating hadith, he stated that in his introduction of the book and thus is his book only a primary Source. But we all know as a fact that the same kind of thing can not be said about Muhammad al-Bukhari and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj: both are celebrated by Sunnis for the great achievement of only including reliable narrations in their two Sahihs, thus is their work not only an extremely reliable secondary source of early Sunni scholarship, the sunni even praise Sahih Bukhari as the "most Sahih Book after the Qur'an" ummah.net, islamonline.com, sunnah.org, yarehman.com, inter-islam.org, fatwa-online.com. This is enough to end the disccusion regarding if this is only a Shia view or not, and considering the Bukhari/Muslim narrations, it is only expected that you find other non-Shi'a like Ibn Qutaybah/Ibn Abi al-Hadid narrating hadith to the same effect.

It is true that i found the Ibn Qutaybah in a non-Muslim teaching course, and considering that i also have two independent Shi'a sources give the same quote, but with small variations in translation, you either have a Shi'a/Shi'a/non-Muslim conspiracy to misquote Ibn Qutaybah, or he did in fact narrate that hadith. The same can be said by Ibn Abi al-Hadid the non-Shi'a non-Sunni Mu'tazili scholar who is widely known for quoting narrations that Sunnis agree are Sahih but do not feel comfortable being reminded of. Again, this is an editorial issue, add a request for a better tag if you wish, the Bukhari/Muslim quote is enough to refute the nomination arguments.

Gibbon verified that the Banu Hashim "and their chief", ie, Ali, did not give the oath: "the Hashemites alone declined the oath of fidelity; and their chief, in his own house, maintained, above six months, a sullen and independent reserve; without listening to the threats of Omar". If nothing else, this is a secondary source of the Bukhari/Muslim secondary sources, voiding all allegations of this being a Shi'a only view. Gibbon is the second non-Shi'a non-Sunni holding this view, together with Ibn Abi al-Hadid.

At this point, i have not even had time to find all the Sunni secondary sources that the Shi'a sources quote, ie Muhammad ibn Khwand, Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri, Yusuf ibn Abd-al-Barr, Ya'qubi, Ali al-Masudi and all the other early historians like Ibn Hajar Asqalani. The fact that there was a large amount of Sahaba that just like Ali did not initially give his oath is uncontested and readily admitted among the early Sunni historians, the practice of trying to deny this is a more modern phenomena that is at strikingly odds with all the early historians, including Bukhari/Muslim.

The opposition is widely quoted as six month, an indeed notable time period considering that the state became engaged in warfare during that period and is nowhere near the 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 months you mentioned. This event is notable enough to warrant a full and detailed article, something that can not be given justice to as a section in an already large article: going into such great detail in the Succession to Muhammad would spark even stronger felings and revert wars than if given it's own article, so given multpiple arguments, i strongly oppose merging this to Succession to Muhammad or an Shi'a view article.

The point is not to "forwarding a particular view about this general dispute", but to write an encyclopedia about a notable event. Wikipedia does not exclude information just because some people in one religious denomination might find the informations uncomfortable.

Thanks for your answer, peace. --Striver - talk 11:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, the reason we don't use primary sources is not because we doubt their authenticity, but because we're not in a position to intepret them. sometimes you can use primary sources when there are extremely explicit, but with most hadith there are too many ambiguities. the hadith cited in the article make little mention of duration (from my observation), it's difficult to tell whether the witholding spans a few days or a few months (apart from Ali). there may also be other sound narrations reporting slightly differently on the assumed chronology, events, and details. that's why we use secondary sources. did all personalities mentioned resist for six months? nobody is denying that a pledge may have been temporarily withheld, but for how long? and what is its encyclopedic relevence, if the problems of verification are overlooked (if the problematic sources were removed, then much of the article would also thus be removed)?

i don't think anyone finds such information "uncomfortable", it's simply about what is factually accurate. who, and when, are questions that this article doesn't seem to answer convincingly. that's why i think this stuff can be comprehensively overviewed in two paragraphs of prose in one of the other articles. as it stands, the article consists mainly of a list of names, and some blockquotes from certain personalities. ITAQALLAH 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

َلَا يَغْتَرَّنَّ امْرُؤٌ أَنْ يَقُولَ إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ أَلَا وَإِنَّهَا قَدْ كَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ وَقَى شَرَّهَا وَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ مَنْ تُقْطَعُ الْأَعْنَاقُ إِلَيْهِ مِثْلُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ مَنْ بَايَعَ رَجُلًا عَنْ غَيْرِ مَشُورَةٍ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَلَا يُبَايَعُ هُوَ وَلَا الَّذِي بَايَعَهُ تَغِرَّةً أَنْ يُقْتَلَا (بخاري:6830(.

No one among you should have the misconception that the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr took place suddenly. No doubt, the oath was pledged in this way, but the Almighty protected the Muslims from its evil consequences [which might have arisen] and remember! there is none among you like Abu Bakr, whose greatness cannot be surpassed. Now if a person pledges an oath of allegiance to someone, without the opinion of the believers, no one should pledge allegiance to him as well as to whom he [himself] pledged allegiance because by this both of them shall present themselves for execution. (Bukhari: No. 6830)

Comment:Well, this is a controversial topic, but I would like to point out that we should not miss the point that in these disputes the main concern of the early Sahaba should have been Islam rather than desire for wealth or power. --Aminz 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ITAQALLAH. He has given some very good points. --- ALM 12:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would say delete, but only along with every other POV fork that comes out of this Muslim controversy. We keep doing this on a 1-by-1 basis, and get nowhere. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patstuart, i find it strange that you think that this controversy should be dealt with in one article, while the Muhammad cartoons has spawned so many articles. --Striver - talk 16:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late answer, i have been doing other things IRL. Some anon is adding strongly pov material, so if you are looking at the article, make sure you are not looking at some pov version.

ITAQALLAH argued that we should not interpret primary sources, and i agree 100%. Problem is, the article is not trying to interpret anything. ITAQALLAH said "sometimes you can use primary sources when there are extremely explicit". I argue that the following qualifies as "extremely explicit":

She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. 'Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death). Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:546

So Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima who got angry with Abu Bakr for this reason. She forsook him and did not talk to him until the end of her life. She lived for six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). When she died, her husband. 'Ali b. Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself. During the lifetime of Fatima, 'All received (special) regard from the people. After she had died, he felt estrangement in the faces of the people towards him. So he sought to make peace with Abu Bakr and offer his allegiance to him. He had not yet owed allegiance to him as Caliph during these monthsSahih Muslim, 19:4352

You do not get any more explicit than that, there is no interpretation needed in this issue, Bukhari and Muslim are crystal clear when they state that Ali did not give baya for six month. And the article is not quoting hadith, Gibbon , a noted scholar, is also quote, and he is not the least ambigous regarding the rest of Ali's tribe, the Banu Hashim:

After the simple inauguration of Abubeker, he was obeyed in Medina, Mecca, and the provinces of Arabia: the Hashemites alone declined the oath of fidelity; and their chief, in his own house, maintained, above six months, a sullen and independent reserve; without listening to the threats of Omar, who attempted to consume with fire the habitation of the daughter of the apostle.[28]

But in either way, the article does not try to pin point how long the whit holding was, it faithfully presents the sources that are available, it gives dates when they do and omits dates when they do. When a source only states that the subject only withhold for a period, but does not specify the period, it does not make the withholding any less notable. Ie, if the source does not state for how long, it is not our job to try to guess how long, we only report what the source states.

Also, we are not here to determine what sources are sound or not. If other relevant sources exist, then of course do they need to be presented, but that does not make the other sources any less relevant.

Regarding "did all personalities mentioned resist for six months? nobody is denying that a pledge may have been temporarily withheld, but for how long? ", that is irrelevant. We report a timespan when there is one, and do not report one when there is not one. Lack of timespan does not make the subject any less notable. There is not problem with verification here, there is no un-verified information present in the article, every single part is sourced.

And im sure that nobody would argue that the question of how many people did not give the baya in the most crucial event in the Islamic history is irrelevant or non-notable.

Regarding "Well, this is a controversial topic, but I would like to point out that we should not miss the point that in these disputes the main concern of the early Sahaba should have been Islam rather than desire for wealth or power.". I don't understand this, what does their motivation has to do with anything, we are not here to guess or do original research.

And this is most certanly not a pov fork, stating that something is a povfork is a bad faith statement, accusing me of creating this to do dodge consensus. I most certanly did not do that, at most, this is a content fork, and it is not even that, since this information is not covered in any other article. Further, the article is a apart of the Succession to Muhammad series and it is way to detailed to be included in the main article. Im sure nobody that surprised is by the fact that the Succession to Muhammad can not be described in full depth in one single article.--Striver - talk 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke on this, because I have seen a history of POV-pushing in Islam related articles before, and I think all can agree those exist: Third holiest site in Islam, Reforms under Islam (610-661), just to name a few. Please please please Assume good faith - it was not a bad faith statement. And, it appears that this has continued here, from at least one side of the issue: every single keep so far has come from a Shia, and every single delete from a Sunni. This, unsurprisingly, should lead me to the idea that it may be a POV fork. I would probably speak out, at this stage, in favor of keep, but I see absolutely no evidence at compromise on including the Sunni POV that this list is bogus (clearly, neither side appears to be have accomodated at all: - [29], and no talk page discussion). Patstuart^talk|edits 11:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, it is true that one (1) single anon has edited that this list is "bogus", but he did that with no source to back it up, while the article contains voluminous references to Sunni scholars that have written that the named persons did not give their bay'ah initially. Surely there needs more than an anon edit to sidestep sourced scholars? If reference to a scholar who did not agree with some part of the article is provided, then that needs most certanly to be included in the article. But a single anon edit with no source? --Striver - talk 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is information. Information is the currency and value of WP. Deleting it would br an act of POV.--Zereshk 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 05:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism[edit]

personal essay, original research, fails WP:V, appears to be a POV fork after inclusion of poorly sourced material was rejected in other articles. A Ramachandran 14:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vajrayana. It seems to be important, but not enough for an entire article. In fact, I think only about half or less could be used in Vajrayana. .V. (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was written by a friend of mine, who I'm teaching how to use Wikipedia -- it was his first edit of any kind, and wasn't "rejected in other articles" (you should look through histories before you make claims like that); he was going to add it to Vajrayana, but I thought it was too long for that and suggested he make it into its own article. As far as WP:V, he's cited a few texts, as far as I can tell, but I'll see if he can add some more references. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested the merge because the second paragraph could be deleted entirely, as it's the origins of tantric buddhism and would therefore already be explained in the article it would merge to. I think that a section in the tantric buddhism article entitled "Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism" with two subsections: "Pre-Existing Use of "Divine Intoxicants" in the Hindu Tradition" and "Internal and External drugs" would be good and it wouldn't terribly overburden the article it's moving to. .V. (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism. Please do not clutter this AfD with discussion which does not directly relate to the merits of the article and whether it should or should not be deleted. A Ramachandran 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. ~~Please do not clutter the AfD process by nominating articles that could easily be improve~~d -- in this case four good references were given in the article, so there is no basis for doubting V. Placing a wikify tag would have been appropriate, DGG 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I happen to be somewhat of a specialist on Vajrayana. I am also familiar with the references cited. They do not directly address the subject of the article, but are simply the sources for bits and pieces put together in a creative manner in the article. That's why I nominated it as original research. The sources do not support the conclusions. They barely support some of the facts. A Ramachandran 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. My apologies.DGG 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the whole premise of the article is factually incorrect. There is no documented use of intoxicants besides alcohol in Vajrayana. The sources given do not say that there is. It appears that this editor is attempting to "read between the lines" and create a use of intoxicants out of thin air. The "nectar pills" used in Tibetan Buddhism are herbal and medicinal. I have had the opportunity to take some myself, and it was in no way intoxicating. What is required here is a citation to a source which directly discusses the issue. I either have or have read all the books listed, and none of them does this. This is OR, pure and simple, and bad OR at that. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TEFLWatch[edit]

This web site does not meet the notability requirements for web sites. A. B. ^(talk) 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexa rank past a million[30], no WP:RS found. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much notability here; significant perhaps only to a small community. --Brianyoumans 22:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Web Notability does not apply because it is a teaching organization. Never mind, TEFLWatch has been approached for information on several occassions in the past about situations for TEFL teachers.

-The site represents an organization that performs work for thousands of teachers throughout the world who lack

-Trying to hide the organization would be a disservice to thousands of teachers worldwide and would be considered a victory by schools that are taking advantage of teachers.

-It is linked to by other articles on wikipedia and is pertinent to

-Wikipedia is a general interest online encyclopedia, not an specific interest encylopedia.

-TEFLWatch's website has the most page views and vistors of ANY similar site.

If you really want to delete the article, you really should look into the organization and how your actions may or may not affect teachers who are in a tough situation and need access to information.

For teachers who are very concerned about this, you may want to be fully transparent as to why you want to delete the article.

And remember this from the Guide for Deletion:

first invite discussion on the talk page if you are at all unsure as to the article's worth. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!
check the "what links here" link to see how the article is being used within Wikipedia.

--Teflteacher 03:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 total edits since account created today -- all TEFLWatch-related. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion -- simply find some references to demonstrate notability (per the guidelines) that meet WP:RS and WP:V. One editor put a prod tag on the article explaining the article's problems and it was stripped off -- without comment. I put a notability tag on the article and Teflteacher took it off with out providing any references proving notability. Just demonstrate notability using a Reliable Source and this article stays. Otherwise, it has to go unless someone changes the guidelines this week.--A. B. ^(talk) 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BozMo talk 08:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Don't know what tags you use to vote to keep it, but I vote to keep it. It is well known in its area, but I agree they need to show it is notable. Maybe you can help teflteacher by telling him exactly. Another question is why notability was never raised in the Talk Page for the article? It seems like that would have been a better place to start then putting up a 5 day deadline. In fact, I thought that was how it was supposed to proceed and before you look at how many edits I have, I only have a few on my username. I usually don't log in to make edits.

--Freddyjacobsen 12:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Freddy, you or TEFLteacher can follow the links in my earlier posts and they spell out what's needed. For convenience, here they are again:
- WP:RS -- Reliable Sources Guideline
- WP:V -- Verifiability
- WP:NOTE -- Notability (general)
- WP:WEB -- Notability -- Internet sites
- WP:OR -- No Original Research (I did not post this link earlier)
- A Google search on TEFLWatch turns up only 78 unique hits. I hope this helps.--A. B. ^(talk) 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --I started the article because I thought if three wikipedia articles had references to the organization that it needed to have its own article. Frankly, it's not notable outside of the TEFL community, but in the TEFL community, it is known. Frankly, it can stay or go and I am not bothered in the least. Let's look at two scenarios. It stays, people wondering about the organization are able to visit the article within Wikipedia and find information on exactly what it is about or the second scenario, in those articles, a direct link to TEFLWatch can be made and people visit the site directly to find out more about it. I think offering a non-biased place is better, but in the end, wikipedia admins will make the call, as they should. I, like two others on this page, am curious why issues hadn't been brought up in the talk page first. I know when I edit a page, my first instinct is to put something in the talk page before I would ever think of tagging it for deletion.

--Che1959 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that notability within a small community of interest is just as worthy as notability in a large one. I believe we should have articles on quantum chromodynamics and Thomas Arne even though the vast mass of the world population has never heard of them. I've taken a look at the TEFLWatch site, and wasn't impressed by their approach to ratings, which seems to me to be very weak - if I were a teacher I would take the site with a very large grain of salt - but it certainly exists and seems to score well in google-hittage. I'm inclined to say that the article passes the notability barrier, and I believe that adequate references/sources can be found ( although current referencing is rather weak ). Where I do feel uncomforable is with the tone of the article: strictly speaking, much of what TEFLWatch provides is opinion, not information. This needs to be made clear, ideally by finding a reference that points out the site's weaknesses, and incorporating the appropriate points into this article. I think that at present the article appears superficially NPOV ( and it is clear that the writers have tried to be NPOV ), but is at risk of conveying the view that the site itself acts in an NPOV way, which ( because of its rating methodology ) it can't do. Subject to this being made clear, I'm inclined to say Keep, though with a re-write where appropriate. If my concerns here are not clear, please feel free to get in touch with me, and I'll try to explain further. WMMartin 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just one person's perspective (mine), but the first I've ever heard of TEFLWatch is through Wikipedia. There are numerous online watchdogs for the TEFL community (as an EFL teacher of three years I am acutely aware of a number of them), and none of them are notable enough to warrant their own pages. In fact, if we were to lower the requirements for notability, there are one or two watchdog groups that deserve their own pages before this website. Content-wise, TEFLWatch is nothing resembling a comprehensive website concerning the TEFL community, which is a criterion for notability if I could add it as one. In addition, a close look at this page and I can't find a way to edit it to make it not look like an advertisement to the site. On the flipside, I try to keep an eye out for anything TEFL-related on Wikipedia that sounds like shameless plugging for the big businesses in this community, and I don't think it's out of line to insist for the same when it comes to their watchdogs. Furthermore, if this is strictly an advocacy issue for those who prefer to keep the page, there are a number of concept pages (i.e. cram school, language school) that could do with an external link to the website, or better yet, more details about the state of teaching English abroad. Certainly the "Problems" section of Teaching English as a Foreign Language could be better served with greater elaboration than what is already there. Just having a page out exclusively about the website TEFLWatch does not further the cause of EFL teachers, if it concerns you as much as it concerns me. Roehl Sybing 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the various references in notable newspapers. One wouldn't be enough, a few puts it at borderline notable, which is where this article is at.Just H 03:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St George's cross vs. Union flag dilemma[edit]

sermon/OR-essay on UK flag issue, not encyclopedic delete Cornell Rockey 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV in concept and OR in execution. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only source is what seems to be a blog. Hut 8.5 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No no no unavoidably POV and OR --Doc^g 19:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This adds nothing to an encyclopaedia. KingStrato 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute of Brand Science[edit]

First, brand "science" is not actually science as such. Second, this article has zero independent sources. Third, the organisation is a small group within a university business school - my university department had half a dozen units like this. Fourth, the article reads as a press release, and includes some truly appalling management consultant bullshit. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a previous incarnation of this article was listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zyman Institute of Brand Science. --Muchness 16:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect without merge to Goizueta Business School. Reads like a press release; no independent sources to establish notability. --Muchness 16:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non notable, advertisement. — coelacan talk — 04:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "The Institute of Brand Science" is a cut-and-paste page-move copy of Zyman Institute of Brand Science. Although the new title is correct, the move method was not. Note that extensive discussion still exists at Talk:Zyman_Institute_of_Brand_Science. Fourohfour 14:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator notes, there are many such units in many universities. What makes this one notable ? The article doesn't say. Delete. WMMartin 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep mainly due to the lack of arguments for deletion. --Core desat 05:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander: The Source[edit]

This is promotional material for a film which has not yet been released. No verifiable NPOV information is available because the only information available is of a promotional nature. As such, the article can't be made to adhere to Wikipedia standards: it is simply advertising, and should thus be deleted. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 17:10Z

Keep this is a film which is most certainly coming out. the wording may not be the best but is no reason to delete the article. also you need to sign your posts. thanks.--Tainter 16:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is a film whose production has been completed, is part of a notable franchise and has notable cast and crew, and is likely to be (relatively) notable upon release. Just because the film has promotional material does not warrant it for deletion; there are citations like IGN out there. Reduce the article to a stub if there is information that is uncited and unhelpful, and the film's release will ensure coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You refer to IMDB as a source for saying that the film has been completed. Yet you have also said, "IMDb, in my experience, does not qualify as accurate when it comes to upcoming films," [31] and you have reverted other editors' contributions using that rationale. [32]
  - IMDb has been shaky in reporting whether or not a film had entered pre-production or not, as well as peculiar additions to the cast list and defined release years where there has been no such thing. However, I've never had an issue with IMDb confirming whether a film had been completed or not. Besides, on the official site, you can see footage of the film, so it's not like the project never happened. Even if it's not "completed", work has definitely been done on it, which is more than I can say for some crystal balling film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Film is coming out this year. --Lmblackjack21 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Film is coming out this year. Even if that is correct (which there is no way to verify, as it has not yet happened), how is that a justification for keeping the article? This is not a rhetorical question. If a product has not yet been released, there is no way to verify anything about it. Any available information is based solely on press releases. Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to be a marketing venue? If so, then so, but it was my understanding that Wikipedia articles were not to be used for advertising. Are films an exception? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 17:30Z
  - They're not an exception, but you moved to delete it instead of improving the article, which I've done. I suggest exploring other options before applying AfD to an article like this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The film has sources that seem to verify not only its existence but that it has started and finished production. I'm sure there is more information out there to be found, it just takes effort, and because a film requires effort shouldn't mean we should give up and delete it. I think the best venue would have been to address your concerns on the talk page, instead of going to AfD. Bignole 00:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did voice my concerns: the film has not been released, thus there is no subject for the article, thus the article is either fancruft or mere advertising, and should be deleted. There is no question of "improving" the article, because there is nothing to write an article about. That's my opinion. If it turns out that the Wikipedia community is fine with using articles as advertising for products which have not yet been released, then I will know not to recommend such articles for deletion in the future, and no harm will have been done. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-14 01:41Z
  - I don't understand your opinion; are you suggesting that the creation of film articles should be held off until after the films' release, or are you suggesting that the article for Highlander: The Source was created for promotional purposes? For the former, I've found plenty of objective information for upcoming films (Spider-Man 3 is an extensive example). For the latter, there would usually be opinion in creating articles for films before they come out. That doesn't make their creations wrong; if the content of these articles are disputable, then the tone of the content can be adjusted for appropriate readability. Obviously, press releases try to make the film exciting, but it's a matter of boiling the information down to its essence to be objective and succinctly informative. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps I have not been clear. I am suggesting both. Wikipedia is ostensibly an encyclopedia, not a fan club home page, a tabloid, or a venue for press releases for "Coming Soon" attractions. At least, that's what I thought. I could be wrong. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-14 18:46Z
      - There are many articles on topics on Wikipedia that wouldn't exist in your father's encyclopedia. For articles about upcoming films, I think adherance to Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view helps preserve their integrity. There is information that does come out prior to release, and I think it's easier to build up information in bits by creating the film articles when production is underway. I mentioned Spider-Man 3 -- one of my favorite bits of information is how they used a congenital amputee boxer for the illusion of punching through the chest. I don't know if we would have been able to dig that up after the film's release, as there is a lot of nonsensical coverage of SM3. I don't think that Highlander: The Source was in good shape when you initially put it up for AfD, but honestly, part of my reason for the improvement afterward was to show you that it could be improved, even though I have little interest in seeing it. Information like the film originally having the title The Journey Continues isn't promotional; it leans more toward the encyclopedic purpose, even though the film is not going to be some kind of Schindler's List (maybe it will, but it's doubtful). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be verifiable and notable. —ShadowHalo 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The movie is done and in post-production. I do think the synopsis should be removed since that seems unverifiable. But the page itself should stay Spookyadler 09:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is even a link for the first few minutes of the film. Adrian Paul the star has a journal on his web site about his time while making the film as well, also it is mentioned on Thekla Reuten's web site. I agree the synopsis is not officially verifiable yet, but the page should stay, and the cast is verified. Ocnomad 13:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daigacon[edit]

No assertion of notability on an anime convention that has yet to happen (WP:CRYSTAL). Was tagged with {{notability}} on December 30. Only known references are a listing at AnimeCons.com and the convention's website. Would not pass WP:CORP by a long shot. --Farix (Talk) 15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent "update", it's been transformed into an WP:ADVERT, so I'm including that as an addition reason for the nomination. --Farix (Talk) 21:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 15:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable convention that started ~~this~~ last year. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't even held their first convention, so it couldn't have "started" last year. Planning period isn't included in when calculating the lifetime of a convention. --Farix (Talk) 17:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was basing this on the infobox, not the top header. My mistake! I should have known better considering I improved the infobox! :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 17:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The event has happened under a different name and has a non-profit group of the same name running it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.22.65 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 January 2007
While that may be the case, there is no evidence to back this up. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was called Games Day and joined with another organization to create Daigacon. Here is the best proof I can find. Image:Games day.JPG {{subst:unsigned|Silentsam84}
An uploaded image isn't even remotely reliable. But it leads me to believe that these are two different conventions instead of the same convention under different names. --Farix (Talk) 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- 9muses 01:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently non-notable...even if the guest list (with Yoko Ishida) is promising. If it did run under another name, I'd sure like to know what that name was.--PatrickD 04:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No assertion of notability, reads like an advert. Basically, this one is complete balls, and here the balls are made of crystal. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 11:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Vega[edit]

No real ascertainment of notability, and I don't think the references are adequate either, so WP:V violation as well. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 16:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not fulfilling any criteria of WP:BIO. Notability is not properly asserted per WP:PORNBIO. Ohconfucius 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tens of thousands of people have seen her videos on her website break.com, ect. 146.87.193.151 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ohconfucius. Tabercil 01:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rawalakotis[edit]

User:Mmena attempted to list this on AfD, but linked to the discussion for Aga Khani instead of List of Rawalakotis. I concur that it's deletion-worthy. Also, see article Rawalakoti with same content. Figma 16:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A1, no context to the article at all so we can have absolutely no idea what it is about. I believe we should that we should also consider Rawalakoti for deletion as well. Cowman109^Talk 16:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Del Not enought content and context issues... Tagged as such. Navou ^banter 17:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speedy tag removed by User:Cryptic with edit summary "not remotely short enough to speedy; let afd run its course". Figma 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete patent nonsense. I can't figure out what it's about. JuJube 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe I missed something, but I don't see why this would be speedy. Apparently Rawalakot is a province in Pakistan, (whether it belongs to Pakistan or not is debatable, but no point in going into that). So Rawalakotis are (I'd assume) the people residing therein. That would mean that this article, if properly named something like List of notable Rawalakotis, would be roughly like List of notable Calgarians. And, indeed, it seems to be made up largely of names of (arguably) notable people from that province. That's not to say that it should be kept, of course - just that I'm not sure why we would speedy it. It's badly formed and badly named, but there is more to it than pure nonsense. --TheOther Bob 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. BorgQueen 22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional online services[edit]

Listcruft; no encyclopaedic value. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfectly encyclopaedic information. Jcuk 18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a collection of every non-existent website ever mentioned once in a TV show. Otto4711 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.com per nom--Doc^g 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be done better, but as a collation of material that is on Wikipedia elsewhere it is not a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 03:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a list fan, but do see some use, as this can easily be cross-referenced to many articles... and, as the article already states, there are some that have moved from fiction to reality. SkierRMH,04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list restricted only to those sites that have been established might be reasonable, if the sites are themselves somehow notable, c.f. Doctor Who tie-in websites. This list isn't that. This list is any website that any character mentioned in any form of media ever, regardless of whether there is any significance to the site or it's a one-off reference that will never be mentioned again. Otto4711 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valuable list for reseaching fictional works.Lumos3 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable, useful, not indiscriminate and small enough to maintain easily. Made-up WP:NOT criteria notwithstanding. --Canley 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your comments here indicate that you don't have a real understanding of what WP:NOT means. WP:NOT is not limited only to those items specifically mentioned. Indiscriminate collections of information are subject to deletion even if they do not happen to be one of the things specifically mentioned by name in the policy. The named items are those for which consensus has been reached and is not intended to be the only things that are indiscriminate. Otto4711 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have, but I still think it's somewhat misleading to link to WP:NOT with a completely made-up (dare I say, fictional) statement as if your interpretation is clearly backed-up by this policy. I'm sure we both agree that this is true: "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries"! In the absence of applicable policy we'll have to see where the debate takes us... --Canley 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information (which qualifies). People who say it's valuable for research don't understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that has and ever will happen. Read: WP:ILIKEIT. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to List of characters in the Halloween series. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in the "Halloween" series[edit]

Unencyclopedic list-ish article. Not really a list, not really an article. Largely redundant with the articles in Category:Halloween (film series) characters. At best, any verifiable and original content should be merged with the appropriate Halloween articles. Kafziel ^Talk 16:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing outrageous here when compared to other List of characters in X articles. Michael Myers (Halloween) exists, Laurie Strode exists, so rename to List of minor characters in the Halloween series (no quote marks please), and tag for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to "List of characters in the Halloween series", character lists are okay per WP:WAF since they have the potential to give a synopsis about each character (which this article looks like it does), which a category cannot do. Axem Titanium 05:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I guess I should clarify that I'm not saying that the category takes the place of a list. I'm saying that the people on this list already have their own complete articles, such as Laurie Strode or Samuel J. Loomis, which can be found in that category. Everything here that's notable is redundant to those articles. Kafziel ^Talk 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and tag for cleanup thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals at Chester Zoo[edit]

Unsourced listcruft, which at the most should be merged with Chester Zoo (which is also a poor article). Majorly 16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of questionable purpose. If someone wanted to know where a certain animal was held in captivity then I'd assume they'd contact the zoos in question. Lists for each zoo across the world would be impractical, need constantly updating and I'd seriously wonder how useful they would be. QuagmireDog 18:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see any encyclopedic value in this. Hut 8.5 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. No value in merging. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged and redirected. Avi 05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Zoo exhibits[edit]

A hopeless, unsourced badly written article, which at the most should be merged with Chester Zoo (which is also a poor article). Majorly 16:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chester Zoo. Poorly written but outlines major exhibits (unlike the other article). Tagging main article for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Dhartung; combo would help the 2nd. SkierRMH,03:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Waggers 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Gibian[edit]

Non-notable poet. Can't find any reviews of her work from reliable sources. There's ample pages where a poem of hers is "published" with a blurb about her underneath, and various mentions of her on blogs but nothing to push her over the edge notability wise One Night In Hackney 16:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My own brief research didn't turn up anything to indicate that this might satisfy WP:BIO. CiaranG 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite the large majority of keep arguments, it needs to be established that Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Very few of the keep arguments come from a policy or guideline standpoint and do not address the concerns of the nominator (lack of notability. Encyclopedic notability is important, as this is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet. Furthermore, inclusion is not an indicator of notability, and the existence of an article X is not a reason for keeping an article. However, even looking past those arguments, there is still not a consensus to do anything here. --Core desat 05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Hornbeck[edit]

Does not seem notable, maybe belongs in wikinews if it is a newspiece. Navou ^banter 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep He is the key figure in a major news story that has garnered daily national coverage since it began. It's hardly "just another abduction," as some of you have (somewhat coldly) stated.

Keep This is an extremely relevant case that will intrigue many in years to come. The rarity and unusualness of a 4 1/2 year kidnapping are undeniable. As a psychologist, I have a special scholarly interest in Shawn Hornbeck, clearly this boy may have suffered from an extraordinary case of Stockholm Syndrome similar to that of Elizabeth Smart who was held captive for 9 months. Also his kidnapper Michael Devlin, should have a linked but still separate page. Also I'm sure as information comes out about the tactics Devlin used to terrorize Shawn, and what he endured during his captivity, there will be much more to add to his page. Also for all everyone saying this boy is just out for 15 minutes of fame, 4 1/2 years of captivity with a man who probably did god knows what to him is never something someone would do for attention. I think that's a horrible suggestion.

Keep - Was held captive for four years. If you want an AfD, try the other kid who was kept for two weeks or something like that. --Joffeloff 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not my goal to AFD. I would rather be an inclusionist. :P But I digress, the article reads like a news piece, and if we include that, then we must include every other kidnapping/missing that resulted in "significant" results. There are too many cases. Side comment: If it appears that consensus will not be achieved, I have been known to withdraw nominations. Navou ^banter 17:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'- Elizabeth Smart has an article, and she was also kidnapped and later found after years. If she gets an article, then presumably this kid gets one too. Maybe not in this form, but as an article about the Devlin fellow 74.133.144.195 17:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page." Navou ^banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would venture to ask, is the news a reliable source, even non-trivial? Navou ^banter 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment - Collectively (i.e., multiple, internationally recognized news sources, such as AP and Reuters), yes. Ward3001 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Does not seem notable"?!?!? How can a normal person think that this case is not notable. A child goes missing for over four years, in a situation where most kids are murdered, and he is miraculously found alive!?! What are you thinking?!?! And the statement that "it reads like a news piece" is no excuse for deletion. Revise it, add to it, fix it up, but KEEP THIS ARTICLE!! (I have no vested interest in this article or subject matter.) Ward3001 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that because of the rare nature of the discovery following such a significant amount of time after the kidnapping, this article should be kept. The article could be greatly revised and expanded, but it should be included. Nicastpj 17:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In agreement with others. Since everything I was thinking seems to be already said, I feel the article should stay. Fanficgurl 12:55 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per above. --Bill.matthews 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - Seriously, how could this be considered for deletion? Might as well remove Elizabeth Smart, because 9 months pales in comparison to the 4 years this boy was with his abductor. Fighting for Justice 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No indication of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or a news service (that's Wikinews, a totally separate project) or a record of crime victims. News notability is not the same as encyclopedic notability. Encyclopedias are not news record archives. If the foundation created in the victim's name could be shown to have developed into a substantive, long-term organization, I would probably support a move to an article about that foundation. But of time of writing, the foundation website is down, and its unclear to me how significant this organization is. If there is evidence that this case had a broader substantive cultural or legal impact, I'll reconsider my !vote. Personally, I believe that the widespread conflation of Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia with its use as a news and magazine article archive is the most underestimated/underconsidered urgent problem facing the project (and its sister project, Wikinews). Bwithh 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment wikipedia isn't entirely for encyclopedic notability, think of all the actresses and actors on here. Shawn should be on here for the same reasons as Holloway and Smart, and then some. There is some "encyclopedic" notability in here however, it will be interesting to learn why his captivity went on for as long as it did. This is not so much a news article as it is an investigation into an extremely unusual kidnapping.

Keep in agreement with above. --User:Tommy23 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Enhance-Trust me, it will be very easy to enhance this story in the coming days. But this is a notable article and stary, anyone who can't see that is blind. Bing kidnapped for 4 plus years and being found alive is not the norm in kidnapping cases and notable in and of itself. I know this from persoanl experience sadly. Kerusso 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request of participants I would request, "please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article". Also would you disclose if you have a vested interest in the subject of the article, thanks, Navou ^banter 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very notable case. Not many kids go missing, and turn up alive many years later.--Andrew Duffell 19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am in concurrence with Bwithh above. I am beginning to see the need for differentiating between Wikipedia and Wikinews. There's not much more to this boy (and I'm not downplaying the tragedy) than the fact that he was kidnapped and found years later. The brevity of the article demonstrates this. I do believe information like this should be available via the internet, and here, but the proper place is Wikinews until this story can demonstrate long-term and lasting notability. Recommend anyone concerned open a Wikinews article on the event as one does not exist now. - Rollo44 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading Elizabeth Smart kidnapping and found it a fascinating article. If this one can somehow grow in similar length and quality, it would be a good article. But that's a big IF. - Rollo44 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards crime victims, generally I look to see if either the case has created a change in law, had a substantial cultural influence, or there has been a significant book, film, play etc. about the case or the case has attracted sustained, substantial national media attention. The Elizabeth Smart case seems to pass these criteria. The Hornbeck case, I don't think so at the moment. Bwithh 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/move to wikinews per Bwithh. --Rkitko 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, due to decisions made about the licensing of Wikinews content, a direct transwiki isn't possible (I think this is a major flaw in Wikinews design, though I know there are reasons why it was done in this way). Certainly someone can open a new article in Wikinews as Rollo44 suggests. Bwithh 20:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Michael J. Devlin. I am fine with either option but this shouldn't be deleted. WP:BIO's last bullet point is Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not so clearcut as you think. The line you quote from WP:BIO is specifically from a section which is talking about the likelihood of finding reliable sources on a subject, and is not directly addressing a subject's notability. WP:BIO is a guideline which does suggest any subject receiving multiple independent media coverage may be considered worthy of an article. However it is not a policy. Policy WP:NOT suggests that articles on news events should be of "historical significance" - a position which is backed up by Wikipedia:How_the_Current_events_page_works#Wikipedia_is_not_a_news_service: "Wikipedia is not a news service. That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic." Bwithh 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Bwithh, you state exactly why this article should stay: "In the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on the topic." Elizabeth Smart deserves her own article because she made the news for a really long time and because her case was notable. Ownby and Hornbeck show no signs of leaving the front of CNN's website any time soon, especially because details (such as what happened during the intervening years) may not be known for days - or months. As soon as the kidnapper's trial gets underway, all three articles will become much larger and more encyclopedic. Right now, yes, it reads like a news story, but eventually this article will be at least as useful as the one on the Lindbergh baby. And Navou, contrary to what you've said above, very few kidnapping cases achieve "significant results" like the finding of the child, and that slim likelihood decreases with time. Thor Rudebeck 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep do not merge Are you people nuts? This story is bigger than Natalee Holloway and Elizabeth Smart combined-both of whom have their own page.Tommypowell 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page." Navou ^banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice if some of the !keep voters would come up with some sources and references to back up their exclamations and claims Bwithh 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What type of references are you expecting Bwithh? The rescue itself is notable. Missing children, abducted by strangers, often do not come home. They did. Fighting for Justice 21:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT may be applicable to some arguements here. Navou ^banter 21:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As would WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ward3001 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies notability rules. -- Stbalbach 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reason: precedent, hundreds or pages like this exist in wikpedia. --DuKot 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to let you know, the Pokemon defense doesn't work on WP. TJ Spyke 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual having his 15 minutes of fame. Wikipedia is not Wikinews.No basis for thinking that a year from now anyone will remember his name. Edison 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Missing at 11 years old for 4 years and then found? Sounds notable enough to me. Hardly a case of "15 minutes of fame". Korinkami 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notability is semi-assured, As mentioned above we have an Elizabeth Smart article and a Johnny Gosch article. I know, having one is not a reason to have others, but in this case, it seems minimally encyclopedic. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep <personal attack removed - User:Zoe|(talk) 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)>. If an internationally covered event that's going to be discussed for years isn't notable, then half of Wikipedia needs to be deleted. Umlautbob 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see into the future? How do you know what will be talked about in years?

Strong Delete per Bwithh. IF he ends up getting books written about him and/or TV movies, then maybe. Otherwise he is just another missing kid that was found (even if it was after 4 years), this is not Wikinews. TJ Spyke 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per precedent at Elizabeth Smart and other such articles. Italiavivi 01:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page."Navou ^banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart became notable because she was on the news almost every day for months, and had several books and TV movies about her made. This kid wasn't even mentioned on the news until he was found, and there is no way of knowing if anything else will happen. TJ Spyke 01:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--the subject should not be forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.165.20 (talk • contribs)

I have refactored the above comment. Navou ^banter 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is not a memorial, and people get kidnapped/killed every day. TJ Spyke 01:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Natascha Kampusch; rename as per Elizabeth Smart kidnapping if necessary, but I don't favour one over the other at the moment. Radagast 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page."Navou ^banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. He has only recently become a figure in the public's eye. As the days go on, his story and the circumstances of his abduction might be revealed in the news, but for now very little is known about what happened to him, other than that he was abducted and rescued four years later. If this does not happen, Merge with Michael J. Devlin. Maikeru 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's obviously wikinews. Of course, I fully recognize many articles exist about people who are notable only because their victimization made a temporary national splash. Anybody remember who James Jordan was? That article's AfD ended with a keep, but it really isn't contributing much to this encyclopedia. Unless Wikipedia wants to be an all-inclusive (see: WP:NOT) information source, I suspect that we'll eventually want to exclude main stream media articles as evidence of notability. If something is truly notable, then it will eventually become the subject of more scholarly work. In another case, I've had a Speedy Delete tag removed from an article by someone who thinks a video game listed as one of the "15 worst" in a web commentary is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The trend here these days, appears to be toward admitting YouTube, MySpace, and personal blogs as evidence of notability. In the case at hand, I'd rather wait for an academician to write an article or a book on the psychological effects of long-term kidnapping on its survivors (or some such) before Wikipedia sees an article on this subject. Posting one now appears gratuitous at best and exploitation at worst. Rklawton 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is still not Wikinews. GassyGuy 05:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If Elizabeth Smart gets an article, I think that this is as notable. --Btmiller 05:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see: WP:POKEMON for why this argument fails. Rklawton 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and enhance - Although this article reads like a news piece, the subject is notable and in the media. People are already going crazy on the kidnapper's talk page about the mere possibility of a merge. Bronzey 06:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:INN I like this, perhaps it is applicable here for the "But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page." Navou ^banter 06:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO: nontrivial coverage in multiple independent sources. This guy has ongoing coverage in thousands of places in international media. How is this anything but notable? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Elizabeth Smart has an article because she made international headlines..for about..a year. She also had a tv movie, and a bunch of other stuff related to her. That's why she gets an article. Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ornby and Michael J. Devlin should all probably be merged into an article about the kidnapping, if anything. (If Shawn's get deleted, Ben's should probably go as well. At least Shawn's article has sources, and all that wikijazz). I'm not going to properly vote keep, or delete, but I strongly oppose the comparison to Elizabeth Smart, and Natalie Holloway. There's no way these guys are anyway more notable, no offense. I think the story is sad and all, and glad they're okay, but still. Just because you feel bad for them, and are interested in the story, and because they made national (not international like E.Smart's and N.Holloway's) headlines for a week doesn't make them that notable. --theblueflamingo^Speak 09:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1. They have made international news. Google news turns up hits from the UK, at least. 2. Natalie Holloway and Elizabeth Smart are famous, but they're not the minimum for an article; they're far above it. It doesn't even take fame to be article-worthy. Notability is a very low bar. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a person who could become a crucial witness during the current investigation of the kidnapping suspect. To claim that Elizabeth Smart deserves an article and that Mr Hornbeck does not seems to be an example of Missing White Woman Syndrome in action, especially in how the original nomination is stated. MDonfield 10:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not wikinews, neither is it a crystal ball so arguing on possible future notability is moot. Is this person newsworthy? Sure. Is he encyclopedic? I don't belive so. I concur with Bwithh, in that that wikipedias purpose as an encyclopedia is being hurt by using it as a news outlet, tracking breaking news without regard to its historical relavance, for the simple reason that we cannot always judge historical impact until some time has passed, and putting everything that splashed on the front pages into wikipedia is counter to wikipedia's basic policies of not being a source of indiscriminate information/news outlet/memorial. When an event is current, it always appears more notable, which is why I belive the best thing to do in cases like this is let the dust settle before creating an article on someone - all living people too, so don't forget WP:BLP, most notably the "write conservatively" phrase. However, I have also found that if an article does get created, it is better to wait a short time before nominating it for afd, because, as the above debate shows, insults seem to fly becuase current events can inspire heated debate. However, an encyclopedia should be dispassionate, and more importantly, unhurried. Regards, MartinRe 11:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No Merge If Spencer Elden can get a page why not the most important boy kidnap return in 30 years, since Steven Staynor-who also has a page.

"But so and so article exists"... "Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality due to the fact that any individual may edit a page."Navou ^banter 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of "But so and so article exists ..." is an essay (WP:INN), not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:N, however, IS a Wikipedia guideline and states: "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Ward3001 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As set forth above, this is a once-in-a-long-time event for what is now an inarguably public figure. Not since Elizabeth Smart appeared after nine months and Steven Stayner was returned after seven years in captivity has there been such an event. The text of the article will likely be substantially augmented as details of the trial become known and, based on the twenty-four hour media coverage already in place, this story is not likely to disappear from the front pages anytime soon. That more than qualifies under Wikipedia's requirements of notoriety. And yes, I do believe that, from the comments above, the proposer's nomination of this article while leaving the Elizabeth Smart article alone is an example of Missing White Woman Syndrome, albeit an unconcious one. 67.149.103.119 15:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the following found above: "The text of the article will likely be substantially augmented as details of the trial become known and, based on the twenty-four hour media coverage already in place, this story is not likely to disappear from the front pages anytime soon." The trial will come and more, much more, information will follow. - Rollo44 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Documents a current event, it is one of the biggest stories in the media.
Keep - clearly a notable person. - Richardcavell 00:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kidnapping is a notable event, and being found alive four years later is even more notable. Don't merge with the pervert's article though.--TommyOliver 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC) — TommyOliver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, this case has been all over U.S. news. Re-assess after the news has died down, but we will still probably want to keep the article. Rhobite 02:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable individual in the public eye now, if he fades from it in time, re-nominate the article. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, current major US news. --Jaisonline 02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a case that will only get bigger as time goes on. To me, the only question is how to present the whole thing, with merging of articles and everything. Shawn Hornbeck went missing thirty miles from where I grew up, but that's as far as my "vested interest" goes. piper108 02:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any notability will be short lived and of the "15 minutes of fame" kind. He's done nothing to deserve inclusion into an encyclopedia. In fact, he's done nothing at all. John Reaves 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down. No one is bestowing accolades here. And no one is claiming he's done anything special. Elizabeth Smart, Steve Bartman, and Aleksey Vayner haven't "done anything" either and yet they all have interesting articles. As time goes by, more and more information will come out regarding this kidnapping. This is clearly a notable event and Wikipedia has plenty of space to cover it. - Rollo44 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Calm down"? John Reaves 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wish you would respond to the substance of my statement. - Rollo44 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's interesting (see WP:ILIKEIT) doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. No one has said there is a space issue here. Yes, there is space, but there's no reason to waste it. John Reaves (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's two good reasons. One, it's likely to become a textbook case of stockholm syndrome ... and two, it's statistically unusual on a number of levels, in that the child survived, and that it happened so close to home. They still have articles on the Lindbergh kidnapping and that happened a long time ago, so I doubt that it's going to get old anytime soon.--TommyOliver 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The personal stuff aside, please be careful about saying someone's "likely to become a textbook case of stockholm syndrome". There really is no evidence of that and if the family so choose, there may never be full details of what happened during Hornbeck's captivity. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The very fact of a kidnap victim being discovered alive 4 years later is sufficiently rare to make him notable. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WJBscribe. 1ne 11:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. —Jo nMo ore 14:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the story does die down later, it can be deleted then. As it is likely to expand at the moment, deleting it would be premature.--Boffob 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WJBscribe. New Progressive 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has notability on par with Elizabeth Smart though I do think the Ben Ownby article should be merged into this one. Agne 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exploding Boy 18:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cases like his and Elizabeth Smart's are extrememly notable and should be researched further in regards to their mental health, Stockholm Syndrome, etc. MaroonFrog 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While probably not as exceptional as the case of Natascha Kampusch, this sort of thing is very rare and significant both in terms of newsworthyness and in terms of research into the psychology of these sorts of things. That is to say, if we delete this article now as unencyclopedia it will just be recreated after the first few books and probably juornals articles have been written about the kidnapping. (Edit: It might be useful to merge Ben Ownby, this article and the artice on Michael J. Devlin into one article for now. It would be a better article and if it grows too big then seperate them out. So, my vote would be Keep or Merge into a new article)[[Dalf | Talk 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it was notable enough for me to look it up, and that's my criteria. Given the tremendous notability of the subject, I think this AFD is borderline bad-faith. Themindset 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems so far the thought is KEEP, but will that really happen in this case? Kerusso 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on who votes. If it's a non-registered user, they give 1/2 a vote, a registered one gets one and administrators get something like five votes. 67.149.103.119 23:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a deletion discussion. No votes, outcome it determined by discussion. Regards, Navou ^banter 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merging seems to be the best thing right now, considering the amount of info we have.--C J King 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. MaroonFrog convinced me with "Cases like his and Elizabeth Smart's are extrememly notable and should be researched further," plus I looked him up after reading about him in the Washington Post, and there is obviously quite a bit to this story yet to come out. The article is notable now, and will much more notable in the future. Why fork an article later? Clearly, that would be the result of a merge. Adelord 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep for now and possibly renominate at a later date. Right now there are a lot of people emotionally invested in keeping this article. We do not currently know all of the facts, and I personally think when some time passes there will be a better chance at actually getting this resolved. There are other issues concerning the privacy of the children and I think it likely that we'll revisit this AFD with more issues in the future. AniMate 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any reasonable person with knowledge of the three major U.S. cable news channels would agree with absolute certainty that this case is going to be in the news for a very long time. Shawn Hornbeck specifically will be under the microscope for the fact that he apparently never tried to escape despite abundant opportunities to do so, and the supposed reasons for this will be the topic of endless discussions in countless media outlets. You may not like that, but Wikipedia does not exist to serve your personal tastes. 216.254.24.141 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. Anything noteworthy suffers repeated deletions on Wikipedia, thanks to narrow-minded administrators who sincerely believe they know everything worth knowing. That's just the way of the world. (By the way, how's that three-week fundraiser going? You hit your $1.5M target yet?) 66.108.168.149 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)— 66.108.168.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Info added I added notable and newsworthy info to the article, regarding computer usage and friendship developed. Kerusso 02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the participants of this AFD. I would like to thank everyone for the input. I also would like to remind everyone that while this appears to be a sensitive issue, please remain civil. I understand the differing opinions between editors, please address the edit not the editor personally. Additionally, bad faith AFD nominations require evidence, not guesswork. (Continues on second following bullet)
As I could not guarantee a total keep consensus, I did not withdraw the nomination in accordance with the recommendation of WP:SNOW. Very good arguments and discussion have been presented on both sides, and this is a good thing. Continue to express your arguments, but please try to remain civil. Consensus will determine the outcome of this AFD. Keep up the good work. Regards, Navou ^banter 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please bear in mind that personal attacks will not be tolerated and they will be removed on sight with no warning. John Reaves 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somthing I did? :\ Navou ^banter 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I've just had to remove a couple attacks already, an they seem to accumulate on the article talk pages of this guy and the boys he kidnapped. I just wanted to be preemptive so they didn't carry over. John Reaves 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as personal attacks suck, WP:RPA is not policy. Please don't try to police the place. 1ne 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just wanted to be sure. Navou ^banter 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 1ne: That may be true, but the policy at WP:AFD states "Do not make derogatory comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." John Reaves 05:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job and thanks - Even though Navou and I are on opposite sides on this issue (and I will contiue to strongly oppose deletion), I want to express my appreciation to him and some, but not all, of the other editors (on both sides) for keeping the focus on the issues rather than personalities of the editors. I will accept any decision that does not seem contrary to the consensus. Thanks, Wikipedians. Ward3001 23:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I searched for it, and I'm sure others will, as well. It's fairly notable. Given that it just happened, one of two things could happen. 1) More information will come out, like the Elizabeth Smart abduction, or 2) This will be forgotten, no more info will come, and it could be merged. For now, though, I think it should be kept. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elizabeth Smart/Natalee Holloway precedent. Kat, Queen of Typos 06:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep unless you wish to nominate Elizabeth Smart and Natalee Holloway for deletion as well. Article should NOT be merged. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per all aboveOo7565 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant case, not "just another abduction." - Old american century
keep Has been the subject of multiple independant non-trivial writings and thus satisfies the first notability criterion. Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no comment. -- RattleMan 15:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article about the kidnapping itself. The participants are only notable as a result of the kidnapping and the surrounding legal saga that is soon to play out. Since their notability seems to be totally tied to that event, it makes sense to me to merge it. Otherwise keep, as there is worthwhile info there. JCO312 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Obviously this is a relatively high profile article, but I'm not sure if it'll stay that way after everything plays out. A merge might be necessary after it's dropped out of the news. --Amynewyork4248 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very high-profile case, there was an article today in the Daily Mail in the UK [33], which was linked to on the Drudge Report. Based on the recent case of the girl in Austria, this seems like the kind of thing that people will talk about for a long time. GabrielF 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An eleven year old boy is kidnapped and goes missing for four and a half years, and is presumed dead. Instead it turns out that he is still alive and happened to be within reach of his family. He probably suffered rare psychological trauma and abuse during his captivity. This stuff happens all the time, there is nothing scholarly to be learned from this case, no evidence of notability at all! okay I was being sarcastic but I mean what is the person who suggested deleting this thinking? — Lyle130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Keep or Strong Merge into one big article If this story, or the kid, isn't notable, I really don't know what is. --Raderick 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to a Metaphysical Certitude -- Objectively notable and verifiable as the subject of a nationwide FBI search and copious press coverage. Status confirmed by numerous reliable sources. Weak opinion to merge with other related articles under a new article with appropriate redirects. --Ssbohio 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Acknowledged he is in the public eye, but this is not encyclopedic. Unfortunately, kidnapping occurs all over the world, and it just so happened that this one boy landed in the public eye simply because of the length of his captor's hold on him. Please get rid of this article; this kid already has his name in the press- and if it's exposed that he's been molested or raped- it simply is not right to throw his name on some wiki article for the whole world to see. You want encyclopedic? Write about the trial of Michael Devlin, just don't exacerbate the emotional state of this boy! Consider this, in a few years after this has all blown over- people will hopefully remember the perpetrator, not the victimized, and Wikipedia should not be used as a proxy to expose victimized minors to the whole of society. The fact that were even considering posting the name of a potentially victimized minor is disgusting, and I was hoping that Wikipedia held itself to a higher standard. I agree with several posters- it's a current events news article- not an encyclopedic event. It's sad that were even considering leaving this up; imagine 15 years from now being Hornbeck (if he had been victimized) and having a Wikipedia article screaming: HEY I WAS RAPPED! Don't do this to a child...--71.194.128.49 08:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.194.128.49, you've been here a month and made valuable contributions to the project. However, removing content because someone in the article, even its subject, wouldn't want to be written about is an example of the slippery slope. Wikipedia is not censored for content, and an article must stand or fall by the same standard whether its subject would want it here or not. To assert that deletion is warranted based on speculation that Hornbeck is a rape victim would set a dangerous precedent of removing content based on supposition about what the subject of the article would think of it, or about what we may later find out. This is the biography of a living person, but it is not a topic off-limits to this project. --Ssbohio 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty clearly meets the WP:N with a multitude a reliable sources. If he turn out to be a nine-days wonder with no books or TV specials on the subject (I wouldn't count on it) he can be renominated later when feelings are not running so high. Eluchil404 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the kid was gone for four years and had such an extreme amount of leeway in his daily activities makes this notable. He was allowed access to a computer, he had friends who visited, he was left alone for long hours at a time, etc. This was clearly an exceptional case from many angles. MadHacktress 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepClearly meets "The primary notability criterion: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." However, it is borderline for meeting neutral point of view criteria.
Keep - now meets the notability criteria. Even made the cover of People, not that on it's own makes it meet it of course. --theblueflamingo^Speak 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis boy has been all over the news. People know his name and why shouldn't they be able to look him up in an encylopedia and learn more about him? Like others have said, this is an event that is occuring right now, and with time the article can grow to be as long as Elizabeth Smart's. Give it some time. Unless Shawn Hornbeck himself objects to this article, I say keep it. Funnybunny2121 23:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC) — Funnybunny2121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Shawn's story is extremely compelling and a huge news event right now. But that doesn't mean it's going to fade away either. We're still intrigued by Elizabeth Smart's story; I think it's going to be the same way with him. I also agree with the user above me who said people should be able to look up his name on Wikipedia and learn more about him. I don't think this article is hurting anyone, or the authorities' chances of convicting the man who allegedly abducted Shawn, so I think the article should stay up and be updated as the days and weeks go by. -- Wild Mountain Thyme 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shawn was the victim of an abduction that has been covered in more media sources then can be counted nationally and internationally. The nominators primary reason for deletion is lack of notability. Given the peculiarity of this case and the extensive and nontrivial coverage it has garnered and undoubtedly will garner calling this nonnotable is a joke at best — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assure you, the nomination was made in good faith and not in jest. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The compelling nature of the article is driven by the fact Shawn was found. There was absolutely no interest in creating the article when Shawn was still missing. As such, the notoriety behind keeping the article seems to be driven more by emotion and less by academic interest. - Kbrooks 03:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthys Gospel Choir[edit]

Gospel Choir with only one album does not satisfy notability criteria. A notability tag was removed without comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Ghost Power for the album. Chris 73 | Talk 17:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and conflict of interest (only contributor is User:Dave-higgz, or David Higgins, the lead guitarist). —ShadowHalo 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC & WP:V. SkierRMH,04:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SkierRMH. I added a speedy-spam tag which was removed, but the advertising was also mostly removed as well, so that's an improvement. However, they are still not notable. And User:Dave-higgz has removed the AFD tag. — coelacan talk — 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost Power[edit]

First and only album of a gospel choir that does not satisfy the notability requirements Wikipedia:Notability (music). A notability tag was removed without comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ichthys Gospel Choir for the choir itself. Chris 73 | Talk 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --Bill.matthews 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:MUSIC/Album. SkierRMH,04:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and conflict of interest (main contributor is User:Dave-higgz, or David Higgins, the lead guitarist). —ShadowHalo 04:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SkierRMH, ShadowHalo, and nom. By the way, User:Dave-higgz has removed the AFD tag. — coelacan talk — 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paxus Calta[edit]

After reviewing the edit history and text of this article, it appears that the article has autobiographical/vanity and verifiability problems. From the edit history, please note that the article's subject has very heavily participated in writing this article. --Takeel 17:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --Bill.matthews 18:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have certainly tweaked this article heavily. and it was proposed for deletion before and determined to be noteworthy. i am happy for it to be cut by myself or others to given instructions on how this might best happen. And it does have a vanity feel to it in it's current state. Paxuscalta 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After a quick search, I see there is a Die Zeit article writting primarily about him [34]. And he's referenced other times [35], [36] --Oakshade 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Informative article 65.41.35.79 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movoto[edit]

Non-notable company. Included in the three articles asserting notability for the company are a dead link and two articles which only mention the company in passing. Author appears to have conflict of interest. MKoltnow 17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had I done my homework more completely, I would have noticed that the author of this article has not contributed since the day of this article's creation in September 2006, so it would likely pass speedy (A7) without objection. Sorry to clog the queue. MKoltnow 18:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Bill.matthews 18:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tag it for editing or expansion. --evrik ^(talk) 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Leasure[edit]

Not Notable Bill.matthews 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, come back in a few years... The Rambling Man 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable. CiaranG 12:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sector 70 (Mohali)[edit]

Non-notable.

Delete as a list of unremarkable lists. Not notable and surely WP:NOT. The Rambling Man 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Rudjek 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verging on speedy as nocontext, definitely non-notable. SkierRMH,05:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if references are found. Geographical entites are verifiable and notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nichalp. It is a real place. I've found lots of references to it, as in "residents of Sector 70" [37], a location of a school designated as being in Sectcor 70 [38], etc. These show inherent notability of a real place where people live. --Oakshade 04:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Chi Dictionary[edit]

Seems fairly non-notable and unverifiable Walton monarchist89 18:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If i understood it correctly, it is a special vocabulary of a fraternity. Delete Square wheel (Lambda Chi Alpha) along with it while you're at it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, a member of the frat probobly made this when he was bored. WP:NEO applies here. Section9 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Violates WP:NEO --Richard 05:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any special notability here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hut 8.5 19:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Padilla[edit]

No assertion of notability for this person. Walton monarchist89 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First half not notable, second half nonsense -- Chris 73 | Talk 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. So tagged. Hut 8.5 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre de Launoit[edit]

fails WP:BIO Jefferson Anderson 17:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added additional information, to make clear that Jean-Pierre de Launoit is one of Belgium's top businesspeople and of of international stature. Pvosta 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there are a handful of citations on Google News Archive showing that he has been prominent in Belgian financial circles for some years (1982, NYT[39], although he is not the topic of that article). Pvosta, beyond just asserting it, can you provide more reliable sources such as interviews and profiles to demonstrate his notability and assure verifiability? --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added two addtional sources (interview & IYMF). Pvosta 12:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete does not appear to be the primary subject of independent sources. Eluchil404 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eluchil404. Not the primary subject of any articles, so fails WP:BIO's first criterion. — coelacan talk — 04:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He appears to be the primary subject of this article, but that's the only one I could find. Pending another source, I agree that he does not appear to meet BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 11:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Square wheel (Lambda Chi Alpha)[edit]

Non-notable, concerns a fraternity's internal practices Walton monarchist89 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable, although funny. Author should read WP:NFT. Section9 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Ewlyahoocom 23:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 06:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Dairy Queen. Daniel.Bryant 07:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MooLatte[edit]

I had prodded this article before. The day after it was deleted it was remade. I still don't think this article has any encyclopedic value. It is a description of a type of drink offered at Dairy Queen. It's a hopeless stub, there's no guarantee the product is going to be a permanent part of the menu, and it has not achieved iconic status like the Big Mac which could justify an article. Brief mention is made to the fact that some people don't like the name but this is a minor controversy and can be easily incorporated into the main Dairy Queen article. Tocharianne 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a detailed article for the frappucino including recipes, so I don't see why this particular product doesn't have a page telling of its composition and short history. Dukie010 08:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relation between the frappucino article and this one. We can't keep an article just because a similar article exists (see T&E:FEQ). Furthermore, I nominated MooLatte because I was aware of the article, I was not aware of the frappucino article (and probably that can be nominated for deletion as well). Tocharianne 14:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dairy Queen. Could probably merge Brazier (burger) and Peanut Buster Parfait as well, in a more detailed section on menu items. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe there should be a "Dairy Queen menu items" page? None of those three articles are really fleshed-out enough to stand on their own, but merging them into one page (after some cleanup) and adding similar short sections about other notable DQ items seems like it would make an informative page without making the Dairy Queen main article too big. Pinball22 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, there really shouldn't. "menu items" articles get deleted often. JuJube 01:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dairy Queen. If that article gets too large its editors should create a menu subarticle. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there is consensus to merge I'm more than happy to do it for Moolatte and the other items Elkman mentioned. I wanted to delete this article because I'm opposed on principle to the idea of having an encyclopedia entry for a random item off a fast food menu, but in retrospect a merge & redirect is probably better because it will make it less likely someone will recreate the article. Tocharianne 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dhartung. JuJube 01:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7 --BigDT 19:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sharman[edit]

Nonsense vanity Ben W Bell talk 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. So tagged. How has this lasted a month? Fan-1967 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I honestly don't know how it's lasted. It's been deleted before in the past. I think it should be deleted and protected. Ben W Bell talk 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Much Booty (In Da Pants)[edit]

A hip-hop song, why create it without the main album? The album also have some other songs, too.

2 Much Booty (In Da Pants)
Hit It From The Back (Remix)
It Ain't Easy
Bounce Shorty Bounce II - D-Roc
2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) - Down South Remix
Booty Bounce
Ride Wit It - Tra-Luv
Dog
Booty Rock
. DJ's Anthem - B.K.
2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) - 2000 Mix

Here is a link Fails WP:NSONGS. Gravity^Talk 13:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we have no articles for the artist, the album or the label. Possible speedy A7/G11. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, since it obviously has an tragically insufficient amount of information. Uioh 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Boot it in da pants. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no page for artist or album. —ShadowHalo 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, and Merge information with Buttocks, in the popular culture section. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 23:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "2 Much Booty" (the song) in particular charted on two separate Billboard charts [40]. The answer here appears to be keeping the song, creating an album page, and creating an artist page. Easy expansion with some work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Has no data and is not notable. SetofFive 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [IMDB]] shows that this song was in the movie soundtrack for Date Movie [41]. I am not going to vote, but I submit that this "Booty in Da pants" (the song) is therefore notable. I don't believe that Soundmaster T, his album (booty in da pants) and his one hit wonder song should all have separate articles, but I do recognize the encyclopedicity of putting content about the song and its related history on da wikipedia somewhere. MPS 04:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Reaching #2 on the Billboard R&B charts seems notable enough for me. But if that's not good enough, then how about AMG's claim that the song was "a hugely successful dance single" and "significant contribution to the short-lived booty music craze". Song meets at least three of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (songs). Caknuck 08:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's too much booty and not enough notability. .V. (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see what the community thinks of the added information about the Billboard charts. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Badlydrawnjeff. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeff (urgh ... I feel dirty :) ) and Ian's additions. And tne awesome name. Proto::► 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (please ignore last reason to keep).[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 00:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charted single. Lack of information in the article is a reason to expand, not delete; it's only when verifiable information is impossible to get that things get deleted, and that's not the case here. JuJube 01:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because this single absolutely did not reach #2 on Billboard's R&B chart. I'm quite confused why somebody is under the impression that it did. It actually reached the illustrious position of #70. It may at some point merit an article, but for now I think everything about it can be covered in the article about its artist, should that ever exist. See, for example, Brian and Michael, which covers all the info on "Matchstalk Men & Matchstalk Cats & Dogs (Lowry's Song)," because it simply doesn't make sense to split it out yet, although that song is obviously notable (UK #1 single). Anyway, this tune is very borderline as far as its notability, and I don't think it really merits an article at this time. GassyGuy 05:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the link above regarding its chart history for the confusion. It doesn't quite match with Billboard's history [42], but it still charted on two charts, making it quite notable in its own right. Also, "Matchstalk Men" should probably be split out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Hot Rap Singles at that time was just a list of the (thirty? I can't recall the number) highest-charting rap tracks on the R&B Single Sales chart, so while I agree that that's two charts, I disagree that that somehow adds to the significance. GassyGuy 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm more stunned that a charting single can be considered insignficant, to be honest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep hit the billboard chart and was there for nearly 20 weeks. That certainly qualifies per WP:MUSIC. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? WP:MUSIC says nothing about songs, and it would actually completely fail the failed WP:NSONGS. GassyGuy 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced... Addhoc 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable. GassyGuy's point is valid.zadignose 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NSONGS failed for a reason; charting single needs cleanup and the album and artist could use articles Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwikied and deleted. Avi 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardwired[edit]

Transwikiied dictdefs. Marked as {{unencyclopedic}} for two months. Contested prod. MER-C 04:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets make the dicdef go away after we ensure it has been properly included into wiktionary. Navou ^talk 05:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was surprised that this space wasn't taken by or linked to the notable Cyberpunk novel of the same name... looks like I have a new project. As it is, pure dictionary definition, but I think it might be able to be more, it's a common metaphor (IE for any unchangable behavior, I've heard it used in the context of behavioral science (in terms of 'hardwired reflexes') and it's a common technique/feature in computer science. I would like to note that though I may well be considered a deletionist I'm somewhat bothered by a common theme lately that sees articles put up for deletion based on the quality of the article, not the quality/notability/verifability of the subject of the article. In my opinion this is a notable concept and should be expanded not deleted. Wintermut3 06:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) any article about an actual concept would be at hardwiring. "hardwired" isn't the name of a subject. It's a past participle of a verb. Uncle G 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep/transfer to wiktionary, this is certainly a relevant term in computer/electric engineering. But I agree, the notability is not asserted, and there are no enough content yet. But per Wintermut3's suggestion, it should be expanded on, not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.181.37 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep it as Wikipedia entry In search for scene demos i also looked for Hardwired, but it's not here. This is a very remarkable Demo done in 1991. See for yourself here So i guess someone has to expand this entry to describe the demo a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.73.215.187 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. I don't see notability for the 1991 demo or the music content, but that's not on the block. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect, per WP:BOLD, Dread Scott being a likely misspelling of Dred Scott, nothing to merge, Dred Scott artcle already covers what's in this one. No need for an AfD to create a redirect. Tubezone 19:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Scott[edit]

Entry is misspelled duplicate of existing "Dred Scott" entry Glassoxen 18:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, Dred Scott article seems to adequately cover this topic. Possible case for creating a redirect? The Rambling Man 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. This is a junior-high-school level essay whose topic is adequately covered in our existing article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not redirecting, as this isn't a plausible search term. --Core desat 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get It Pumped[edit]

Non notable term, redirected to Sexual intercourse but author keeps reverting it back RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at best dicdef, at worst, complete WP:NFT. The Rambling Man 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is notable, one of the quickest, popular scottish term, and the redirected article has no relavence to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFCscottRFC (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:NFT or WP:NEO. Section9 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by the article's own description NFT/NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual intercourse as nominator and protect RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself states it's in an online dictonary (see external links) and it's something more than made up from school. It's more like the tv, where someone thought of it, created it and made a extremly popular invention (in this case, the term). It's quickly being one of the most used terms in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.117.114 (talk • contribs)

Delete and to Mr. Bold, you are describing a neologism, which are normally not kept. JuJube 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. No redirect. This is not a term anyone uses, the redirect is ill-advised, and would be a manner of "reward" to the creators of this article. Delete completely, salt if necessary. — coelacan talk — 04:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual intercourse. 'Pump' is a widely used slang term as a drop in replacement for the verb to have sex, just like "bone", "shag" or "poke". Coelacan - your statement "this is not a term anyone uses" is utterly wrong. Please see this Google search for clear evidence of that. CupOBeans 01:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. "Pumped in the ass" is a rather different term than "get it pumped". This is an article about the phrase, not about the single word "pump". I stand by my call. We should treat this no differently than spam. Salt, no redirect. No rewards for spamming Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 01:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator of article and redirect, even I would say that you cannot use the google search listed as a fair argument, 'Get it pumped' and 'pumped in the ass' are 2 different phrases! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An appropriate quote from another recent AFD: "Delete don't redirect. We should be giving due weight to this term. And that due weight is zero." So well put. — coelacan talk — 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aren't neologisms under the umbrella of patent nonsense, last time I checked? God, this shouldhave died long ago. Niki Whimbrel 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorko Society (webcomic)[edit]

Article doesn't suggest notability that would satisfy WP:WEB. Contested prod. Brad Beattie (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources with which to write an article (and no, the comic itself doesn't count for WP:N purposes). Nifboy 05:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real notability. Only 79 Google results. Definitely fails the Search engine test. Metrackle 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Thurlow[edit]

Vanity article about an essentially non-notable teenager. Already deleted once as an uncontested prod. -- RHaworth 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the original author of the article removed "Already deleted once as an uncontested prod." from the above nom. The Rambling Man 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable and pure vanity. The Rambling Man 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, meets WP:BIO. Google News Archives confirms coverage by several newspapers including The Mirror (UK-wide). (All are behind paywalls, though.) Not too many teenagers start successful companies. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of 'vanity' concerns it clearly satisfies WP:BIO - the sources are right there in the article. The article needs some serious de-POVing, but I genuinely don't understand how anyone can say non-notable based on the press articles referenced in the article itself - feel free to enlighten me. CiaranG 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as far as one can tell on the surface it conforms WP:BIO, yet there is the issue of non-encyclopedic content and WP:NPOV Alf photoman 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I'm concerned the glouestershire echo is not a notable source. The articles suggested notable soures just wikilink to the sources title RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Gloucestershire Echo is the daily local newspaper for Gloucestershire. It is a fully professional operation, and meets WP:RS with ease.Eludium-q36 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article asserts clear notability. Needs a clean-up, though. Eludium-q36 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albania Genocides[edit]

Article unsourced, highly inflammatory POV, statements possibly untrue at all. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, providing no sources this is highly inflammatory POV indeed. --Tone 19:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure POV and without WP:RS, a dangerous beast. The Rambling Man 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per all above. This is a pathetic, useless list.UberCryxic 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Section9 20:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment minor problem, art. creator keeps deleting afd template. have suggested they don't do this :) ⇒ bsnowball 11:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, clean up is no excuse for deletion. I changed the tiele to List of massacres of ethnic Albanians. Now what the creator needs to do is to find sources for these deaths from WP:RS. Thanks RaveenS 19:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - without a single source, reference, citation or anything. This is equal to trolling, it just takes the form of an article.Velimir85 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete In 1913, in Kingdom of Serbia was conducted an enumeration of population in military purposes. At that point it was determined that in the area today considered as Kosovo and Metohia, an overall count of population was 497.455.

Next official demographic enumeration in Kingdom of SHS was conducted after the World War I, in 1921 (on Jan, 31st). Then it was determined that total overall count of population at todays Kosovo and Metohia is 439.010. (Source: Ethnic and Demographic Processes on Kosovo and Metohia, Prof. M. Radovanovic, LiberPress, Belgrade, 2004. ISBN 86-7556-018-4)

According to the article during this period 350.000 Kosovo Albanians were killed. Documented period from 1913 to 1921 doesn’t cover three year period from 1910 to 1913 in which territory of Kosovo and Metohija was under Ottoman rule and Kingdom of Serbia was heavily engaged in two Balkan wars. This claim is even more appsurd if we take in consideration that whole army of Kingdom of Serbia numbered approximately 350.000 soldiers (including so called Third Call, men sixty and more years old).

One more question: which soldiers or better whose soldiers are numbered in table that represent list of massacres in this period? Kosovo and Metohija didn’t have its own army since it never existed as independent state. Are we talking about Albanian soldiers in Turkish army and latter in Wermacht and Wafen-SS? --Marko M 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per other users' comments.--Hadžija 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hadžija :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Djus 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Milan Dinic 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birendra Sainik Awasiya Mahavidyalaya[edit]

I am unsure about its notability. Since a notability tag has been removed twice, i am listing it here for discussion. 221 Google hits. Chris 73 | Talk 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am the author of the article, I would like to inform the editors not to delete the article. This article does not contain any irrelevant and false information. All the information that has been listed in the article is true. So I would like to request the editors to Keep the article. User:Hellreigner|10:51, 14 January 2007 (NST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains information about one of the schools in Nepal. The information that the author of the article has provided is true indeed. Therefore I see no reason for the deletion of the article. Hence I would like to recommend the committee to Keep the article. (by User:202.161.131.76)

Being truthful is not the only thing we look for. Fortunately, in this case the other things we look for appear to be present too, or can be added. See my comment below. WMMartin 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A nation's only military bording school is notable. Especially in a nation that has recently been involved in military strife as Nepal has. --Oakshade 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade said just what I was going to. Keep, but for goodness' sake, let's have clear references. I'm sure you can find them, so put them in. WMMartin 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarinize[edit]

The term seems to be neologism. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Section9 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable neologism. Topic is covered by Speak Mandarin Campaign and related articles. --Dhartung | Talk 20:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Section9. JuJube 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Section9 --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Association of Mountain Guides[edit]

not notable, I could not find a notable third-party mention, therefore fails WP:ORG Carabinieri 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Inherently notable in the real world, but needs third party recognition. Ombudsman 21:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to give reasons why its notable and I've looked for third party recognition and did not find it.--Carabinieri 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Third party recognition here, and here and here and here for a start. All of these mentions are from outside the organisation itself. The article needs work and sourcing but it looks as if it possible to do that. --Bduke 11:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep For those who couldn't find evidence of notability, it may be worth the reminder that the first step is to look at the home p. & see the nature of the organization its work & other organization working with it. DGG 22:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Certainly has third-party recognition, not the least of which is the org's membership in the UIAGM. 'Twould be great to see some expansion on the stub. ◉ ghoti 07:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was From the message on my talk page it was clear that the subject wanted deletion. Seeing some concerns re nn I went ahead and hit Alt-D.. Tawker 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Nysted[edit]

My publicist created the article and he is quoted herein.

The article has been substantiated and scrutinized by my counsel and has appeared not-contested for months here and on Google. MySpace cyber bullies have now chosen to invade this space.

My e-mail is enclosed in my preferences.

My counsel has been notified of this action.

My publicist has been notified of this action.

Google ad-words is up and running the article.

I have two legitimate music projects on itunes and thousands of web sites around the free world.

I have played on countless records and c.d.s.

This article was speedy deleted as a biography which did not assert the importance or significance of the subject. It was then re-created twice in quick succession, in a substantially similar form. After the third deletion, I protected the page. I have now recieved two messages on my talk page, which are copied below for convenience (contact details removed):

You are not an administrator and I will seek that you be banned for deleting Nysted.
Lee Nysted, Owner; Managing Partner NystedMusic, LLC.

My page has been the subject of vandals.
Please re-submit the following on Lee Nysted and ban the user that keeps changing my stats.
I have been in the music business for 30 years, playing for 40.
The obvious links to the name Lee Nysted can be traced back to Google or even Wikipedia.
Whoever has "protected" the page should be verified. If it is Chris_73, then that person should be aware that my company will pursue this issue until resolved.
Lee Nysted, Owner; Managing Partner NystedMusic, LLC.

The usernames of the users who left these two messages match those of the two users who created and re-created the article. The article thus appears to go against Wikipedia:Autobiography as well as having the notability assertion problems mentioned earlier. In reponse to the requests made in the message above, I have decided to re-create the most neutral version of the article and list it here; hopefully this will eliminate any desire for anyone to have anyone else banned, while demonstrating consensus to either keep or remove the article – Gurch 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and take to WP:DRV. We can't debate the article if it is deleted and protected. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tawker seems to have intervened. I've left him a message about it – Gurch 20:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 (no assertion of notability), a1 (almost no content). NawlinWiki 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Diaster Party[edit]

Looks like a school organisation, no assertion of notability, no way of verifying the page but little substantiated to verify in the first place. The Rambling Man 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only related google hit is a Myspace comment from a former member. Definetly a vanity page; no reason to keep it. Section9 20:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 (and maybe G11). This asserts no notability, is written like an ad and doesn't even need to go through AFD. J0lt C0la 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Meir Clancy[edit]

Non-notable. "Levi Meir Clancy" (with quotes) gets approximately 100 Google hits, many of them mirrors of the Wikipedia page (or of other Wikipedia pages where his name has been inserted), and many others pages unrelated to the Levi Meir Clancy of the article. The sole notable thing about Clancy seems to be that his mother filed a lawsuit in California to get the state to pay for his college education. However, there are barely any online references to the lawsuit, aside from a handful of news articles. Nothin that strikes me as meriting Clancy's inclusion in Wikipedia.

He does not appear to pass the WP:BIO notability guidelines: he's not a notable public figure, and there are very few actual references to him I could find. Finally, I'll note that many of the edits to the page were made by a user (76.169.227.207) whose other edits include inserting references to Levi Meir Clancy in articles where it was blatantly irrelevant. "Another" user has done the same thing (O1no1ne), although they don't seem to have edited the actual Levi Meir Clancy page itself. --Miskwito 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Miskwito 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Miskwito, also possbly vanity. Dewrad 19:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete 70.61.100.232 05:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Dewrad

Delete. Vanity. Cctoide 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BIO -- Lincolnite 22:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, will recreate as a redirect to cloud. --Core desat 06:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudy[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notible enough to save from deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable wrestler. JuJube 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cloud--Doc^g 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Agree that after this term should redirect to Cloud. GassyGuy 06:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable wrestler. One Night In Hackney 14:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't even have a reliable source for his real name. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ring of Honor is like the Groundlings of wrestling. A few well known people and fifty nobodies like Cloudy. Static Universe 07:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ohio politicians (by local office)[edit]

This list is incomplete, abandoned and full of redlinks. Most of the bluelinks I tested went to other people (except Pat DeWine, whose major claim to notability seems to be son). Either someone should adopt this orphan or it should be deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 20:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per trialsanderrors. Hopeless. — coelacan talk — 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all officials in the state? Far too broad of a scope.-- danntm ^T _C 06:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Making accusations against the nominator is not a reason to keep an article. --Core desat 06:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallowicked[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lakes for some reason dislikes me, and is trying to delete all articles I have started, I say dismiss this idea of deletion. Also, this article was just started, so I think it should be given time to develop.
Delete non-notable wrestler. JuJube 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not asserted. --Charlene 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - This article was created on the 5th of January, giving editors just over a week to assert notability in an article that is by any measure a stub. I'm not saying it should be kept or deleted, I'm saying that the AfD nomination itself was done entirely too quickly. (Immediatism at its worst, I fear) It's far too soon to nominate an article for deletion under WP:N. Tag it and give editors a reasonable chance to fix the problem; then you can AfD it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why would it have to be given time when the person isn't obviously notable enough yet for inclusion? "Article is new" is a weak reason to keep it.

↪Lakes (Talk) 12:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league wrestler. Would suggest Kris Classic spends more time finding reliable sources that assert notability before creating articles, rather than attacking people who nominate the articles. One Night In Hackney 14:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender debates on Narnian creatures[edit]

Ended prod, bringing it here instead. concerns Original research; if sources can be provided for scholarly debates among sexist issues, they should probably be brought to The Chronicles of Narnia anyway. In addition, no claims to/notability is not clear. (quoted from prod)Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(co-nominating) I prod'd this without realizing that David has already prod'd it as well. This seems more like a fandom-y debate than a scholarly debate. Sexism among Lewis's human characters has already been addressed, but I've never heard anything much about creatures -- besides, he had the power to make up their reproductive capabilites if needed. The argument doesn't seem to hold too much merit anyway -- we may have seen only one gender of each creature but not the other. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being quite obvious original research. And a strange one at that. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the silliest things I have ever seen. Fails WP:OR. meshach 00:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Naconkantari 01:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. — coelacan talk — 04:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Nashville Monkey 09:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cute, but really crufty, OR GabrielF 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR essay Dragomiloff 05:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. - Peregrine Fisher 22:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Against Urban 4x4s[edit]

WP:N not established. TonyTheTiger 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Googling mostly turns up this group's own websites and press releases on fringe politics sites. Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS Dragomiloff 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. CiaranG 10:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zirnevis[edit]

Delete. This is a very odd article, without any references in the text save to the web-page of Zirnevis itself, which is entirely in arabic script but appears to be a commercial site for selling this group(?)'s products. (By the admission of the article, by the way, these products are in infringement of international law). The group's alleged popularity amongst Iranians has no suuporting evidence. The article is an orphan not linking into any other Wikipedia article. An external link has been given to a pop song dubbed in Farsi - without any indication whether this dubbing has been done by the group Zirnevis or not. Googling shows that apart to references derived from Wikipedia, internet links are to commercial products of Zirnevis. Reasons for deletion could therefore include:

unreferenced article
commercial plug without encyclopaedic reference
non-notable subject (orphan in Wikipedia)

- Smerus 20:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Zirnevis web site is not in "Arabic" script; it is in Persian.) Although Zirnevis.com is a well known group in Iran, supporting evidence is not available online (or at least in English) and part of what explained in the article is original research. Despite my previous contribution to correct this article, I agree with its deletion.

- huji—TALK 07:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is also autobiographical, judging by the creator's username. LittleOldMe 16:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let them do their own advertising, the real way. Not by hijacking Wikipedia. The Behnam 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, autobiographical. ShadowHalo 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Delete' per the below and WP:INN. Cbrown1023 03:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Skirboll[edit]

Delete Non notable individual per WP:BIO and notability guidelines, WP:NN. I'm surprised the article has lasted this long. One might be made notable through press coverage resulting from their appearance on a game show, but not simply by appearing on it or else we would have an article for every game show contestant which is simply not encyclopedic. For instance, many contestants on the show American Idol have become famous yet did not win. This is not the case here. Strothra 20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strothra implies that it is obvious to someone familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines that this article's subject is non-notable. I don't see that at all. I'm not a game show aficionado myself, and found this article through ~~Red Director's contribution history~~ User:Red Director/Pages I have created, but it is clear to me from the claims of record-setting in this article itself, and in the article on the television program Greed, that she would be considered notable by game show aficionados. I believe it would be highly controversial to start deleting articles on "trivia" about baseball, Star Trek, or Tolkien's fiction, however lacking in interest they might be to those not part of the relevant fandom. I am a new user and could be wrong about this, but I believe the subject deserves more discussion than Strothra's dismissive comments would imply, especially in light of the lack of clarity of the notability guidelines themselves. Perhaps Strothra would like to write a proposed guideline on "fandom" articles, including game show fandom, or point me to such a guideline if it already exists? —Neuromath 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be controversial. That's why I didn't do it. I nominated this article, not articles about triva regarding baseball, etc. No notability of these individuals among "game-show aficionados" is established in the articles. --Strothra 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my remarks on record-setting above. Records are surely relevant to notability among sports figures; why not among game show contestants? Also see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Avila for further evidence. These three people (including Curtis Warren, who was involved in the same notable episode, and whose article you have also proposed for deletion) may not be known to the general public in the way that Ken Jennings is, but neither are many notable figures in sports. —Neuromath 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet criteria of WP:BIO. Simply put, she was a game show contestant on a short-lived cancelled game show, albeit successful. There's lots of game shows, lots of contestants, lots of winners. Not all of them are encyclopedic. Whether or not articles on baseball, Star Trek, or Tolkien's characters are notable or encyclopedic has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this article is encyclopedic. Agent 86 07:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the current MfD on Wikipedia:Fancruft for a clear illustration of the lack of consensus for deleting supposed trivia; many of the contributors there would like to delete that essay because it has been used to justify deleting articles like the three in question here. Game show fans may not get the respect that fans of baseball, Star Trek, or Tolkien currently do, but their judgments as to what is significant (and facts that would support or motivate those judgments, such as records set) are no less worthy of consideration. Your selection of facts in your "simply put" summary is supported only by your own personal judgments of relevance. —Neuromath 09:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An update: after brief Google searches, I've found three published references each for Daniel Avila and Curtis Warren, as detailed in my comments on the Daniel Avila AfD and the Curtis Warren AfD. No such published references have turned up for Skirboll; however, her role in the notable episode of Greed where she was part of a team with Avila and Warren is frequently mentioned prominently on fan pages and sites that were turned up in the search. WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:BIO are notoriously unclear, and the best (albeit still, at the moment, non-authoritative) guide I can find to the proper application of their directives on sources is the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples. I would urge everyone involved (especially any admin considering the termination of this AfD with a deletion!) to read and consider seriously its section on Popular culture and fiction, especially the last sentence of that section: "When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." Also consider that Wikipedia:Verifiability, which stands behind all of these guidelines and proposed guidelines, is intended to avoid having errors creep into Wikipedia—not to second-guess the tastes of particular segments of the public, such as game-show fans. The facts of Skirboll's accomplishment are not in dispute and are not likely to be disputed, and the fact that her fame among fans has not translated into mention in mainstream publications (as the fame of Avila and Warren did) is irrelevant. The proper application of WP:RS would be completely different if we were talking about scandals or conspiracy theories. —Neuromath 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, since no one has found published stories about her or other indices of notability. Just winning on a game show by itself is not sufficient. Edison 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep, but not for the reason I created it. Melissa had an memorable appearance on Greed in 2000 that still is talked about to this day. Melissa, Curtis, and Daniel should get to have their own article. Besides, there are many articles on game show contestants that have only appeared once on a game show. Melissa, Curtis, and Daniel are not any of them. She appeared twice on Greed. Daniel appeared twice on Greed and once on Jeopardy!. Curtis has appeared on three different game shows and twice on Greed. So, keep. Red Director 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Red Director. A related point: the episode you refer to is famous enough that print sources that mention it are likely to exist, even if they can't be found on Google. Books on game shows, even scholarly ones like Olaf Hoerschelmann's Rules of the Game: Quiz Shows And American Culture (SUNY Press, 2006), do exist, although I don't have immediate access to them, as I do to articles available in online form via Google. Even if pages like this one, which expresses the value judgment that this was "the greatest moment in game show history", are not considered reliable enough to be cited as sources themselves, their high estimation of this episode is an indication that it is likely to have made it into print treatments of the subject as well. Rather than deleting this article along with its page history and its uncontroversial factual assertions, it would be more constructive to leave it in place with "needs to cite" tags. —Neuromath 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Avila[edit]

Delete non notable individual per WP:BIO. This is unencyclopedic and it would be rediculous to attempt the creation of an article for every contestant on every game show. Strothra 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my remarks on the topic of fandom and genre notability on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Skirboll. Also, a few minutes of Google searching (by someone, namely me, without any background as a game show aficionado) turned up a claim on Game Show NewsNet that Avila was directly involved in "the greatest moment in game show history".[43] That does not sound like "non-notability" to me. Strothra's claim that "it would be rediculous [sic] to attempt the creation of an article for every contestant on every game show" is correct, but is not relevant to the cases of Avila and Skirboll. —Neuromath 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That website is a self-described fan page and not a reliable source per WP:RS. Such a claim of "the greatest moment in game show history" is an exceptional claim - see WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. --Strothra 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)--Strothra 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a claim of fact, it is a value judgment. Since I am not making this claim myself, evidence for or against it is not relevant. I am reporting the fact that Game Show NewsNet (GSNN) has made this claim, in order to demonstrate notability of the individuals involved. Since the fact that GSNN has made such a claim is not in dispute, WP:RS is not relevant. Please keep in mind that we are discussing whether Daniel Avila is notable—not whether the Wikipedia article Daniel Avila should assert that he took part in the greatest moment in game show history. The fact that such a claim has been made by a fan site (not "page") is evidence that the three individuals in question are notable among game show fans. GSNN says on its masthead that it began as a fan page, not that it is just a page at present. The masthead also lists seventeen named contributors and explains that the site has been in existence since 1999; at present it clearly has a large number of pages and covers numerous game shows. —Neuromath 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is incredibly relevant when you present only one source which even claims notability for the individual and it's barely a reliable source, if it is one at all. If you would like to take a part of the WP:BIO policy, however, then look at the central criterion for the policy which reads: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Even if only one source was acceptable, the source fails to meet several of the criteria in Wp:rs#Non-scholarly_sources. --Strothra 04:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources itself says "In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically." We're talking about game shows here. Also keep in mind the reasons why the guideline WP:RS and the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability exist. The latter states in its opening paragraph, "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I don't see a single controversial factual claim in any of the three articles you have nominated for deletion; the whole question is about significance ("Who cares?"), not reliability ("Is it true?"). The opinions of fan sites are relevant to judgments of significance, regardless of the reliability of their assertions about matters of fact. As to numbers of sources: I found at least one other relevant source in my Google search on "Melissa Skirboll" (a list of people who have won over $100,000 on game shows), and I only looked at a few pages of hits; GSNN was just an example. I didn't look more closely because my interest is not in game shows, but in avoiding the setting of unfortunate precedents for deleting Wikipedia pages. —Neuromath 05:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Agent 86 07:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An update on your reference to WP:BIO and my above remarks: a few more minutes of searching Google, with a slightly refined search string ("Daniel Avila Greed" instead of just "Daniel Avila") turned up the following published articles about Avila:

Joel Stein in Time 2000-01-09
Eric Deggans in the St. Petersburg Times 2000-02-16
Gina Valencia in the USC Daily Trojan 1999-11-22

The same search turned up numerous fan pages, and pages like this one on larger fan sites like CNET's TV.com, dealing prominently with Avila.

Although these published references should be sufficient to settle this AfD in favor of keeping this article on Avila, they should not have been necessary. References to reliability and verifiability are beside the point where no facts are in dispute, or likely to be disputed, and the whole question is about significance. —Neuromath 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles clearly fail the primary criteron of WP:BIO quoted above. The individual is not the primary subject of those sources. --Strothra 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the third of these sources (the Gina Valencia article), your statement is clearly false by any reasonable interpretation of "primary subject". With regard to the first two sources, I would note that the term "primary subject" in WP:BIO is vague, and a footnote in that guideline states that "This criterion elaborates what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory says about being 'featured in several external sources'", indicating that the criterion is only intended to rule out the kind of completely trivial mass directory listings described in that section of WP:NOT. Also, the criterion under discussion is said to be "the central criterion for inclusion", linked to WP:N, and the relevant section in WP:N is The primary notability criterion,which says that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (italics in the original)—and does not use the term "primary subject". Finally, the criterion in question is for inclusion, not exclusion, and WP:BIO goes on to add other, secondary criteria, including "A large fan base, fan listing or 'cult' following". And WP:BIO prefaces all these remarks with the statement that "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted" (boldface in the original—not added by me). —Neuromath 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the Time article cited above, Avila is the first person discussed and is the subject of 118 words. In the second reference, he receives a 133 word coverage. These are far from a trivial or passing reference, and thus meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Per ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) The "primary subject" requirement cited by Strothra should not be interpreted as "the only subject" or "the sole focus." The intention is to require that the person be a subject of the article, and not, say, a witness to a news event who is merely given a passing mention and could as easily be replaced by someone else, or a brief mention in a directory. He was "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." " journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it." In the third cite above, the USC Daily Trojan, he was the sole subject of a 702 word article. The link above did not work but this one should: [44] The first two count as multiple, and they are verifiable and independent, as well as being mainstream news publications of wide circulation. The campus paper is not automatically excluded as a reliable source, per discussions at WP:RS and should be judged on its merits. This paper has an independent editorial board, print circulation of 9,000 and is one of the top 10 widely read campus papers online, and has been published since 1912. That should make it as much a reliable source as many town papers. Edison 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep. Daniel had an memorable appearance on Greed in 2000 that still is talked about to this day. He was the only one ever to reach the top level. Melissa, Curtis, and Daniel should get to have their own article. Besides, there are many articles on game show contestants that have only appeared once on a game show. Melissa, Curtis, and Daniel are not any of them. He appeared twice on Greed and once on Jeopardy. Melissa appeared twice on Greed. Curtis has appeared on three different game shows and twice on Greed. So, keep. Red Director

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Warren (game show contestant)[edit]

Delete non notable individual per WP:BIO. Generic game show contestants are hardly encyclopedic. One might be made notable through press coverage resulting from their appearance on a game show, but not simply by appearing on it or else we would have an article for every game show contestant which is simply not encyclopedic. For instance, many contestants on the show American Idol have become famous yet did not win. This is not the case here. Also note, creator of the article was an anon who was repeatedly blocked for vandalism and is currently blocked indefinitely, see [45]. Strothra 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my remarks on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Avila and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Skirboll. All three of these people (Avila, Skirboll, and Warren) were involved in a game show episode that would clearly be considered notable by game-show aficionados, and are not "generic game show contestants". It would be a bad precedent for "genre" fame (even in a genre like game shows, which are not highly regarded) to be considered not to confer notability.—Neuromath 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No notability of these individuals among "game-show aficionados" is established in the articles. --Strothra 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Agent 86 07:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A brief Google search on "Curtis Warren Greed" turned up the following published references to Warren:

Michael Slenske in The Atlantic Monthly Jan/Feb 2005
Sharon Fink in the St. Petersburg Times 2004-06-25 (#4 in a list of the top 5 winners in network game show history)
Deshundra Jefferson and Alexander Haris on CNN/Money 2004-07-14 (another Top 5 listing)

This search also turned up numerous fan pages and sites dealing with Warren.

These references should suffice to settle this AfD and keep the article. Please try to do such a brief search before proposing any article on popular culture for AfD; it will save time for everyone else involved. Also, please try to take the existence of large fan bases more seriously as a sign of notability, as WP:BIO itself urges us to do; likewise with record-setting and other accomplishments known to draw the attention of fans. —Neuromath 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles clearly fail the primary criteron of WP:BIO since the individual is not the primary subject of those articles. --Strothra 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my remarks at the Daniel Avila AfD on the interpretation of this criterion, including your misinterpretation of it as a criterion for exclusion when it is intended as a criterion for inclusion. I would also point out that we've traveled quite a distance from your original stated basis for these AfD's. Top 5 listings hardly sound like "generic game show contestants" to me. And Slenske in The Atlantic Monthly even refers to ~~Avila~~ Warren explicitly as one of "eight other notable masters of miscellany from over the past half century"—where the word "other" means other than Ken Jennings. —Neuromath 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of all game show contestant articles to delete, why this one? Curtis not only had success on Greed, but other game shows as well. Many other articles just contain winners who have only had one successful appearance on a game show. Curtis, unlike them, has made a name for himself in the game show world. The episode of Greed Curtis was on was a memorable one for all game show experts. So, keep. Red Director 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note to keep Curtis was at one time the all-time winningest game show contestant. There are a lot of articles that are still on Wikipedia that are less notable than Daniel Avila, Curtis, and Melissa Skirboll. So, once again you need to keep all three, especially this one. Red Director 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY KEEP. Any game show record breakers should be kept. The rest of the keepers have opinions which I agree with. Plus, I wrote this page, and I don't appreciate one of my pieces of work being nominated for deletion for NO REASON. --ChrisP2K5 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only two arguments for deletion were a self-admitted tentative one from the nominator, and a user who said "per nom". The keep arguments are more resounding, and form a consensus to keep. Daniel.Bryant 07:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Spit[edit]

Band had only one album released. Out of the two references cited currently, one has only a passing mentioning of the group, the other does not look like a non-trivial published works (WP:MUSIC) to me. A google search for "Sister Spit" -site:sisterspit.com Michelle Tea gives about 1300 refs. Founder Michelle Tea also has a wikipedia article. The primary author & admin has removed the notability tag and left me a message, and has no objection to start this AfD process to determine notability. I myself are not yet convinced about its notability, but am open to either side. Chris 73 | Talk 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong (speedy?) keep. Chris 73 tagged this article for notability despite it having the multiple references necessary to fulfil the criteria in WP:MUSIC, instead telling me to either provide more or it would be AFD'd. I told him I'd provide more, and whilst putting this further edit together, Chris decided to nominate the article for deletion ([46]), a whole sixteen(!) minutes after I told him I was in the process of finding and adding more references ([47]). The group has been on a national tour, released 4 albums, performed at festivals including the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival and San Francisco Pride, and has recieved dedicated articles and non-trivial references in the Village Voice, Discorder, and the Independent Weekly at least (and that's what I found on page one of a cursory Google search). I think it's easier to count the criteria of WP:MUSIC they do not fulfil. Proto::► 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There were more than 4 hours between the first notability tag and this AfD. After you removed the notability tag you stated that there are enough refs for its notability, which were exactly two refs that IMHO did not satisfy WP:MUSIC and the mentioning of only one album. Finally, after I asked you about a possible AfD prior to the AfD, you told me to do what I think is right. Anyway, with the current refs it is likely that the article will survive AfD, even though many refs link only to the discs for sale. -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 00:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the nominator didn't vote delete ... Proto::► 10:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a lot of verifiable info on "Sister Spit" on the web. The page should just be referenced. - Peregrine Fisher 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known (and influential) performance art group. --lquilter 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lissack[edit]

There is nothing in this article that asserts the notability of the subject. Article also appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article. No indication the subject meets WP:BIO criteria either. The article also violates WP:CRYSTAL too. --SunStar Net^talk 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO - local disk jockeys/presenters rarely do. --Charlene 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Something Awful. Concensus seems to be that everything is already included in the Something Awful article, but if you disagree, feel free to pluck any info out of the history behind the redirect. Daniel.Bryant 07:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Thorpe (writer)[edit]

The discussion in the talk page for this article shows that the author fails to meet the metrics for notability according to WP:BIO. He meets none of the requirements to included and his "award" is simply a reprint of his work into a book. His article was prodded once and contested by an anon editor. Quirex 21:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect with something awful, most of his media attention (the reprint, the appearance on tv) has come in relation to his work with the site. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually he's already pretty well documented on the Something Awful page. Is merging even necessary? Redirect might just work. --Quirex 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Night Gyr's argument. --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with above. InvictaHOG 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, will redirect to murder (without caps). --Core desat 06:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MURDER[edit]

Nominated for WP:PROD with reason "Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, no references, tagged move to wikibooks for over 6 months". PROD tag removed with no explanation. I agree with all the reasons given by the anonymous PRODder. FreplySpang 21:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per FreplySpang. Or transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook assuming this is actually a real drink in the first place, which I'm doubtful about... --Miskwito 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are instances where a drink may have enough written about it that an article can lie (Cosmopolitan (cocktail)). This is not one of those; see this google search for paucity of mention (most links even in that small list are false positives).--Fuhghettaboutit 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Murder. JuJube 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be a real cocktail - few if any Ghits given the ubiquity of the word "murder". Also, Martini is not an alcohol itself - it's a drink made of gin and vermouth. --Charlene 02:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, "martini" as an ingredient? WP:V SkierRMH,05:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plutoed[edit]

AfD nominated by 68.226.181.21. No specific reason given, but see discussion on the article's Talk page for their arguments re the word's status as a neologism. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary "chosen as the 2006 Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society." Just a dicdef. Edison 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Notable word but still just a dicdef. --Charlene 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this goes beyond a dicdef. It's not in any official dictionary anyway. If you read the BBC source, the Society do not make any attempt to get the words they choose entered into the dictionary. The article is about the chosing of the word for Word of the Year not just its meaning. Information would be lost if it were transwikied. Malla nox 03:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neologism, but one of the few I would support because of its international recognition and place in the culture right now (it may need to be revisited later, but for now it has the Notability to stay). Pastordavid 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pluto, er, Delete. Neologism, any any speculation that it has any staying power is crystal ball gazing. No prejudice to recreation if time proves otherwise. Agent 86 07:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mallanox − Twas Now 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP or Move Its a word that discribes something however it does have a refrence to the x planet pluto and it has a exact meaning. well i cant describe it well in typing so ill just put it simple. Keep it its importaint if you dont keep it here then move it to wikidictionary however it should not be deleted. dont plutoed this new word — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick423 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 January 2007
Keep goes beyond a dicdef, and article establishes notability already. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is clearly established in the article via several mentions of the word in secondary sources like media. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Pluto (verb). - Sikon 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than a dicdef. We do not know if the word will stick around in everyday speech, as Agent 86 said, that is crystal ball gazing, but right now it is popular and has been referenced in the media and therefore should have an article. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted copyvio, spam. Opabinia regalis 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redback surf[edit]

Author has previously opposed deletion, but this article still reads like an advertisment for the company. PC78 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an unquestionable copyvio from [48]. I have tagged it as such.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied A3 list of links. Fang Aili ^talk 22:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising directory[edit]

Prod removed without comment. At best, a dicdef. At worst, as it is now, a linkfarm for spam. Fan-1967 21:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosie O'Fat

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherborne Harriers football club[edit]

PRODded by myself, tag was removed with no explanation in the edit summary and only minor amendments to the text which did nothing to address the question of notability. This team has never played higher than level 18 in the English football league system, which is eight levels below what is deemed inherently notable by WP:CORP ChrisTheDude 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable. Agathoclea 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as eminently non-notable - this should have been speedied ~~or prodded~~, to be honest. Qwghlm 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. - Grstain | Talk 00:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well below levels usually considered notable. - fchd 21:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Wars Utopia[edit]

Complete and utter speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not a single reliable source, i.e., completely unverifiable. No hits on popular gaming news/rumour sites such as IGN[49], Gamespot[50], 1up[51], Kotaku[52], etc. If even the rumour sites know nothing of it, why on earth does Wikipedia have an article on it? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nomination (based on this version), the article has been cleaned up considerably by User:Aspectacle. In its present form, it is a good candidate for a merge/redirect to Guild Wars. I would withdraw the AfD, but the rules prevent it after several people have voted to delete. Some of you may perhaps want to change your opinions also. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More recent news (see Aspectacle's comment below) to show that the game actually will not be named Utopia. The speculation was actually false, it appears. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article's entire content is rank speculation about inchoate material.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All that is officially known is that ArenaNet has stated that they are working on their forth campaign, and it's known that they have registered domain names for "Guild Wars Utopia". At this stage, there's nothing official stating that those two facts are even related (they likely are related - but again, that's speculation). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See above, I also proposed a move (to guild wars chapter 4) possibly IF the article is rewritten and speculation is somehow removed. Though that would likely leave us with an empty article --Midnight08 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. ArenaNet community relations manager has confirmed that a press release on C4 will come sometime midway this month or early February. There'll be a LOT more to add to it soon enough, so there's no sense in going through the hassle of deleting and recreating it yet. And besides, despite what Wikipedia is not, what it IS is an encyclopedia, which is meant to document as much as possible. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 09:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep United States Patent and Trademark Office data and WHOIS data are official, public and confirmed. The name Guild Wars Nightfall was registered the some way by NCsoft months before the official announcement of the name. So there is little to speculate. --Twi light 10:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sole smidgen of verifiable information the article desperately clings to is a domain name registration. There is no trademark registration. Regardless, no one knows for certain whether the domain name means anything. Go play your speculation games on some of the fansites; we document only what's verifiable from reliable sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IF there was a trademark on the name at this point, that would strengthen the argument - but there's not. --67.168.14.198 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well why else would they register the domain? --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There can be any number of reasons; until we hear it from the horse's mouth, we can only guess wildly. You seem a bit over-eager to make guesses that are off the mark based on scant information. Perhaps exercise a bit more restraint? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, I was almost bang on for most of that article, and Dhuum did havea major part in the storyline of that chapter. And I'm not saying that it's definitive, I'm saying that this is what the playerbase believes from what I have observed. If anyone disagrees or has evidence to suggest something ulterior for the content of the upcoming chapter, then they can feel free to edit. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The comments above about what "Wikipedia is not" contain links to official site policy. Your statements here have not linked to policies to defend keeping it, but instead only confirmed that it's opinion and conjecture at this point - which, if you read policy, you'll see is not what should be documented on Wikipedia. It may be the actual name - even then, the entire content of the article beyond the fact that the domain name has been registered is nothing but conjecture and guesswork. --67.168.14.198 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill or press venue. I'm pretty lenient about having articles about released commercial products, but articles about pre-released (and pre-announced) products are pushing it. I don't see what's wrong with just waiting until an official announcement is made before creating an article. --Alan Au 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now; about all we have for the moment is rumors, and it can be recreated when something official is announced. It's not as though there's a huge amount of content on the page to recreate. Mark Grant 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per WP:CRYSTAL. While the name is registered and a sequel is in the works, considering nothing is known about it, the current article contains nothing but blatant speculation. Delete and remake once the article topic fulfills Wikipedia criteria. --Scottie theNerd 21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Currently there has been no offical announcement of this game, name or anything from the developer ArenaNet. There is only one acknowledged fact - that there will be a fourth guild wars campaign and that little bit of info is covered in the article Guild Wars. Lets wait for that announcement. --Aspectacle 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - further to this Gamespot have made a blog entry claiming that a developer has stated to them that the Utopia name will not be used - here. This adds strength to the argument for deletion. --Aspectacle 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The name is confirmed. It just need lots of clean up. Lightblade 10:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Provide reliable sources to substantiate the claim that the next expansion will be named "Utopia". — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The name will be confirmed in under a month. That is a confirmed fact straight from the company. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Link? Or are you just confirming that at this stage it's not officially confirmed when you say "it will be ..." --67.168.14.198 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The ArenaNet community relations manager has said either in-game or on a fansite, possibly both, that there will be a press release pertaining to chapter 4 in mid-January or February. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So in other words, by your own admission, nothing official from the game publisher at this time. --161.88.255.139 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Having an official name doesn't automatically make it worthy of an article either. Once the game is under actual substantial development and more verifiable content is made available, we'll make the article. --Scottie theNerd 14:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment. This will certainly be worthy of an article once officially announced (and verifiable), but not until then. Have a little patience; if the announcement is pending, then it shouldn't be much of a wait. --Alan Au 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as above. It looks like every section of the article contains some variation of the words "unconfirmed" or "not yet known." For the name, domain registration could mean something - or it might not. The same can be said for all the other "clues" and original research conclusions in the article. Until a reliable source reports it, it's just speculation. --TheOtherBob 16:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is how the names of two preceding chapters were confirmed before the press release. And if not the name of the next chapter, what else could it mean? --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The press release was how the two preceding chapters were confirmed - before that it was just fan speculation. That they turned out to be right is inconsequential - good guesses are guesses nonetheless (and therefore original research). I don't know what else they could mean - I'd need a reliable source to tell me. Sorry, but fans are not a reliable source. Wikipedia should never be the first to report on anything - until this is reported by a reliable source, it's just speculation and doesn't belong here. --TheOtherBob 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment no one cares about verifying that the game, under this or that name, has been announced. The game itself has no existence, it has no non-trivial treatment in multiple reliable sources, it is an unverifiable black hole. The article arguably verifies in reliable sources that the game is coming out, and under the name provided, but that verification is irrelevant because the name of this article is not speculation about Guild Wars Utopia, which is what the sources verify; rather, the name of the article is just Guild Wars Utopia, and no information is provided on that actual subject.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When there is useful, verifiable information, recreate the article. My guess is that this really is the name of the next Guild Wars chapter, but until it's official named it's just speculation. Even if it is the name, they could decide to change it before announcing it to the world. Prometheusg 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEAS[edit]

Spam / claim to have developed a perpetual motion machine? Redirect to Seas, as SEAS usually means "School of Engineering and Applied Science". Anthony Appleyard 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone, this is not spam, this organization is legitimate and I am trying to develop this article as we speak, so we can please remove the deletion request, thanks! -nima baghaei 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - db-corp. Makes no claim to notability -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What notability? What should I do to stop it? Can you guys please guide me how I can improve this article instead of speedy delete, geez im still working on this article to, so stop pushing it please? (:O\ -nima baghaei 23:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines for this sort of article are at WP:CORP. It's also at risk from two of the criteria for speedy deletion at WP:CSD - A7, no assertion of notability, and G11, blatant advertising. This AfD should run for five days - if you can provide evidence from reliable sources that this organization meets the criteria within that time, the article can stay. Tevildo 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-corp. JuJube 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will work do my best to improve it, just give me 5 days please -nima baghaei 01:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still developing it (:O) -nima baghaei 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its growing nicely (:O) ... I honestly think its time to remove the deletion box -nima baghaei 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is it possible to remove the deletion box and put this as a Stub that is still growing? I wanted to use an energry company stub (I have seen some VERY short articles on other chemical companies that have stubs on them instead of deletion). -nima baghaei 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still developing the article, but it would be nice if we could remove the deletion box and just leave it as a stub so others can help in the future (:O) -nima baghaei 23:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't doubt that the organisation exists, but why is it more notable than any other bunch of nutters ? We need to see notability. If they can build a PM machine and get it accepted by serious referees, they're notable. Or if they manage to fool a large number of people with their drivel, they're notable. Otherwise, they're just another bunch of cranks or frauds, and there are plenty of those already. WMMartin 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. A reference has already been provided with a picture of the actual device. -66.163.85.210 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, take a look at some of the energy papers they published, thats some intense data. One of the articles is the briefing they gave the US Senate [53] -66.163.85.210 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome deal, I just added the Senate Hearings in 2000 that talks about SEAS going to Capital Hill and giving a hearing to the senate (:O) -nima baghaei 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decision here depends on whether SEAS's device works. It still from the description sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me. Anthony Appleyard 09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the device works, check out the reference, by the way for them to get a chance to meet with the Senate on capitol hill shows how serious this company is being taken, and yes once again, the device(s) do work -nima baghaei 16:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over unity devices do work by the way, Tom Bearden who is working with SEAS has produced one and has even got a U.S. patent on it! (:O) Page 2 - US Patent -nima baghaei 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official US Patent page for Tom Beardens over-unity device, and you cant get a patent unless the device does what it says it does (:OP -nima baghaei 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's just factually wrong: patents are frequently awarded for things that don't work, especially PM machines. This is a common misconception. Patents must simply claim a novelty of idea; they don't actually have to work. WMMartin 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable pseudoscience. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)±[reply]

Do not Delete - Once again, I have given you a patent above, they have even talked to the senate, I have given you a picture of one of their devices with refernces, and I have really updated this page -nima baghaei 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is right, this article is well documented, from the senate hearing to the reference and picture of one of their devices, and that patent above is legitimate over unity device -129.7.127.46 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree also, this is a wonderful article and I have learned a lot from reading it. -66.163.85.206 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this RfD has been peppered with comments from Nima Baghaei (talk · contribs) which essentially are this user's assertion of Keep. However, it appears that the user is shilling, or at the very least votestacking, with anonymous IPs: 66.163.85.210 (talk · contribs), 129.7.127.46 (talk · contribs), 66.163.85.206 (talk · contribs). If my assumption is correct, the summary so far for thie AfD is:

1 to Redirect to Seas
4 to Delete, 2 speedy.
1 to Keep from the author mentioned above.

(Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have given you wonderful data, so this article should stay (:O) -nima baghaei 18:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nothing to merge and not a useful redirect. W.marsh 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redwall Series Villains[edit]

Listcruft, entirely unnescesary, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villains (2nd nomination), where it looks like list of villains is getting deleted, never mind this. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Redwall. Tarret 23:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of species in Redwall which though I am doubtful about the title, does cover this subject much more extensively. FrozenPurpleCube 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of species in Redwall#Bad creatures. Nothing to merge. Eluchil404 10:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a duplication of effort by someone who is probably new to Wikipedia. Hatch68 19:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Schools' United Nations Symposium[edit]

Admitted vanity article on one of hundreds of Model UN Conferences held annually in North America. There is no claim to notability. Wikipedia is not to promote your event. Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If not kept, should be a merge and redirect to Model United Nations rather than deletion. If kept, overly detailed information such as names of committee chairs should be truncated. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom and agree with User:Newyorkbrad. Seems no more notable than the other hundreds of model UNs (which also don't get WP articles). --Raeven0 04:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The committee information was shortened and information was added regarding the notability of the conference. Perhaps deletion is no longer necessary?
weak delete Limited to one province. Possibly that might be useful as a criterion. DGG 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It says on the page it is not limited to one province, but attracts students from several countries. Stands out from other conferences by being the largest in Canada and being run by a UN NGO. 14 January 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.39.217 (talk • contribs)
Keep: Chabuk has personal issues with both the SSUNS and McMUN conferences and has flagged them both for deletion out of spite. I don't think his personal problems should get to dictate Wikipedia content. The article clearly states that SSUNS is the largest high school MUN conference in Canada and caters to students across multiple continents. --Tillitt 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issues with SSUNS of McMUN and I take offense to the insinuation that I did this out of spite. I nominated them for deletion in accordance with policy. Please keep in mind WP:NPA. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, I don't feel notability is clearly enough demonstrated. There are pleny of model UN conferences, so why is this one special ? Size doesn't seem to me to be enough - to a large extent size is just a function of "good marketing" in any given year. Delete. WMMartin 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to encourage Tillitt not to indulge in personal attacks, and to "assume good faith". WMMartin 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BorgQueen 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Jones[edit]

AfD nominated by Demossmw with reason: "1) It doesn't have any level of prominence outside of its venue; 2) The scope of the article is too small, and; 3) The article contains too little information to be of any use." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he satisfies WP:BIO under (at least) "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage", but am open to making a u-turn if presented with a reasonable argument to the contrary. CiaranG 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McMUN[edit]

Probable vanity article on one of hundreds of Model UN conferences held around north america annually. Makes no claim to notability besides weasel words. Prod removed by anonIP. Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If not kept, should be a merge and redirect to Model United Nations rather than deletion. If kept, overly detailed information such as names of committee chairs should be truncated. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most committees run at any Model UN conference, third largest in the world by number of delegates Bobthefifth 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And of course you have a verifiable source for that claim? -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom and agree with User:Newyorkbrad. Seems no more notable than the other hundreds of model UNs (which also don't get WP articles). --Raeven0 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've voted to delete dozens of other mun conference articles, but McMUN is one of the truly notable ones around. McMUN is one of the largest and most prestigious conferences around the world, attracting not only a large amount of delegates but also corporate sponsorships. Nonetheless, I recognize that there are verifiability issues -- most conferences are not picked up by news media. Perhaps there needs to be a notability standard drafted for model un conferences. I also think that personnel information should be removed pending a keep as per Newyorkbrad. Mystache 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete no real evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC (e.g. sources). W.marsh 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drist[edit]

Band does not apear notable; yes, they have an album, but no record label, past or present, and although their songs have apeared on games, that ain't saving the songs from deletion, so it shouldn't save the band either. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same as the album pages listed further up -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am also nominating the following related page because it is as unnotable as the band:

Delete. I can't find any third-party sources about them, so they appear non-notable (I'll reconsider if they're found, obviously). Although WP:BAND 9 says "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable", I don't think this should be kept because the media included large amounts of music. And a redirect to Guitar Hero seems inappropriate. Trebor 23:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Trebor. Edison 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont DeleteThis is a real band, just type them into google. The guitarist is also famous himself, and does alot of work with activision. bands like Enter Shikariare on there own record label, these are still on here. want evidence, just buy Guitar Hero one or two.

Existing is not a criterion for inclusion, unfortunately. WP:MUSIC lists accepted inclusion standards for bands. Trebor 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with having an album, Drist has performed music for Guitar Hero, which is notable media. The guy also performed most of the stuff in the entire game since it's a bunch of covers. Notable media, notable member, and an album (not quite two though) so I think that this should be kept. Voretus/talk 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Voretus. Do a bit of research before you guys delete an up and coming band. Theyve only recently gotten publicity through GH and GH2, but produce their own stuff. http://www.emusic.com/artist/11584/11584823.html 3 albums TOTAL. You are free to listen to them there. This article should be UPDATED if anything, by someone who has the amount of time to dedicate to them. Not delete it because of their 'lack of publicity' or 'exposure'. It takes years for some bands to get out there, especially those producing their own stuff and being their own label. Xander/XeonicAngel 07:11, 15 January 2007 (CST) This is the first edit from an IP address, !vote shouldn't count. Trebor 14:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Right, and when they get "out there", Wikipedia can have an article about them. Not before, not to help them on their way, but after they qualify under WP:BAND. Trebor 14:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.drist.com/version2/band.html Go there, youll see that they have some very credible sources under 'titles', 'producers', 'tours', etc. With that said, the numbers Im referring to are : 3 - Vans Warped Tour as writen on their offical website, 4 - according to their website, the labels theyve signed with have also hosted other famous bands as well, AND 9 - Guitar Hero, dispite being a video game, is STILL a notable source as it has a huge following, a massive community dedicated to the game, and many MANY popular bands have loaned their songs to the game. Granted, they arent HUGE numbers, but they have certianly fullfilled the requirement to get their own wiki page. Seeing as there is little to no information about them online, having a wiki helps further their community, as well as bring people TO wikipedia.Xander/XeonicAngel 17:07, 15 January 2007(CST) This is the first edit Ive ever made, and probably the only one I care enough to make. Dont be a jerk :P Xander/XeonicAngel 17:07, 15 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.34.180 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not seeing where these sources are, and they're unlikely to be independent if they're on the band website. Any independent source that mentions them non-trivially will do. The fact they contributed songs to Guitar Hero doesn't really qualify on its own - the guidelines for inclusion are on WP:BAND. And unfortunately, Wikipedia can't be used as free advertising for the band - if they have little to no information about them online, then that's their fault. And trust me, their influence on the traffic of Wikipedia will be minimal. Trebor 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete it. I tried my best to make it encyclopaedic, but they are a pretty non-important band. Toypadlock 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
1. The band is getting popular each day
2. Anyone who plays guitar hero 1 or 2 may want to now about this band
3. A famous guitarist is their band.
4. They are an upcoming band
None of the reasons given are ether not good enough reasons or are not very true. You guys really need to do some research befroe you deleted it. It was highly unnecessary.

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

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

The result was delete. BorgQueen 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Airsoft manufacturers[edit]

Nothing but a collection of ads with external links. Clearly violates WP:NOT. User:Zoe

Strong Delete - irredeemably WP:POV & WP:OR. I don't object to the concept of a list of Airsoft Mfg, but this list is irredeemable. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Tip[edit]

Delete OR, it's been orphaned for six months as well. Just H 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Just H. JuJube 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Wiktionary if references are found. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dar-Ape 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dar-Ape, and suggest a redirect to Joint (cannabis) - Kevin ^(TALK) 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines destinations[edit]

This is a renomination, the previous nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive.

Briefly, this utterly fails WP:N. The vast majority of keep arguments in the last nomination were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL, not ones based on policy. A list of major stops can be included at the main article, but an article like this is so crufty as to be almost amusing. WP:NOT covers not an indiscriminate collection of information, and frankly, our policy on common sense seems pretty relevent here as well. -M^ask? 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Airways destinations
Aer Lingus destinations
AerOasis destinations
Aeroflot-Nord destinations
Aeroflot destinations
Aeroflot Don destinations
Aerolínea de Antioquia destinations
Aerolíneas Argentinas destinations
Aerolitoral destinations
Aeroméxico destinations
Aeropostal destinations
AeroRepública destinations
Afriqiyah Airways destinations
Aigle Azur destinations
Air Algérie destinations
Air Berlin destinations
Air Canada destinations
Air China destinations
Air Deccan destinations
Air Europa destinations
Air France destinations
Air India destinations
Air Mauritius destinations
Air New Zealand destinations
Air Niugini destinations
Air Pacific destinations
Air Transat destinations
AirAsia destinations
AIRES destinations
Airlines of Papua New Guinea destinations
AirTran Airways destinations
Alaska Airlines destinations
Alitalia destinations
All Nippon Airways destinations
Allegiant Air destinations
America West Airlines destinations
America West Express destinations

Emirates destinations
Etihad destinations
EVA Air destinations
Finnair destinations
Flyglobespan destinations
Garuda Indonesia destinations
Germanwings destinations
Gulf Air destinations
Hawaiian Airlines
Iberia destinations
Indian Airlines destinations
Iran Air destinations
Japan Airlines destinations
Jat Airways destinations
Jet2.com destinations
Jetairfly destinations
JetBlue Airways destinations
Jetstar Asia Airways destinations
KLM Cityhopper destinations
KLM destinations
Korean Air destinations
KrasAir destinations
Kuwait Airways destinations
LAN Airlines destinations
LAN Peru destinations
Libyan Airways destinations
Linhas Aéreas de Moçambique destinations
Livingston Airline Destinations
Lloyd Aereo Boliviano destinations
LOT Polish Airlines destinations
Lufthansa destinations
Luxair destinations
Madina Airlines destinations
Malaysia Airlines destinations
Malév Hungarian Airlines destinations
Mexicana destinations
Midwest Connect destinations

Transwiki I think this kind of content is more appropriate to another wiki, such as Wikitravel. Slavlin 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unmaintainable and not the sort of thing anyone would want to look up in WP anyway. andy 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is easily maintainable if you have the will to do it, and say that no one would look it up is a complete generalization. NcSchu 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major hubs and landing slots are an important part of any airline. Airlines are bought just to get their hubs and landing slots. Also this is a major consideration in the article on Open Skies. Destinations don't change as often as you would think. There are only so many landing slots available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've already had this discussion - nothing has changed here. Wikitravel does not cover airlines let alone their destinations - this has been discussed there before as well. --Flymeoutofhere 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just told us why we dont send them to wikitravel, now why should we keep them here? You never got to that part. -M^ask? 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These lists are important aspects of airlines and cannot be included in the main articles because of clutter. They should remain. Zeus1234 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, we have had this discussion before, a few times, and it's never been satisfactorily explained why all these articles don't fail WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#IINFO. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the burden of proof is on the nominator, and there has been no satisfactory argument as to why they do fail those guidelines. DB (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They help to measure the size and scope of the airline, exist as sub-articles to reduce clutter on the main airline article.MilborneOne 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree; perhaps the information need not be included anywhere. Gracenotes^T § 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with this nomination (and I believe it came up before but I don't have the time to reread the whole previous AfD right now) is that it's unclear whether the articles are being seen as standalone lists or as sub-pages of the main airline article. If they're being seen as standalone lists then I can see why people would want to delete them, but merging them back into the main article article makes the main article too long for many of these airlines. If the objection is to maintaining these lists at all regardless of where they reside, and decision is to dump them, then we'll need to update the article structure guidelines at WP:AIRLINES since the destination list is part of that structure. -- Hawaiian717 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is an important distinction. I personally see the articles as subpages (since I read the AFD a while ago); a good solution might be to only merge information into the main airline article that establishes the airline's notability. There also may be merit to the idea of including the list in an airline's main article in a far condensed form than it is now, although such a solution may be as crufty (a subjective assessment) as these articles. Gracenotes^T § 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MilborneOne. -- Hawaiian717 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' "Encyclopedias [can] provide raw information rather than prose to a certain extent, but this is too much. I wouldn't say that it's indiscriminate, since the criterion for inclusion is clearly defined (in theory), but I could certainly say that this criterion makes accurate maintenance a Herculean task." - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Destinations to/from all Thailand airports. (Note also the paragraph on GFDL compliant-copying.) Gracenotes^T § 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real pain to see this yet again... Delete per WP:NOT concerns (directory etc). This information (and airport airline lists) distracts editors from actual content which would be of great interest — important and notable destinations, why they are of note. These lists just duplicate the airline's websites, published timetables and other external sites. Thanks/wangi 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP...this is rediculous. We already had a huge discussion on this and this is a waste of time? The consensus last time was overwelmingly Keep and I don't know what people don't get about that Sox 23 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to respond to everyone (sorry; I don't want to be too pushy), but I should note that consensus can change. Perhaps it has. Gracenotes^T § 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I agree with the keep 'voters' this is getting repetitive. If this nomination fails, I would suggest a policy change is required instead of another nomination. Personally, I would prefer a clear statement in our policies that all content has to have a secondary source and that any article lacking this requirement can be challenged and deleted. Addhoc 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote on secondary sources from previous AFD:
  the information is actually verifiable by third party sources. OAG publishes a list of every route served by every airline in the world. As we mentioned before, simplying copying that list would be excessive, however, the OAG lists can easily be used to compile a destination list for each airline. DB (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  Michael Greiner 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that's a third party source, However I said a secondary source, which is different. Addhoc 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - WP:V isn't the problem here. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense the current version WP:V can't be enacted to delete this article, I agree. Addhoc 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does one request that this nomination in its totality be stricken from the record until such time as the nominee has time to go thru and check each article individually. I point your attention to this article. It is obvious the nominee has not looked at any of the articles up for nomination and as such the entire nomination should be scratched. --Russavia 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure how to bring this up delicately, but I'll also point you to the red links in the nomination, as well as Hawaiian Airlines. It's obvious to me that he just cut and pasted the last one. -- Hawaiian717 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Add City Star Airlines destinations to the list. Why exactly is this article being nominated? And the other articles Hawaiian717 has mentioned? --Russavia 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They should be deleted from the nomination and sent to RfD. To be fair to the nom, the point here is that the main issue is debated properly (which it wasn't last time) and it seems a bit over the top to have to look at 150+ articles again. If the outcome is delete, the deleting admin will easily be able to see which articles have been either deleted already or redirected. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for nom WP:CRUFT is not policy or a guideline, just an essay. Same thing for WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. --Michael Greiner 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's lucky the nom based the nomination on WP:N and WP:NOT then, which ARE policy. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These sections are clearly maintainable - how would they have grown to the extent that they have if they were not.
- Furthermore, organizationally speaking it would be a disaster to integrate this information into the main body of a respective airline's entry. It seems that a majority of the comments are in support of retaining the information, and if we want to do that the only manageable way to display it is to have a separate entry as is right now. Perhaps there should be additional information on the most important aspects of the destinations topic (Hubs, international destinations, et al) in the main article in supplement . See Continental Airlines for an example of this. -- grimbogey 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My original request on the January nomination was "Keep" due to some of the reasons presented here. However I now believe that such information is pointless because airlines and other third party websites keep clear lists of destinations that are just as easily accessed by the public and are more official. Hubs are already mentioned (or at least should be) on the airlines' templates and I think perhaps all that is needed to make destination information encyclopedic would be mention of destinations that have an unusual amount of service, various firsts, etc. And of course if a certain airline has only a few destinations it is always possible to list them in a more clean paragraph form. I should add, however, that I do not believe WP:NOT can actually apply in this case, as these lists aren't exactly "indiscriminate lists" as they are relevant to the "mother" article. NcSchu 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to respectfully point out that just like WP:USEFUL isn't a valid reason to keep an article, the fact that information (ie. the compilation of information that is the article) can be found somewhere else shouldn't count as a reason to delete it. One person's pointless information, as you put it, may very well be relevant to another person. --Seed 2.0 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually most sites do a good job of identifying destinations that are available through the airline even if they are not flown by the airline itself. That is different from the destinations that an airline actually flies to which is what these lists cover. The availability of this encyclopedic information is not that available to the common public so the filtering here actually makes the actual information available rather then the marketing hype. There is a major difference between routes and destinations. I have no problem deleting specific routes since those are not encyclopedic but the actual destinations are encyclopedic since they help define the airline. Vegaswikian 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with American Airlines, and place the destination list in a section in that article. By itself, I gotta agree with the nom--an article like this borders on cruft.Blueboy96 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these articles exist because the destination section got too long relative to the article, so it was pulled out the be separate. See User:Hawaiian717/American Airlines to see what I mean. -- Hawaiian717 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is that there's really no way to merge all that content into the respective airlines' articles (I'm mostly talking content here, not so much manhours even though that would be another problem). And I don't really see a way to merge just some desinations. It's pretty much either all destinations, only hubs or straight-out deletion -- Seed 2.0 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to their respective airlines and delete the lot. Maybe transwiki to Wikitravel, which it might do better at anyway considering my opinion. Note, my original vote in January was delete. I'm still not convinced that these articles can stand by themselves, but they do make interesting information (yes, I know...) and provide sort of a crossreference for airports and airlines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dedicated users keep these pages updated, making them very reliable and useful. To list where an airline flies is a very valuable piece of information, one that Wikipedia should be proud of. This was nominated once before, I don't see why it was done again. A merge would be acceptable, but many of these lists are just far too long. - Nurmsook 23:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the people saying "keep" seem to be arguing (a) we can't merge the information back into the relevant airline articles, and (b) we can't put it somewhere else (plus a few (c) it's easy to maintain in this form). But the question is, do we need it in the first place? AFAICT, the answer is no - these lists are exactly what Wikipedia is not, namely a collection of indiscriminate information and/or a directory. Delete. Confusing Manifestation 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Nurmsook--Jer10 95 Talk 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to expand on why this has been nominated again, look at the last AfD. There were 28 Keep votes. Apart from User:Sjakkalle and User:Maltara, who made good points, all the other 26 votes were based on (a) WP:USEFUL (b) WP:ILIKEIT, (c) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, (d) "They're too big to merge back into the main article", or (e) didn't give a reason or just said "per someone else". That's 26 Keep votes that didn't give a policy guideline as to why the articles should be kept.
Comment (cont) So far in this AfD, apart from Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), the same non-reasons are being given again (with added "But the last AfD said keep!!") If these articles are encyclopedic, it shouldn't be too difficult to explain exactly how they do meet WP:NOT / WP:N. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes, do look at the last nomination. With the exception of the nominator, SpLoT, Fram, and one or two others, all of the arguments for deletion were based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:IDONTCARE, WP:PERNOM, or WP:CRUFT, which is not a policy or even a guideline. DB (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like lists, but this is taking the idea too far. WP is not a search engine. There's no point putting it back into the articles. DGG 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rather than start a second nom, shouldn't this be at WP:DRV? Yes, I know it was kept, but if the majority of keep arguments were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX, then it could be argued that the AfD was closed improperly. A second AfD right after the first one will probably end up the same. At least at DRV, the AfD's closing, not the content will be under discussion. UnfriendlyFire 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - All of these articles need to be kept. There is no problem in keeping the information on these pages asccurate, and i think that the information on them is valid and important. If the articles were to be merged into the main airline articles, they would seem a lot more crowded and cluttered. These articles provide useful information and compliment the main articles well. I really don't see how these articles could be deleted. Greenboxed 02:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Again? Actually, these lists are rather accurate as they're are watched by countless users on all three related wikiprojects and just regular aviation users not affiliated with the projects as well, and can be easily verified as such. It was already determined in the previous nomination that they are notable in reference to each airline as they determined both airline route structure, territory and business planning. They're also sub-articles of the individual airline articles since placing this information within each individual article would be too large, so they compliment each individual airline article by keeping information to massive to be contained within one page and ARE NOT just standalone articles as is being suggested by the nominators. Sub-articles are found throughout wikipedia; alone, they may be considered unnotable information but as part of a larger group of articles they make up a large network of information useful to anyone interested in the main subject, in this case, each individual airline. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep God forbid that Wikipedia might actually contain accurate information about major airlines of use to people who want to look it up. Nick mallory 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what new information has been discovered since this last nomination?? plan on nominating over and over again until people get sick of replying? just keep it since most people think its informative. --02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep It makes all kinds of sense to keep and organize this information. Is nobody curious, when reading about Airline Z, to know where Airline Z flies to? These are content forks, split off from the main airline articles which tend to run long. By the same argument, the small airports that nobody has ever heard of might also be deleted, but that's not about to happen either. Placeholder account 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep As comment above. Bjrobinson 09:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think this would be useful information for the users, but it should be part of the article of each respective airline. The value of this website is it's "gee whiz" factor, and listing s of where each airline flies to adds that "gee whiz" factor. WCS99no1 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as last time. These should be viewed as appropriately split of articles to the main airline articles. The dismissal of all the keep arguments as ILIKEIT or USEFUL is plainly insulting and false, since the main reason for keeping is that the destinations of an airline is what defines its geographical and economic outreach, and new routes are frequent topics in business journals. As a side-note, citing WP:CRUFT in the nomination is very much an IDONTLIKEIT reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am of the position that these articles (or subarticles if you prefer) serve as a way to identify where airlines go, similar to listings of train stations. I can see how some people see these lists as indiscriminate, because even subarticles need to stand on their own merit (look at "in popular culture" AFDs). Although I said "keep" in the previous discussion, I will not say anything for now, but I still lean towards "keep". And as I have said before, additional information (e.g. history of destinations) and referencing in the articles would add value here. On another note, moving the original discussion as an archive is not the normal way to raise a second discussion. (Creates headaches for admins?) But I ended up seeing this page in my watchlist, so it got my attention more than the normal way would. Tinlinkin 09:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an excellent point, and one which I totally agree with. I have seen some airline destination articles which state their past destinations but give as a list only. These destinations rewritten as text, and expanded, could be highly informative. This is something I will be doing as part of a rewrite of Aeroflot which I am working on, such great history there, the largest airline in the world with over 10,000 aircraft and thousands of destinations, to an airline today with a hundred aircraft and a hundred destinations. There is a lot of information which can be provided, and sourced of course, it could turn these destination articles into something which could also stand up on their own. --Russavia 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be fine with these articles if thats what they did. Even for defunct airlines like Trans-am. This is a most interesting suggestion.... -M^ask? 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this being done and working, the only problem would be to get accurate histories of destinations (if that is what would happen). NcSchu 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per last time. This information is always updated and is actually important. Merging to main airline articles will make the main article look lengthy and messy especially for major airlines. Squeezing 200+ destinations on one page? No thanks. The last time, the result was a keep and why are we sending it to AFD again? Terence 09:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per MilborneOne. --Webkami 13:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per NcSchu the info can easily be linked from the airline articles, or even added to those, & it's seriously debatable how useful this is. (you can't plan a journey with it as you need access to the uptodate into frm the airline/travel agent, & if yr thinking of buying an airline, u probably don't work out how much it's worth/which one to buy from a wp article) ⇒ bsnowball 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate for lists. Carlossuarez46 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this information is directly, absolutely relevant to the airline articles. And yes, it can be easily maintained. Critical to an airline's definition is what destinations they serve. Specific lists of destinations, especially hub cities, are absolutely germane to airline discussions. Deleting all these pages of lists would mess up the main articles, as already mentioned, not to mention doing a disservice to the hundreds of individuals that have contributed to and maintained airline destinations lists. Enigma3542002 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment commenting above by Enigma3542002..."Critical to an airline's definition is what destinations they serve"...is 100% correct. In regards to users looking at these lists, they are able to see what areas of the world the specific airlines focus on (Southwest Airlines focuses on primary USA destinations whereas Alitalia for instance focuses on Italian destinations), as well as if they utilize main airports (typical of legacy carriers like American Airlines) or secondary airports (like some low-cost carriers like Allegiant Air). Sox 23 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Can anyone explain how these do not fail WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO? Just because you think an article should stay, doesn't mean it should. Paul Cyr 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do agree with the nominator that many of the arguments offered above for keeping these pages are rather weak. However, in an AfD nomination, the onus is on the nominator to demonstrate why the articles should be deleted — and so far I've seen little of that beyond WP:IDONTCARE. In particular, I have failed to see any convincing arguments on how keeping these pages would be of disadvantage to Wikipedia, beyond offending the nominator's personal sensibilities.
The nominator argues that these lists violate WP:N and WP:NOT. To the former (which is only a guideline, anyway), I would reply that it is completely irrelevant whether these pages might or might not pass any arbitrary threshold of notability on their own: they are not stand-alone articles, but merely sections split off from the main airline article for technical and readability reasons (page length). The airlines, or at least the overwhelming majority of them, are presumably themselves notable enough. That being the case, the notability of the destinations is no more relevant than the the notability of individual songs in an article about a band — whether presented on a separate discography page or not.
As for "what Wikipedia is not", I presume the sections the nominator is referring to are Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the specific examples given in them actually match the pages being nominated, but presumably the nominator is referring more to the spirit of the policy than to its letter (even though that policy is in fact intended to be more of a collection of bright-line rules rather than any sort of "founding principle" to be interpreted and meditated upon). Reading the justifications given in the "directory" section, the most applicable concerns presented there seem to those of notability, for which see the preceding paragraph. As for the other section, beyond the responses already made above, I will merely note that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries" and leave it at that.
Of course, marginal articles may, and commonly are, also deleted if maintaining them in a proper encyclopedic condition would seem more trouble than it's worth. Typical cases include articles likely to attract interest mainly from parties with a conflict of interest (advertisement etc.), lists that would require inordinate effort to keep sufficiently complete and/or up-to-date to be useful, and articles that simply no-one other than their creator is interested in maintaining. None of these concerns seem to apply here, though: Previous commentators have claimed — and I have no reason to disbelieve them — that these lists are in fact easily sourced and maintained based on neutral and not too rapidly changing sources. The sheer number and quality of these articles, as well as the number of people supporting their continued inclusion above, should be evidence that, even if you don't care and I don't care, someone does care about them. As for Wangi's concern that maintaining these pages "distracts editors" from more valuable tasks, do we actually have any evidence to suggest that the editors currently maintaining them are actually interested in working on other, "more valuable" content, and only limited from doing so by lack of time? In my personal experience, the contributors to such article are more likely to simply go away if the articles are deleted.
Finally, I find it ironic that the nominator would choose to appeal to use common sense in a nomination that, to me, seems to policy wonkery at it worst — nominating something for deletion merely because one doesn't like it and can't find any policy in explicit support of it, with no regard to whether it actually, directly or indirectly, harms or costs the encyclopedia anything in any way. Since they did, however, I'll use mine: if someone wants it, and it does no harm, why not keep it?
I would like to second Tinlinkin's suggestion that these articles would be much more useful if they incorporated more of a historical perspective. While Wikipedia is also an almanac (can't recall where it says that, but I've definitely seen it cited as policy before), it is primarily an encyclopedia, and one of the goals of an encyclopedia is to collect present otherwise scattered information in a meaningful context. As they are, these lists are merely crude distillations of the OAG route data, of marginal independent value and worth keeping only by default in the absence of harm. A historical perspective — even just a list of changes over the years — would add encyclopedic information that would not be trivially available elsewhere. A proper historical narrative incorporating said changes into a broader context would do so even more. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the articles do have some historic destinations lists. However with adding many of these destinations there is an issue of WP:V. I think your suggestion for a textual description of the destination history would be a nice add. In some cases, this was retained in the main article but it generally does not exist on this wiki. Vegaswikian 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fail to see, in part, why this information needs to be anywhere in Wikipedia (let alone cluttering up the main article, as some have pointed out). Some have trouble grasping that dictionary definitions should go to Wiktionary, since it's good, verifiable, useful, content. But then there is another issue, that of scope. I have cautiously drawn the conclusion that this is outside of our scope: not to be dogmatic about it, of course. Gracenotes^T § 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any new arguments here, and since the decision last time was keep, there's no reason to overturn it. Furthermore, I support the lists; they don't violate any of the policies stated. Finally, this is not how a second nomination should be handled. The first should not have been moved. This should be at a "2nd nomination" page. DB (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how is the list at User:Hawaiian717/American Airlines, for a compromise? I believe that sorting by locations is not important (well, unless you want a travel guide), so this simplifies the look of the list and makes it perfectly integrable into the article. The list was generated by quickly written script, which can be refined if merging is the consensus. Once again, merely a compromise. Any thoughts? Gracenotes^T § 04:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing the city/country/continent names does, however, make it rather hard to obtain any meaningful geographical information from the data, at least unless one has memorized the locations of all major airports around the world. The basic idea does seem worth a try, at least. Perhaps a scrollable table, with columns for (at least) airport name and country, instead of a list? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Karonen. The table really must divide the airports by geographical information to make the list meaningful.Zeus1234 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Karonen as well. Having the list integrated in the main page by the way shown in User:Hawaiian717/American Airlines but with geographical information would tell us details about its expansion plan. This also serve as a compromise from being an article with merely a list. --Zack2007 09:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hesitantly respectfully disagree with Karonen. :) To explain: imagine a graph inserted into an article to illustrate a trend indicated in the text. A reader may not look specifically at each data point, but say "Hey! Those two variables have an inverse relationship!" However, they can always see the graph in more detail. I'm not sure what level of detail having the location will contribute to the article. You see that a list is long; given the significantly more amount of space two columns will take up, it does not help the content that much. Or at least, I am not convinced that it will. Gracenotes^T § 10:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should this decision come to deleting the articles, I would not mind integrating the lists into the articles as in User:Hawaiian717/American Airlines, however, I still do not think these articles should be up for deletion again and I believe that how the articles are set up right now is the most beneficial to users looking up airline destinations Sox 23 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - While this is a good idea, I also agree with Sox23 that the current lists are the best format. Having a scrollable list in the article should only happen as a last resort. Zeus1234 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the assertion of the nom, airline destinations are a a highly discriminate collection of information with a strict boundary condition: either the airline flies to point X, or it doesn't. They're also absolutely crucial to defining the airline's operations, and it's not sensible to attempt to narrow them down to "major stops" (meaning what?). Jpatokal 17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Airline Destination information is a big part in information about the airline and it's history. It shows where the airline is spread out to, and provides valuable information. Greekboy 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is definitely useful and an integral part of the information about the airline. The airline itself definitely counts under WP:N and these lists could be on the same page, but with most airlines the list is too long - thus justifying a separate page. I - and I'm sure others - do look up this information because wikipedia is far more succinct than many airline websites when I have to navigate through numerous flash websites and onto some fancy map just to discover whether they go to place X. On my dialup collection and even on broadband I choose to come here. Keep it here and accept that it might be out of date sometimes - but that is true of the whole of Wikipedia. And that's why we're here to update it when we can. Iancaddy 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Jpatokal. matt91486 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sure doesn't look like the consensus has changed from last time...why are we even bothering? Sox 23 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:CCC? I gave you a link above, but it perhaps you may not have gotten around to taking a look. I'm bothering because these lists are (in my opinion) outside of Wikipedia's scope: another line of thinking which has not generated much interest, let alone analysis. Gracenotes^T § 03:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: From WP:CCC, it states "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss.". Just what new information can you offer, without which I have the gut feeling you are doing precisely what WP:CCC is discouraging?--Huaiwei 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have presented a new argument or two, but otherwise, we're still discussing the same items, which I believe are still being misinterpreted or under-examined (and need more examination in such a setting as this). I have tried to shed light on my point of view regarding these issues. I have tried to suggest a couple of actionable solutions rather than completely keeping or completely deleting. Maybe I'm wrong, but people are citing that the result last time was keep in order to support keeping the articles this time around, which induced my invocation of WP:CCC. We are not bound merely to consensus; also to logic. Gracenotes^T § 04:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is (are) the new argument(s)? I don't see any. DB (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The basic gist of my argument is below. I don't believe it was discussed on the first AFD from glancing over the debate, and but regardless, it's not being discussed here. Gracenotes^T § 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would it be possible to make the destination lists subpages? That's essentially what they are; they're just too long to put on the main pages. Something like American Airlines/destinations. Would that be an unwieldy title? I would think most people go to the page directly from the airline article, so it shouldn't be a big problem. DB (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- why individuals insist on keeping information that cannot be properly maintained is beyond me. They are just sub pages of real articles why can’t we just direct individuals to were the actuate information exist?--Riferimento 11:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this information really does exist somewhere do please let the world know. The airline sites generally do not list it. If they do, it is frequently hidden somewhere within the site. HP provided it as a nice list at one point, but they stopped a while back or moved it to a location I could not find. What is easy to find is locations that the airline is able to fly you to. This means they get get you to an airport even if it is not a destination they fly to. That is the difference with out lists. They document locations that the airline ACTUALLY FLIES TO! Even press releases announcing flights have to be used with care since they will make it sound like the airline is now flying to a destination when in fact they are not. We also work to provide standard names across all articles so that readers know what airport is actually being used. Bottom line these articles are encyclopedic and contain information that is not really available anywhere else that we know of. What I don't understand why this 'it already exists' logic keeps showing up. It has been explained many times here and in the previous AfDs that it does not. I will admit that in many cases, the route map contains this information. However it is in a form that is very difficult to follow and the reader needs to decode it for the regional carries, alliances and code shares and then try to follow the line though a maze of them to figure out a destination. And again, not all airlines offer these. Vegaswikian 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course these lists can be maintained. It is a relatively easy task. As to why not just direct individuals to where the acurate information exists, please look at the references used for the following range of articles I am working on, Kyrgyzstan (airline), Kyrgyzstan Airlines (this one doesn't even have a website, yet it is a national airline), their destinations are referenced, by both official sources and secondary sources, but unfortunately, up-to-date sources in English are not available, only in Russian. Would you really say to someone, here ya go, and try to decipher it as best you can? And you can't say 'go look at their website, as Kyrgyzstan Airlines, Air Koryo, Turkmenistan Airlines, and numerous other major airlines, don't have a website to look at. Yet properly sourced and edited, there is no reason these lists can't remain. After all, an airline is in the business of flying between airports/cities. If one can't list these, what is the point of having any other info on these companies? The suggestion of only listing the 'major' destinations is unworkable, as this will bring WP:POV into play as editors will need to make a judgement call, which by the very nature of wikipedia, we are unable to do. --Russavia 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the lists can be maintained and can comply, through a fair amount of vigilance, with our policy of verifiability. However, I still remain of the opinion that such lists are not appropriate for Wikipedia in general, similar to how dictionary definitions are not appropriate for Wikipedia in general. They do not contribute to creating free content; rather, they compose a storage of mercurial data without a context of content—that is, not worked into article prose, and of no insightful value otherwise. I recognize that an extraordinary amount of meticulous work has gone into maintaining these lists, but it's work that I believe is unnecessary. Gracenotes^T § 13:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable, WP is not company's website. Pavel Vozenilek 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I maintain 10 airline destinations articles and update them at the least every month (to change: [As of month], shall no destinations be added or discontinued) for the 10 airline articles I contribute to. It's not really that hard to remove or add a destination when an airline announces discontinued/new service. Sox 23 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is an online encyclopedia edited by its users. Therefore it is acceptable to have changing up-to-date information. This information is intersting also, information of what service a service company gives is interesting for an article about it. BIL 12:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful, interesting and helps to reduce cluttering on the respective main articles. Thrane 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the reasons presented for keeping boil down to the 'fact' that this information is available. The truth of the matter is that this information is not available in other sources. The fact that this characteristic is so defining that airlines try to hide the truth to improve the appearance of their importance supports its encyclopedic importance. As presented above, destinations do not change all that often contrary to another assertion for the delete argument. Routes do change and that fact is why the airline project does not support including these in airline articles. So clearly this information is defining, can be maintained and is not available elsewhere in the clean format that an online encyclopedia can provide. So there are clear reasons to keep these articles. The closer should be able to close this as a keep if the strength of the arguments are given appropriate weight. Vegaswikian 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Vegaswikian and others. However, the vast majority of these articles are not referenced and needs to be looked at. --Russavia 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many well-reasoned arguments in the last discussion. Nothing new here. --- RockMFR 19:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those are really useful and are maintained regulary. Also by myself. Vitya 13:11, 22 May 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 to delete, but without sources a merge should probably be considered. W.marsh 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Serious Mum Demo Tape[edit]

NN demo tape - crz crztalk 23:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me. At the very least, merge to the main article. Side note - be aware that User:Dubrosa has removed the AfD notice from the page. I have restored it, but I suspect from the attitude shown in the edit summary at the time of removal that it will be removed again. CiaranG 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment in light of the Merge recommendations below - if this were merged into TISM, the next logical step would seem (to me at least) to consider splitting it to its own article per WP:SUMMARY. Doh! CiaranG 10:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right; there's no reason to merge this and in addition there's no place to merge it. — coelacan talk — 16:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge A demo tape doesn't really need its own article. TJ Spyke 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is no different from having an article on a television show pilot episode. For that matter it is no different from any other article on any TISM album. There's no reason to be prejudicial toward work that was created before the band was signed. — coelacan talk — 04:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a demo tape is not notable ina nd of itself. A pilot episode is a bad comparison as it is actually aired as opposed to a demo tape which is not mass duplicated and sold. -- Whpq 05:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot episodes are not usually aired. Generally they are recreated from the script, using the newly available studio funding. The new creation may air as the first episode or as another episode in the first season, or as a subplot within an episode, or they may never air at all. See Television pilot#Bare-bones pilot and Television pilot#Airing the pilot. A demo tape is like a bare-bones pilot. No reason not to have an article about it. — coelacan talk — 06:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band made a demo tape? No shit. Where are the reliable sources for the significance of this demo tape? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coelacan ::mikm t 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buckaroo Bonzai vs. the World Crime League[edit]

Delete - stub orphan article with little chance for expansion. Relevant information already exists at the film article and the title of this page is misspelled which makes it unlikely as a search term. Otto4711 23:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as relevant info already exists in a more logical place. SkierRMH,03:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a huge fan, but there simply isn't anything more to be said about it that isn't already covered in the film article as has been pointed out by SkierRMH. -- Whpq 05:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and send it to Planet 10. No prejudice to recreation if this actually ever gets made, but colour me surprised if it does. Agent 86 07:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a stub. Don't forget the redirect page at World Crime League too. --Bdoserror 01:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's not even spelt correctly :). I'm a fan of the original movie, but there's very little of use to include about the sequel plans. Mark Grant 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wrong content, wrong title. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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