Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 17

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Cheatin' Heart (Phil of the Future episode)[edit]

Your Cheatin' Heart (Phil of the Future episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article about a Phil of the Future episode that is a 1-2sentance summary (taken from List of Phil of the Future episodes) and an infobox. Provides no more information than the list of episodes does Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages per above:
Unification Day (Phil of the Future episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meet the Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You fixed up the one page but what about the other 2? as well as the rest of the episodes which are still the 1-2 sentence from the list?? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can go either way on the other two. These Disney Channel episode pages attract a lot of editing, and will be cleaned up pretty soon. Deleting them now and recreating them later is fine with me, too. - Peregrine Fisher 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They should either be deleted and recreated when they have enough info to qualify for an article, or be moved into user space until they have info info for an article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - speculative, unreferenced, and generally inappropriate. /Blaxthos 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - television episode articles are perfectly acceptable, it's from a notable show so that surely helps, it still being a stub is not criteria for deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You miss understand me i think. Its not even a stub. Its the same 1-2 sentence that is on the list of episodes. It provides no more info than the list does. If they are all changed and made into articles that provide more info I wouldn't mind keeping them --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then expand it! I'd certainly do it if I watched this series, or was interested in Disney - frankly I'm sick of moaning, if people are unwilling to meat out the articles that aren't up to spec then just don't look at them, simple as that - but deletion is not the answer - temporary redirection might be however. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If i had seen all the episodes more than once I would do it myself. But, since they aren't aired as much as the rest of disney channels newer shows, I dont remember what happened in every episode. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the correct course of action would be to place {{Expand}} on the page, if no one works on it in say two weeks then redirect it to the LOE, hopefully/eventually someone will do it, I can certainly say I wouldn't work on the page if it was deleted. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:29, 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 speedy delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense page[edit]

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

no content Noon991 09:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CSD G2: test page and A3: no content. Have tagged as such.--Pak21 09:25, 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 Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7 – no assertion of notability. Whoever wants to write an article about this bike might as well start from scratch at Kona Coiler. ~ trialsanderrors 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kona coiler[edit]

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

Was de-prod'd and replaced with a one-liner. Before that it was a description of a non-notable bike, with no sources, linkless, and unedited significantly since its creation in February '06. Delete.-- Fang Aili talk 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete No assertion of notability per CSD A7. JCO312 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Same as above Mcr616 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. -- MarcoTolo 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I was being lenient with the A7; the initial edit said "one of the most vercitile and capable mountain bikes" (sic), which could be an assertion of notability, depending on your inclination and the alignment of the stars. ;) --Fang Aili talk 00:42, 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 delete per WP:CSD#A3 – articles consisting solely of external links. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Links for Cumberland, Maryland[edit]

Further Links for Cumberland, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article was created after these external links were removed from the Cumberland, Maryland article. I believe it fails WP:NOT as it is simply a directory of links. I'm bringing this here for broader consensus. Also, does this list merit a merge back into the article or not? Metros232 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kinda seems like a violation of WP:POINT. Delete, a bunch of links does not an article make. Doesn't appear to be worth merging, but I have no strong opinion there. GassyGuy 00:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any appropriate links and Delete the rest. JCO312 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A3: Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. As I stated to the user, if we were to include links to every business in the articles about Washington, D.C. or New York, they would be insanely big. Maybe WP:POINT, but I prefer to think inexperience at writing new articles. -- ReyBrujo 00:36, 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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming[edit]

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article created as POV fork after this book was excluded, as a source, from An Inconvenient Truth based on WP:RS and relevance. Cannot find mainstream reviews or notable independent sources (other than publisher) referring to this book. No evidence of significant scientific or cultural impact. Low sales ranking (~35,000) on Amazon. Many more influential pro/con treatises on climate change do not warrant their own article. MastCell 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. God forbid we should actually be of use to anyone desiring information on this topic. To actually be helpful would destroy Wikipedia's reputation for uselessness and hostility. 66.108.168.149 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The assertion that it's POV doesn't mean it should be deleted, just that it should be edited. It's apparently a published work on a controversial subject, I think that's enough justification. JCO312 00:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - Reviewing the Notability criterium, this book about a crucial global debate written by 11 different scientists who fully reference their work within the book, many of them prominent enough to already being Wikepedia notable, should render the book notable enough too. One should not confuse Notability with Popularity.
This page so far is dominated by comments from an editor who did not participate in any of the earlier article discussions since last September.Sympa 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think WP:N sets the bar a little higher than that. The article itself is a POV fork, not just POV (which could be fixed with editing). MastCell 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This does not address the issue of notability. If someone can find significant mentions of the article's topic in some form of mainstream media it might be saveable, but per the low Amazon sales ranks and lack of reviews I find that unlikely. Feel free to prove me wrong with links though. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless someone can assert notability on this it really needs to go. Even if notability could be established almost 90% of the article would need to be removed due to WP:NPOV issues. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A cursory search doesn't reveal any meaningful independent sources for this. Non-notable. --Sopoforic 01:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The appropriate policy here is Wikipedia:Notability (books). I spent a fairly long time searching for this but I had a lot of trouble finding ANY significant independent sources and reviews. The book is in about 247 libraries out of 10,000+ searched by worldcat[1]. Thats more than the threshold standards but not enough to convince me that the book is notable. GabrielF 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the book is obviously notable, but the current content has got to be overhauled. NPOV issues and inappropriate content abound. The article should be about the book, not about the point that the book is trying to make. Arguments against Global Warming should go under a different article, like Global warming controversy perhaps. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Books shouldn't be judged according to their sales and availability. Look at Harry Potter books, does that mean all the facts in Harry Potter books are correct because it's on bestseller list for I-don't-know-how-long-already. Also, many books are not the centre of attention after many years of its publishing date. Similar "fate" of books include Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) which suggests the theory of evolution. It was 10 years after the first publishing date (1869) that scientists really start focusing on his information. Another great example is James Watson and Francis Crick published their article The Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids in 1953. They didn't receive Nobel prize until 1962. Why is that article important? This article is about the discovery of DNA. There're lots and lots of scientific articles that are realized of its full potential after many years (and sometimes the author died already!)One final note, it's pointless to go to Amazon.com to look for books. It's time to learn a new type of book call E-Journal. OhanaUnited
    Comment: Your example is somewhat weird. 9 years between publication and Nobel price is rather short. Of course the work was recognized as important and notable long before that.--Stephan Schulz 11:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gabriel. Eusebeus 07:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as non-notable (and also as a waste of time) William M. Connolley 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hasn't established notability.zadignose 12:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article itself states that "Discussion in the news media and on the internet (both regarding the book and its individual essays) has been minimal". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The relevant (proposed) guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (books), is fairly generous regarding notability, but this book doesn't appear meet the standard at this time, per GabrielF's attempt to find independent commentary. If the book gets some independent press or awards, then an article might be appropriate. TheronJ 15:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above comments. I agree that it fails to meet policies.--James, La gloria è a dio 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A book's value can't be determined by sales numbers; however, its notability can be. --Scimitar 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please take a fresh look at the article. I added 2 reviews from reliable independent publications which I found with Proquest. In particular, there was a favorable review by Choice, the publication of the American Library Association, as well as a bried review by Scitech Book News. These two reviews along with the unfavorable coverage by the other side establish notability and verification. Edison 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Edison, please review criterion 2 at WP:BK. It specifically says that a review in a publication like Choice that reviews thousands of books a year with little regard for notability does not indicate that the book is notable. (If you look at the table of contents for the July/Aug issue of Choice you'll see that there are 622 items, looks like mostly all book reviews - I am assuming that Scitech book news is similar). Every book will be reviewed somewhere, just like every book will have a page on amazon.com - neither signifies notability. I have a self-published history of a New England liberal arts college that cites two reviews on the cover. The point is not that any book that's been reviewed is notable, its that any book that is reviewed by publications that don't review just about everything is notable. If a significant reviewer (NYTimes, NY Review of Books, London Review of Books, etc.) thought that the book was notable enough to warrant a real review (not a paragraph) than that's evidence of notability. A couple of brief reviews are really meaningless. GabrielF 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (edit conflict) Wikipedia guidelines for notability explicitly exclude "reviews in periodicals that review thousands of books a year with little regard for notability"; both Choice (whose web page claims over 7,000 reviews per year) and SciTech Book News (over 20,000 reviews per year) are in this class. Raymond Arritt 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment As it happens, you are wrong about Choice, which reviews 7000 bks a year from the estimated 50,000 or so academic titles published. The selection criteria are that the title must be impt to an UG curriculum. The reviews are typically favorable because they do not include lower quality books unless they're so bad that a warning is in order. Every time I've wanted to give a book a neg review there, I've needed to justify why a neg review should be published. DGG 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: And the other cited "review", from Scitech Book News, is one sentence long. Literally. (See article talk page). MastCell 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      And that in fact is indeed a warning they did not find it worth further review, perhaps because they did not find it to be science. .DGG 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consistent with GabrielF, my searches show the book has not generated substantive reviews or press notice. Raymond Arritt 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all above. Vsmith 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the proposed WP:BK. As a side comment, note that the book was a case of the mediation cabal: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-11 Shattered Consensus. Pascal.Tesson 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not a POV-fork, despite claims made above. Trying to insert the material about the book to counterbalance an article about a book of pseudoscience by a non-scientist celebrity may be POV, and is probably bad practice, but creating a separate article is not. But it does seem to be non-notable - even places like Michael Fumento's website and National Review Online don't mention it. Argyriou (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the info above. /Blaxthos 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is the harm of having a small article about the book? It is not small at the moment, but that can be changed... --nkayesmith 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate: The book is notable enough for a small article to exist. --nkayesmith 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:NOTE. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there's a lot of notable nonsense on the subject, but this book is not one of those that have attracted attention.The extreme POV pushing of the article adds to the impression.DGG 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and promote debate with more debate, not censorship.ShivaDaDestroyer 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (account blocked indefinitely for recurrent vandalism. MastCell 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Account created today. MastCell 02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable. I also agree with promoting the discussion. Note that I am also a newbie. | Noticket 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm curious: What leads you to the belief of notability?--Stephan Schulz 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Wikipedia's role, like that of any encyclopedia, is not so much to "promote debate" as to catalog information on notable people, places, events, etc. If the book is notable, then supporting reasoning should be provided (see WP:N for general guidelines). If your goal is to promote scientific debate or promote skepticism about conventional wisdom, then there are many other more appropriate venues than Wikipedia. MastCell 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 23:44, 22 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, without prejudice against a redirect if someone wants to create one. Chick Bowen 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ztar[edit]

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

This is a very brief article, and I doubt anything else could be added to it. Notable Sort-of-notable, but not enough for its own article. It could simply be merged with a list of items in the Mario series, or deleted altogether. –Llama man 00:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not even sure I know what it asserts to be given the missing words. I'm also not sure if every piece of a video game is "notable," but in any event, this could easily be merged if it is worthwhile at all. JCO312 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It's one sentence. Merge it with the Mario Party 4 or 5 article and turn it into a redirect, if you can even find an appropriate place to add the information. Definitely not notable enough for its own article. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with JCO312, not every item in every video game is notable, and the description is too short to be worth merging. JIP | Talk 07:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The description is indecipherable. Basically void of content.zadignose 12:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Yyukichigai.--James, La gloria è a dio 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tellyaddict 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete notability doesn't travel downhill. /Blaxthos 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. This is a one-line stub. Learn about how redirect, prod and article talk pages work before coming to Afd. And please leave more than five minutes to article creators in the future.--JJay 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I (the nominator) knew about those things; I just felt that this article is pretty much non-notable, should be deleted, did not completely meet the speedy deletion criteria, might be too controversial to be prodded, and that nothing else could be added to the article besides what is already there. –Llama man 00:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that excuses the failure to enter into discussion with the article creator or to propose a redirect. As far as I'm concerned, nominating a new article for deletion five minutes after creation is a violation of WP:AGF, particularly when dealing with a good faith editor who may not be aware of existing articles or wikipedia guidelines. AfD should be the last resort, not the first, and this is a good example of an AfD that could have been avoided through discussion. --JJay 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Merge, otherwise delete Single line and hard to read. Also, not notable enough for its own article. Wiki Fox 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete! Look,I created this page for people to undestand what a Ztar was. It's a young stub. Please let it grow, I'm begging you! Later , maybe, it might even be a featured article nominee!j@5h+u15y@n 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it can be improved soon, otherwise Delete. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - per User:Llama man --Arctic Gnome 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is a possible search term, there's no reason to delete it. Redirecting pages should generally be dealt with outside of the AfD process. Lyrl Talk C 00:08, 22 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. Under the circumstances a merge seemed like the best result and the one that had the clearest consensus of this AfD. However, this does not mean that the material itself is that great--after all, it is based almost entirely on one source, with no confirmation from other sources of the significance of that source. It should probably be edited down. Chick Bowen 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility[edit]

Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is not about the recent report in the Sunday Times that Israel is planning a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, rather it is an analysis of Israel's capability to launch such a strike. As it stands, this article needs to be deleted because of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article treats the alleged plan as something that Israel admits (i.e. frequent statements like "Israeli claims that..."), when in fact Israel claims that the Times piece is not accurate. The very title of the article asserts that Israel in fact did propose such a strike, which is completely POV. I removed the most obvious OR from the article, an assessment of the potential radioactive fallout, but the second section is also OR. If we have an article on this topic, it needs to be about the Sunday Times article, NOT about the allegedly proposed strike. It would need to be called something like Reports of an Israeli plan for a nuclear first-strike on the Natanz facility. The question then becomes, Is the Sunday Times piece notable? Policy is foggy here, there doesn't seem to be a specific notability guideline for current events and the general notability criteria really don't work (ANY current event is by definition going to have multiple published works about it. Personally, I don't think that a newspaper report that generated a few days worth of controversy but seems to have been otherwise ignored is at all notable. GabrielF 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following this nom, the article has been completely rewritten to remove the original OR aspects from the article. For those interested, the original OR in the article is still accessible here. --64.230.123.177 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is simply too speculative to possibly be encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the same crap that was on the Wikinews main page a few days ago (except over there, it was in the form of "Israel plans nuclear attack on Iran" or something like that). One speculative report is not enough for an encyclopedia article. --- RockMFR 01:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletion discussions. GabrielF 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge in Natanz with the references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this article were accurate, I'd say delete per WP:OR --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs editor review 03:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is partially source and three is additional information I mentioned on the talk page, such as the reputable European bank ING Group's financial predictions if such an attack were to occur: [2]. I have included this on the Iran deletion sorting page. --70.48.242.16 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've rewrite more than 80% of the article since GabrielF nominated it for deletion removing the OR and adding more on-topic non-OR citations. --70.48.242.16 03:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. See WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly reconfigure and rename as Natanz nuclear facility (since it's rather odd that we have this article but not that one). Article has been substantially improved. -- Visviva 05:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom: OR, POV, etc... Eusebeus 07:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument that the source for this article is OR isn't going to stand up to any scrutiny -- it is your and GabrielF's interpretation of OR that is highly original. The article in its current state (following my rewrite) is not OR. --64.230.123.177 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we can't justify having an article for every news story that appears in the press, no matter how interesting. I'd say that when news sources cross the line from reporting the news to analysis and creating theories on possible future events, it changes from being a reliable source to original research and should be avoided like the plague. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 09:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument that the source for this article is OR isn't going to stand up to any scrutiny -- it is your and GabrielF's interpretation of OR that is highly original. The article in its current state (following my rewrite) is not OR. --64.230.123.177 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the content has been much improved. There are still some problems. The article needs to be renamed, for one thing and the opening sentence needs to be changed from "Media reports..." to "A (date) report in the Sunday Times..." or something similar. I'm not sure voting to delete purely on the basis of OR is appropriate at this point. However, the question of notability still stands. This is more of a problem with the wiki not having clear standards of which current events are notable than any problem with the article itself. By the way, I would like to respond to a comment you left on my talk page, which IP should I respond to? GabrielF 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the page does require renaming, but as an IP user I am unable to. You can response at your talk page, on this page or on the article talk page. --64.230.123.177 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to move the page if we can agree on a good title. The problem is that the title needs to reflect that this is a reported plan and it is difficult to do this without getting too wordy. One possibility is to name the article Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - the title of the Times article. Lets discuss it on the article's talk page. GabrielF 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your comment on my talk page. GabrielF 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Among other issues, the notability of such an article can only be evaluated historically, after a significant passage of time. If no strike takes place, history will forget this article and the allegedly proposed strike very quickly. If a strike does take place, that historic event will be notable and only retrospectively will the Times piece gain a sort of notability.zadignose 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to original synthesis.-- danntm T C 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per no-crystal-ball policy. Imagine this article 5 or 10 years from now: if the described scenario never happens, the article is useless. GregorB 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have proposed on the article talk page for the contents to be merged into the existing article on Natanz, per User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s suggestion above. The sources in the current version of the article are high quality, the only issue seems to be its long term viability/notability. I think this is a viable compromise. --64.230.123.177 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We are not a crystal ball, or a place to propose ideas. /Blaxthos 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or rename). the article doesnt looks like OR. They are taken from verifiable sources. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current version, though I would also support merging with Natanz as suggested above. I don't know what this article looked like when the AFD was first posted, but it seems like a reasonable, well-sourced article with relatively little POV (though I can see areas for improvement). The lead needs work, although it's fine as the start of a section within the Natanz article. The key to this are the sources, which are considered reputable. Obviously the article will need to be revisited when and if the report turns out to be disproven, or if such an attack occurs. 23skidoo 06:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename the article into something NPOV and factual. --Aminz 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge in Natanz the article relates to facts. ---Palestine48 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program. This article for deletion has been updated dramatically since first nominated, and does not violate Original Research or NPOV. It has caused global reaction and coverage, so this isn't pure speculation either. If, however, it is decided not to keep it as is, I would recommend merging it with an article I have written covering all reported plans to strike Iran, Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program. Joshdboz 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support this proposal. It would be a good fit here but a very poor fit in natanz which is primarily about the (historically interesting) town itself.
Have you looked at the article before voting?can you give me an example of original research? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 07:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Natanz. ITAQALLAH 07:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the Sunday Times article is real, and it has gained international attention. Editorial issues are not arguments to delete an entire article. Rename if necessary, edit were necessary, but keep the info.--Striver - talk 15:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As the originator of the article, the intention was to use these unfolding events as an illustrative case study of the more general concept of nuclear preemption. I note that nuclear preemption does not seem to have been dealt with yet on wikipedia which is a pity since it is an important aspect of nuclear deterance which is clearly becoming more relevant due to the inevitable march of technology. I have proposed that the original article be merged into Plans_for_strikes_against_the_Iranian_nuclear_program which should in term be linked to from nuclear preemption as an illustrative case study. This move would deal with the article name being POV which, I agree, is inappropriate. In its current form the article does not violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV or WP:NOT. I strongly disagree with your opinion that "Personally, I don't think that a newspaper report that generated a few days worth of controversy but seems to have been otherwise ignored is at all notable." in that a potential aggresive nuclear first strike is clearly a major event in human history .... potentially only the third to be precise. I also find it interesting that you hold this opinion and yet have contributed such articles as July_2006_Seattle_Jewish_Federation_shooting, which would seemingly also be inappropriate by your standards. LochVoil 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between this and July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting is that one actually happened while the other is a newspaper article. A nuclear strike is a major event in human history. A plan for a nuclear strike is not. A report of a plan of a nuclear strike id definitely not. Further, Wikipedia is not the place to "use... unfolding events as an illustrative case study" of anything. That's original research. GabrielF 02:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are claming that wikipedia should not contain articles on potential events that have not yet happened? I suggest you read more of wikipedia which will soon disabuse you of this notion. Wikipedia has many articles that relate to circumstances that have not yet come about. One pertinent example being Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, which all parties currently agree has not yet happened but which many experts assert is likely to happen. Speculation on Iranian nuclear weapons has been wide spread in "newspaper articles" which, despite your implication that this renders the subject matter unworthy for inclusion into wikipedia, has resulted in a substantial article on (as yet non existent) Iranian nuclear weapons (including numerous media quotes): Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction. Leaving aside the high relevance of the article in question here to the theory of nuclear preemption, risks of nuclear bunker busters and israeli-iranian-american political relations for the moment: Even when using the criterion of relative probability of a potential event as the basis for deciding whether to include it in wikipedia, the event in question here scores highly:
        • Israel has stated categorically that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
        • Experts assert that the Natanz facility is invulnerable to conventional attack, a view I share given my own particular professional expertise.
        • Experts assert that there is a high probability that Iran will attempt to develop nuclear weapons in the short term.
        • The history of diplomatic relations between Israel, the USA and Iran are, in my opinion, not encouraging to the prospects of a peaceful settlement.
      • Finally, I find your preemptive blanket claim that the use of examples within (as-yet-uncreated) wikipedia articles unequivocally constitutes original research spurious and nonsensical. LochVoil 16:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT says that "...expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This is not, I trust, the case. Choess 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice that this is not an article about a "future event", but instead about a specific military plan and the reaction to it. Joshdboz 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is an article about a newspaper report of a specific plan and the reaction to it. GabrielF 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I don't know if you're being serious or funny, but you are certainly correct. Joshdboz 18:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Selective qouting of a snippet of a policy document does not do much to bolster your case. I would suggest a re-read of the contents of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball.LochVoil 16:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is clear that the SUNDAY TIMES ARTICLE itself, the furor it has caused, and the implications of its allegations are certainly highly notable, but the article as written is only speculation based upon the Sunday Times' allegation. If the article is renamed to something along the lines of "2007 Sunday Times article on Plans for Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility", much of the current information on its military and technical implications and human cost could stay but it would be in addition to the context of the article itself, theories as whether the leak was sincere or saber-rattling, the international response, etc. If we are given more reason in the coming months to think that Israel is infact planning on a nuclear first strike on Iran, than I think the article could and should return to its present form. AlexeiSeptimus 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:BALLS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:LAUNDRY. Morton DevonshireYo 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Morton Devonshire. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete as per OR, and non-factual basis. Maybe's aren't good enough --Isolani 14:00, 22 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. ST47Talk 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Show Me How (2nd nomination)[edit]

Operation Show Me How (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article was restored after a deletion review that introduced new information not available at the first AfD. The actual value of the new information was contested though, so relisting was called for. Please consider the prior discussions and evidence before commenting in this AfD. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, after reviewing the sources presented in DRV. These simply verify that an operation existed, which I don't believe was ever in doubt. There is still no evidence of notability, other than that it has an interesting backstory (how the smuggling was done). Media coverage is still trivial, even with the CIO magazine mention, and there it was brought up as an example by an Interpol person, not the topic of the interview. --Dhartung | Talk 01:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Operation Show Me How appeared on DYK on December 15, 2006. If this article is deleted, it would be the only DYK article that has been red linked out of approximately 5,700 DYK articles. Also, in discussing Wikipedia:Notability, please focus the discussion on Wikipedia:Notability requirements rather than notoriety. Thanks. -- Jreferee 03:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I commented at the time, this was a terrible choice for a DYK article - it was unreferenced, and did not verify encyclopedic notability. Referencing has now improved slightly, but the claims to encyclopedic notability still have not been verified, and sources are used in a misleading way Bwithh 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A multinational Interpol bust of a 50 country drug smuggling ring may not be as notable as say Backyard wrestling or

Pokémon, but to be fair, you are not going to find a lot of media coverage online if it happened in 1998. (Al Gore hadn't invented the Internets yet.) --Infrangible 04:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Libraries usually have no end of old newspapers and magazines. If someone really wants to write an article, they'll use books, newspapers, and the like. "Too difficult" is not really an excuse for not doing research and finding sources. It's up to the people who want this included to do the research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I ran a full Factiva news and magazine database search in the first afd. The database has 10,000+ sources going back to the 1980s. Nothing came up. Bwithh 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Please note that Interpol operations are by definition "multinational" and having a worldwide reach. Interpol has 186 member countries - it routinely runs operations which will touch on all member countries at least at the level of information gathering and inquiry communication. There is nothing unusual about police agencies from 50 countries being asked to search their databases for Interpol. It's one of the main reasons for having Interpol in the first place. Bwithh 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issues raised by the original AfD remain germane; I agree with Dhartung. I don't think this should have been relisted. Eusebeus 07:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eusebeus, Dhartung, WP:V issues identified already. Appearing on DYK appears less that relevant; DYK features things because they are interesting, but where does WP:INTERESTING link? The sources cited at DRV did not rise above the trivial (indeed, some of them didn't reach the dizzy heights of triviality). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Infrangible. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Infrangible, plus theres obviously enough people want this for it to survive relisting...else it wouldnt be here again. Jcuk 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review doesn't work like that. Bwithh 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see what possible benefit there is in deleting an article that is this highly referenced. Adheres to all policies and guidelines thus keep. --JJay 20:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because its actually poorly referenced and does not prove its claims of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angusmclellan /Blaxthos 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay and Infrangible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the concerns I raised in the original afd and in the original. We should care about the quality of references and if they verify the claims of the article. Simply adding reference footnotes with links does not prove that an article is well-referenced.
  • Here are the issues with the unproven claims and implications of the article:
  • 1) The original research implication that the operation was named after a children's colouring book. The CIO magazine article mentions the title of a series used for drug smuggling but does not specify what kind of book. Making an unreliable original source claim that a children's book series is connected with drug smuggling is irresponsible - it may cause legal problems with the children's book series authors and publisher, especially as the book series implicated is still active[3].
    • So fix it. That may have been presumptous by the author of the article to perhaps assume that it was the children's book of the same name, but that can be easily edited. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're saying that there's a solid argument to be made that this book series was used for drug smuggling? Not an serious issue to suggest such a thing? I'll fix it by taking the statement out. Bwithh 22:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was there a book called "show Me How" that was used for drug smuggling? Appears so. What was presumptuous? Perhaps' assuming that it was the children's book of the same name and not something else. To take it out entirely would be improper, to take out the children's book part, possibly not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) This misleading suggestion: "Through Operation Show Me How, an important international gang of drug smugglers were disrupted as a result of twenty four hours of coordinated database effort".Actually, the CIO magazine article specifically uses the operation as an example of "the international multicountry operations that may last for eons". The operation lasted at least two years. Not 24 hours. What the article says is that within 24 hours of an inquiry being sent out internationally, they received responses from 50 countries - how long does it take for a professional department to respond to an email, fax or phone call which asks the department to look up something in their own computer database? This is not particularly noteworthy. Note that none of the official reports mentioning this operation mention the "24 hour" aspect at all. Magazine interview sources should also be taken with a grain of salt, especially if the interviewee appears to be talking off the top of his head (I doubt that arrests were literally made on "all continents" for instance plus he can't remember the month this eventful supposedly-smashing-drug-gangs-in-a-supposedly-landmark-24-hours operation started but we are to take his "50 countries" number quote as gospel?)
    • Okay...and? With the interview thing specifically, we're sourcing to him, right? So that's all that matters - what he said. The article can merely reflect "Interviewed party claimed 50 countries on all continents." --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main point is that the article's claim that the operation was special for achieving something in 24 hours is misleading. The database inquiry is not unusual. As for the second part of the statement, I was pointing out that the magazine interview is not a solid source. As I said above, we should care about the quality of our sources and what they actually say. In addition, as I also note higher up in this discussion, Interpol is an international police organization with 180+ member countries and one of its main routine purposes is to coordinate information sharing and inquiries between all its members. Making an inquiry to 50 countries is not special for Interpol, its their normal business. Bwithh 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with you regarding the interview, and I don't think anyone's claiming that the inquiry to 50 countries is anything special. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) The misleading suggestion that the operation was decisive in showing the possibility of drugs sent through mail was an issue for all countries. This claim is based on the 1999 Interpol report which mentions Show Me How and at least one other operation ("Hostel/Portrait") in connection with Express Mail smuggling as well as vague additional "Interpol Information". Unless we apply an original research expansive interpretation of the brief one-line mention of Show Me How, there is no statement which suggests that Show Me How was decisive in showing that this was a problem. It is also not clear even if it did, why this would be encyclopedically notable.
    • So is the problem with the word "decisive," or something else? The operation was apparently worth noting, so it was something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By your standard then, any operation or project mentioned in a paragraph or even a single line by a government or police or international agency report is worth an encyclopedia article. Bwithh
  • 4) No other indication of why this operation was especially important compared to other Interpol drug operations. In the 36 page 1998 Interpol annual report, this operation gets a ~30 word mention. (9 countries, not 50, are mentioned as significant operation areas) in the middle of a list of 10 drugs operations. There is no indication why this is a stand out operation. In the 40 page 1999 Interpol annual report, the operation is given a single line mention, which is shared with another operation. In the 196 page Transnational Crime report, the operation is given a 25 to 30 word mention in a list with 2 other operations. Furthermore, a Factiva news database search showed no news coverage hits for "Operation Show Me How"
    • WP:POKEMON in reverse. Perhaps we should make articles on the others, too? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said above, by this standard, any operation mentioned in a paragraph or even a single line by a government or police or international agency report is worth an encyclopedia article. Bwithh
  • 5) The Czech and the "World News Connection" articles (which are actually the same - the World News Connection is merely an international news collection database translation or summary of the Czech article) refer to a French NGO report which does not mention Operation Show Me How at all. See my comments at deletion review about this[4]. --Bwithh 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, again, fix it. If the reference is tagged incorrectly (and just because the source doesn't mention the operation doesn't mean it's not a valid source in the article for any number of statements), then fix it. These are issues that should be taken up at the article, not as reasons to delete - you have yet to indicate what the problems with inclusion are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have in detail. Regarding this specific source, even if accepted, does not show why this Operation is encyclopedically notable Bwithh'~
        • Well, we disagree on that much. The Wiki's basic standards appear to disagree with you, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced and written. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Operation may conceivably be N, but that almost all of the information is taken from a first-person CNN show republished as a magazine article does not give my any confidence that there is much truth here. Fails V. DGG 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The topic is notable, but the article is bad' is an argument for fixing the article, not deletion. -Toptomcat 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Infrangible. -Toptomcat 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most referenced articles per amount of text I've come across in a while. Notability is established on this encyclopedic topic.--Oakshade 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this event actually happened, then it is certainly notable enough to warrent its own article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable and there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 20:46, 22 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, and probably this should be run again soon. This admin's opinion is that WP:WEB is not really adequate on the subject of webcomics, and citing it (particularly with no other justifications!) is not a great argument. Furthermore, independent sources should be provided to determine notability. If they are not (and depending on any consensus that emerges about webcomics in the future), then more evidence of notability should be provided the next time this goes up for deletion, and that should be relatively soon. Chick Bowen 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Suburban Jungle[edit]

The Suburban Jungle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

A speedy deletion of this webcomic was overturned at deletion review and is now here for full discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The comic spectacularly passes WP:WEB: ithas nontrivial hosting (KeenSpot), it is published by Plan 9 Publishing and as well as the awards brought up in the deletion review. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleted within a minute of four other articles with no chance to discuss. The comic has a non-trivial print run via an independent publisher. --Kizor 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete, I see no sources. -Amarkov blahedits 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. God forbid Wikipedia should be of any help to those seeking information on this subject. Obscure topics such as this should remain difficult to research. Who are we to change the status quo? 66.108.168.149 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We aren't anyone to change the status quo. We need sources, or we can't have a verifiable article. -Amarkov blahedits 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. That's why unconfirmable trivia such as this must be deleted. That it's verifiable by any reasonable standard, given the material, is of no consequence; we here at Wikipedia abhor reason, at least, as far as I can tell. 66.108.168.149 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (BTW, two more articles that should be expunged according to this criterion are RuneScape gods and RuneScape locations—neither are reliably sourced. I'm too lazy to nominate them for deletion, though. Can someone else do it? 66.108.168.149 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment "Minutiae should be difficult to research" is not a valid deletion rationale. JuJube 04:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above anon posts are simply an attempt by a disgruntled user to disrupt a number of AfD notes in protest of the AfD process. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4 published books on it. Where is the debate? --Xiahou 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are not books on it, those are books containing it. -Amarkov blahedits 03:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WEB #3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Published books containing the website are what #3 is all about! --Nekura 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CyberSkull - meets WP:WEB. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plan 9 Publishing appears well know and publishes a number of webcomics notable enough for articles on Wikipedia. As WP:WEB stands only one of its 3 criteria need be met. This is "distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators... through... an online publisher" and therefore meets WP:WEB. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no decent third-party sources about this topic, let alone any suggesting the website has any noted achievements, impact or historical significance. Being distributed by two minor, little-known publishers does not meet WP:WEB, nor would meeting a notability guideline mean that this article meets our content policies. Without decent sources, all we're left with is original research and wikipedia editor's points of view. Note that several of the comments above misinterpret WP:WEB. Plan 9 Publishing is not a "well known and independent .... online publisher;" it is a little known book publisher whose own unreferenced article appears to fall short of WP:CORP. "Nontrivial hosting" is not part of WP:WEB, though "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" is, which this article does not meet. Claims of a "non-trivial print run" do not appear to be backed up here or in the article; do we have any sources for the print runs of these books? Any reviews of these books by reputable publications? Or have four supposedly "notable" books been published, yet no decent sources have bothered to note them? If a webcomic falls in the forest ... -- Dragonfiend 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does Plan 9's wiki article have to do with it's validity as a publisher? And "well known" relative to what? WP:WEB #3 has no qualification that the books have to be "significant" or "notable," nor does it have any requirement about "non-trivial print run" (What is non-trivial? 10,000, 100,000 copies?). Just because a book isn't a NYT best seller, doesn't mean it's not significant to a large number of people. --Nekura 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, Nekura. Plan 9's wiki article has to do with its validity as a publisher in the same way that all questionable claims on wikipedia must be backed up with third-party reliable sources and as yet we have none on this publisher (unless for some strange reason they are in some other article). You're right that "WP:WEB #3 has no qualification that the books have to be 'significant' or 'notable.'" In fact, WP:WEB #3 has absolutely nothing to with books, it has to do with online distributors, which I pointed out earlier. I have no idea what exactly a non-trivial print run is; you might want to ask User:Kizor which reliable source he's using for that claim since he's the one who is claiming these books exhibit such a thing. Myself, I'd expect four notable books from a notable publisher containing notable comics to attract some decent book reviews we could use as sources. Are there any? -- Dragonfiend 19:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • BBC article about webcomics, including a section on Plan 9 [5] --Nekura 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) -And for the record, it also talks about Keenspot. -Nekura[reply]
          • The "BBC article about webcomics" doesn't mention this webcomic. It's also not a BBC article -- note the "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC" at the bottom and the "Write an Entry" link on the left. --Dragonfiend 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am persuaded by the arguments of Dragonfiend. I think I was rather misled by the fact that Plan 9 Publishing has an article. Should it? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend. bogdan 09:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend. I was tempted to keep it at first (publication of a webcomic in book collections of ten is an indicator of notability), but when you notice that e.g. the collection "Tough Breaks" gets 8 distinct Google hits[6], including the homepage of the comic, the publisher and KeenSpot, then you get the impression that this (web)comic has failed to make any imporession and lacks all WP:V sources about it. Fram 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend. Addhoc 12:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Keenspot is well known enough in the webcomic world to count as a well known and independent medium, satisfying WP:WEB #3. JCO312 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, what WP:WEB #3 is looking for are things which are "well known" in a general sense, not "well known" within a subculture. That is, "well known" enough that we can expect there to be multiple trivial reliable sources. Comics hosted on sites like Keenspot, Modern Tales, Girlamatic, etc. do not meet this as the vast majority of them do not attract attention from multiple, non-trivial reliable third-party sources. . -- Dragonfiend 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what you're saying is, "mainstream," is that it? --Nekura 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mainstream reference to Keenspot: BBC article on webcomics, specifically mentioning Keenspot and Modern Tales. I would hope BBC counts as a reliable source. --Nekura 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not the man "BBC" websiite, that's simply h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia and the article is not written by a BBC journalist, but by some guy... bogdan 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WEB. Keenspot easily satisfies WP:WEB's requirements for a well known and independent medium. Lithorien 15:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:WEB #3. Plan 9 publishing is a independent publisher. It's no Amazon, but it is a major publisher among the webcomic industry, including publishing some large comics, such as Kevin and Kell. Additionally, the comic itself has been going almost constantly for the last eight years, has been nominated for some noteable awards, such as "The Ursa Major Awards" [7], and the creator is a regular panelist at many conventions from the popularity of the comic. This makes it a very notable webcomic. This comic is very popular among the fandom, and is significantly more then just a start-up webcomic. Just because it's not huge in the "mainstream," or hasn't been reviewed in the New York Times, does not mean it is insignificant, or not-notable, or can be deleted out of hand. Things need to be added to the article, yes, but it does not deserve to be deleted! --Nekura 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going Keep here. It's not because I like the online comic and keep it on my online rotation, it's not because it's on Keenspot, it's not for any of that. It's for one reason: four published compilations from Plan 9, who managed to carve themselves into the comics industry. --Dennisthe2 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because Dragonfiend doesn't consider Plan 9 to be a significant publisher doesn't mean that it isn't. Plan 9 is the publishing branch of Steve Jackson Games, a major force and influence in the gaming community. It has nationwide connections, and its product is available in retail outlets, not just on the internet. Therefore, the Suburban Jungle meets criteria. Thenodrin 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for everyone wanting to keep it because Plan 9 is a major niche publisher: why is it that there are so few online sources (and shops) for a new publisher in a medium where you would expect lots of Googlehits?[8]
    • It might have something to do with the fact that you're using a non english search engine for english sources. [9] --Nekura 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, thanks for trying, but the location of the Google version has nothing to do with the results[10]. Fram 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Allow me, then, to point out WP:ILIKEIT and particularly WP:GOOGLE. And dare I ask, why use google.ca when google.com suffices? --Dennisthe2 06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, 1: No one is arguing ILIKEIT, it is all about the validity of whether Keenspot, or Plan 9 is a credible source to satisfy #3 in WP:WEB. 2: Good point, as shown, different ways of presenting the results can have differing interpretations of the same search. 3: google.com autoredirects to the users home country, Canada for me, which is probably why the unsigned user above got google.be - but results posted to the english wiki should still be from an english google. --Nekura 07:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you want o have the results from an "English" google, you take whatever Google you want (be it.com, .ca, .be, ...) and restrict the search to English language only (you can only get less' results that way, not more). Every Google search, no matter what .XX it is, gives the same result (perhaps with the exception of China?), so the results I posted are perfectly acceptable for tyhe English wiki, and are identical to thos you would get by searching via .com.
        • Fine, different views of the same data. But, you're trying to argue Plan 9's validity on it's own, so you shouldn't be adding the "suburban jungle" part, [11] resulting in 11,400 raw hits and 118 dissimilar hits, many of which are reviews and commentary, including a BBC article[12]. --Nekura 07:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That BBC article is from their own whimsical version of Wikipedia, h2g2. It's not a reliable source.--Nydas(Talk) 11:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm trying to argue the value of Keenspot and Plan9 wrt this comic, and it seems that no one is reviewing it, no one is carrying (selling) it, no one is really bothered about this comic. While it may fulfill the notability guideline literally, it does not meet it in the spirit: there are no verifiable third party sources (i.e. not the author, the online publisher or the paper publisher) asserting any notability for this comic. If I get a weekly column in the New York Times and no one outside the NYTimes ever comments on it, then I (or the column) don't deserve an article, even though it is published by a very well known medium. We are a tertiary source, we need secondary sources, and I can't find the necessary independent secondary sources to establish the notability of this comic in either form. Fram 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At risk of invading the process here, it seems to me that you are arguing, essentially, the formal existence of Plan 9 as a publisher. It can be asserted that they do exist and that they are publishing Suburban Jungle books; I myself have all four books sitting beside me at this moment and use them regularly as an archival reference when discussing the strip. The problem is the establishment of "notability" for the comic, not the publisher. As an historian, I would like to reccomend that you look at this a different way. The SJ article was painstakingly written and reviewed by several fans of the work, using the books as published to represent a primary source on the comic strip. If you're going to declare notability as being published, then perhaps you need to accept that any work published in book form-- by any publisher-- is an acceptable primary source for itself and therefore establishes its own notability. If the standard of notability you are using to eliminate Plan 9 were to be used by historians, our history would be a mere shadow of what it is now. Instead, we value first primary source material from reliable sources. I reccomend that Wikipedia include a notability category, it could be called WP:PriSrc, that non-printed media may self-cite once it is published by any house, major or minor, so long as that published work is cited as a primary source material for the topic of the article. 67.185.101.54 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Guest comment from Tora Kiyoshi 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • While your comments are thought out, they do not match with Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary one: we report what other secondary sources (see WP:V and WP:RS for the correct and complete policies and guidelines) have said about a subject. Furthermore, it is consensus on Wikipedia that not all published sources are notable: self-published sources are no indication of notability (although in exceptional cases like Bone, they can nevertheless be notable), and publication by a minor publisher is not a strong indication of notability either. But as I have argued above, even a publication by a major publisher can be still non notable for Wikipedia, if we have little or no WP:V sources about the subject, which is the case here. It doesn't matter if Keenspot and Plan 9 are notable and important: those are points in favour of the comic, and should encourage us to look harder and think twice, but ultimately, when we don't find the necessary sources, we have to follow policy and delete it. Now, since no such sources have been shown by anyone in this AfD or in the article, it should be deleted. (about the sources and claims to fame in the DRV: the Ursa Major nomination was a mention in a list as one of 39 furry comics for that year, and the nomination for a Shortbread Award was an award by some website which again got very, very little attention (not only for this comic, but in general). There is nothing WP:V in either the article, the AfD or the DRV to suggest any notability as recognized by independent sources for this comic, and that is all that should concern us. Fram 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be anal, it's a disservice to say that the Shortbread Award comes from 'some website': Eric Burns, the man behind those, is a prominent expert in his field, and there's precedent for acknowledging him as such in Wikipedia. --Kizor 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Holy crap. The guy just made his marriage proposal in webcomic panels and got well over a dozen the biggest people in the entire scene aboard. About the only names missing are the makers of Penny Arcade and Ctrl-Alt-Del. He might quite literally be the only person capable of making that happen. See? Prominence. --Kizor 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Strange. The only guy I heard of on that list is Scott Kurtz. And that's ironic, given he makes a webcomic I don't like. JuJube 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Exactly. My point is that, speaking as a professional historian and with no intended disrespect, your policies may be flawed and need themselves to be reviewed. Just because you are a teriary source does not rule out the use of primary sources.67.185.101.54 04:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • While you're free to debate that the policies may need changed, that's irrelevant to the current debate. We can only decide this matter based on current policy, which does not allow primary sources. -- Kesh 04:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The whole shebang is rather a mess. I suppose I should be used to that already, being a human and all... --Kizor 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend. /Blaxthos 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:WEB stands. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, what? Stands... how? Please explain. -- Kesh 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He means that the standards are met, although I don't understand how. -Amark moo! 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily satisfies WP:WEB conditions #3 through Plan 9 publications (a legitimate and respected publisher) and Keenspot. TheRealFennShysa 17:07, 24 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, closing slightly early per WP:SNOW. No arguments for keeping. --Coredesat 07:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!Con[edit]

OMG!Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Tagged as having notability problems and unreferenced since December 30, 2006. Google search does not turn up any reliable sources that would allow this article to pass WP:CORP notability criteria. --Farix (Talk) 00:48, 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 keep as a bad-faith nomination, especially in the face of massive canvassing for votes by the nominator. --Coredesat 06:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turco-Persian[edit]

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

The term Turco-Persian does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm -- The name "Turco-Persian" is an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted. Surena 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - "Turco-Persian" is not an "imaginary" term, particularly given the google results it produces, and the Encycopledia Brittanica uses the term. (Unfortunately it's not linkable) I'm not trying to jump conclusions but this nomination smells distinctly of bad faith. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "factitious"? that sounds pretty truthy to me. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure what's going on here, but the article appears to be about a class of people, so why on earth would it have to meet WP:CORP? Also, nominator also nominated another article, Turko-Persian Tradition, with the exact same reasoning. On the other hand, the spelling of both articles contradict each other, and neither "Turco-Persian" nor "Turko-Persian" spelling return an extraordinarily large number of google hits. So, I don't know what to make of this whole thing. Wavy G 02:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google result reads as Turko-Persia which is different to Turko-Persian. However, the objection is the term is not academically being accepted. The correct name for that culture is the Persianate culture not the "Turko-Persian". Turkophones (mostly of mixed race and Persianized in culture) only spoke in Turkic dialects and were in the military. That is not enough participation in creating and forming the culture to deserve the name "Turko-Persian Tradition" – This is misinformation. All the elements in that area, which have to do with tradition and culture, were drawn from the Iranian culture (Persian, Kurdish, Azari, Baluchi, Tajik, Luri, Gilaki, Talishi, Mazandarani, etc.), and the Islamic faith, not much Turkic elements (like shamanism, yurts etc.) were incorporated in. That is what makes the name "Turko-Persian" an imaginary one. Surena 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I see your point (sort of), but you must be careful with your wording. Using words like "imaginary" and "factitious" imply that the article in question is being nominated as an intentional hoax, which I don't think it is, nor do I think you meant it that way. A few people already have stated that this was a bad faith nom (and I was questioning it, myself). Wavy G 02:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close - User Contribs indicative of a bad faith nomination, I would not expect a good faith nominator to campaign against an article like this. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:47, 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 keep due to bad-faith nomination. Despite the delete vote, the mass canvassing of user talk pages by the nominator ensures that consensus will never be reached. --Coredesat 07:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turko-Persian Tradition[edit]

Turko-Persian Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The term Turko-Persian Tradition does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm – This is misinformation. The name " Turko-Persian Tradition" is an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted. Surena 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term Turko-Persian Tradition (or Turco-Persian) does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm -- The correct name for that culture is the Persianate culture not the "Turko-Persian". Turkophones (mostly of mixed race and Persianized in culture) only spoke in Turkic dialects and were in the military. That is not enough participation in creating and forming the culture to deserve the name "Turko-Persian Tradition" – This is misinformation. All the elements in that area, which have to do with tradition and culture, were drawn from the Iranian culture (Persian, Kurdish, Azari, Baluchi, Tajik, Luri, Gilaki, Talishi, Mazandarani, etc.), and the Islamic faith, not much Turkic elements (like shamanism, yurts etc.) were incorporated in. That is what makes the name "Turko-Persian" an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted.Surena 07:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, from the reading I have done, and I can post several quotes, the invading Turkic armies adopted Iranian customs and culture. Infact, they even left administration purposes to the Iranians. I dont know where the term "Turko-Persian" Tradition comes from, because even the Ottomans adopted the Persian language for their own cultural language, which suggests that Turkic culture was not mixed with Iranian culture, but rather seperate, and that Iranian culture was preferred. Again, I do not know where the term "Turko-Persian Tradition" comes from and it seems very misleading. I have heard of the term "Turko-Persian Empires" before, but never of this term. Also, it should be said that not even the term Islamic culture is valid, because most, if not all, of Islamic culture is basically practices adopted from Iran after the Arabs conquered it. With this said, I'm not saying that Turkic peoples did not leave their traces, because of course they did, this is evident by the Turkic dialects spoke in the Middle East today, however, if we are speaking of culture and tradition, there was only one that was adopted by most peoples, and those were Iranian, from Abbasid Arabs, to the Turkic tribes, to the Mongols.Azerbaijani 03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close - User Contribs indicative of a bad faith nomination, I would not expect a good faith nominator to campaign against an article like this. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This term is a Wikipedian Hoax, and is a campaign by Pan-Turkists here to falsify and replace the internationally, and scholarly known term of Persianate with this nonsensical and fictitious term. Until now they were quite successful to create these two entries (Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition) and unfortunately many Wikipedians have innocently fallen to their trap and contributed without realizing that the term is a recent invention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surena (talk • contribs) 06:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion-turkopersianis a fictitious name and never did not use in past. --Ariobarzan 23:01, 27 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 redirected. --Coredesat 07:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel McDonald[edit]

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

This biographical stub has too little detail to properly stress the subject's importance and, consequently, has been tagged for non-notability and lack of sources. Eight months before its creation, however, another editor initiated a more extensive and well-sourced (three book references) bio of the same individual, with her name spelled correctly (Ethel MacDonald). There is no need to merge the two—All the details from the "McDonald" stub already exist in the "MacDonald" biography. Romanspinner|talk

  • Redirect - predictable misspelling. Suggest speedy. Newyorkbrad 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect misspelt article -- Selmo (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a misspelling. JIP | Talk 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Are you sure the "Mac" version is the correct one though? | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Whpq 19:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I am the originator of this article - you're right - its a misspelling, sorry Ms medusa 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect a simple redirect is fine no need to delete.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Redirected per WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius 03:05, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small business idea[edit]

Small business idea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article provides no clear information about anything and seems to be nothing more than the start of a tutorial. It has little or no encyclopaedic value and shows no notability Tx17777 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spam essay for shady pyramid scheme. --Infrangible 03:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is not hopeless, but as it stands it lacks sources and context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM - The first link is to a webforum about the concept and I'm not seeing anything else to distinguish it from a spam article. -- Kesh 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam -- Selmo (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. Nothing wrong with an article on small businesses, but I'm having a though time comning up with an example of an entry on an "idea" that would be viable. JCO312 14:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, likely speedy delete. Spam, insufferably vague, and approaches being a how-to article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Rudjek 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Ohconfucius 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above and as WP:SPAM. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the original author. I've been busting my hump trying to edit and contribute other business related articles. This is not easy as much of the business info here is pretty bad. That said, it takes time. What I'm working for here is the notion that a small business idea is not just spaghetti thrown against the wall, The idea itself is a process that requires thought and refinement (much like this article). Give me another week or two and I'll pull it all together. What I don't want to do is just cut and past from my original work, which is not the first link but the second one. If you must dump it now because you don't think a "small business idea" needs any explanation I'll disagree, but it's not the end of the world. Writing takes time and revision, I should say "decent writing". Please let me know one way or the other. I've made most of the changes off line and didn't want to add them until I was finished (to avoid this). Without listing my entire bio, I'm 41 and I have founded 4 businesses, 1 fairly successful, 1 very successful, and 2 that failed. Fifty fifty ain't bad in the business building world!Egurr 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, so this is your work entirely? Sorry, but Wikipedia has strict rules against original research. Plus, we already have an article about Small businesses. While I appreciate your effort, I'm afraid this article doesn't sound like it fits on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why, if you look above, I said I didn't want to cut and past from the original. And again, this has nothing to do with small business per se, but the process of creating a business idea.

I think I'll just go ahead and fold this up and move the content as apparently I'm not able to get the idea across. I wanted to create an encyclopedic entry that explained in an unbiased approach what people like Hewlett and packard, Jobs, Gates, and Ford did with a business idea. In the end for wikipedia to remain vibrant, editors must have the final say, I just hope the editors of a category are truly expert in that category.Egurr 04:55, 21 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psaiku[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable form of poetry. Google search for Psaiku only discovered 814 hits, and it seems to have been invented by Robert Meyers-Lussier and not used otherwise. Incidentally, the page was created by Bobmeyers, making it self-promotion. Delete. (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment the Google search with wikipedia excluded and restricted to pages in English comes up with 30 unique hits, most of them being related to the promotion of Mr Meyers' book. Pascal.Tesson 19:32, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XCLIENT[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable Runescape software. No assertion of notability is made, only that it has 15 000 hits is noted (across versions, not all that much). It may be a conflict of interest, seeing the "this article has been authorized by the software's creator" that was previously at the bottom [13]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:28, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Riot Squad[edit]

Los Angeles Riot Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

As per original research, this article make so many claims that are OR. Also the article fails WP:Cite and has so much WP:POV it reads like a fan site Gnevin 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this group does exist and its existence is verifiable, [15] so issues of POV or OR do not make convincing grounds for deletion. What should be the issues is whether they are notable to satisfy WP:N, and that case has not been made here, yet. Qwghlm 08:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable fan group. Robotforaday 14:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur that WP:Cite, WP:POV, and WP:NOR are not the critical issues here. The question is whether the group is notable. If it is, then those other issues should be addressed by corrective edits on the article. As it stands, there doesn't appear to be any assertion that this group is particularly noteworthy, so I think it violates WP:N. JCO312 14:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needs independent sources to verify that the fangroup is notable.-- danntm T C 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Rudjek 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably not notable enough for now (I don't look at no. of hits) Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Angelo 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fan group. BlankVerse 07:37, 22 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choose A Random Adventure[edit]

Choose A Random Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unreferenced stub on unremarkable game, likely original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable game guide. "Pioneered by the GameFAQs user Gooper Blooper" says it all. Wavy G 03:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wavy G. Gamecruft. JuJube 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable and non-verified forum game. JIP | Talk 07:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.--Rudjek 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOR. Also no references in that page. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 23:02, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Gymnastics[edit]

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

The article appears to be a vanity page or advertisement for the gym. The gym does not meet notability standards (they have produced two Olympians, neither of whom was prominent). Other editors have noted the promotional quality of the article. DanielEng 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity Article, created by the gym's owners. Their website even has a link to the Wikipedia article on their main page! Also extremely biased and lacking citations. The Olympians they have produced are possibly worth their own articles, but the gym they trained in is not. Pure advertisement, nothing more. Would need drastic improvement to become up to standard, but questionable notability means its probably not worth the effort. Tx17777 01:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising.--Rudjek 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Park70 02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's well referenced as an Olympic Class Gymnastics organization that his produced at lesaat to prominent athletes, Terin Humphrey & Courtney McCool who both won silver Olympic medals (I don't know why the nom included "neither of whom were prominant" as a primary reason to delete). As always with articles of notable subjects that look like advertisements, that means the content should be changed, not the article deleted. --Oakshade 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it meets the criterion for speedy deletion, here: Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic
Almost of the "references" provided for the article are from the local newspaper in the city in which the gym is located, and the information contained therein comes from the gym itself. They're promoting a local business. The two references from other places are a) an article about another business started by the coach; b) a business journal. There's absolutely nothing that would suggest that this gym is any more notable than any other gym producting elites in America, or that it has a history of sustained Olympic excellence (for instance, like Round Lake in Russia, the Karolyi gym or Deva in Romania) that would warrant an article. DanielEng 03:32, 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Roati[edit]

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

Non-notable TV worker. Australian community TV credits are the highpoints of this career: that, and claims of producing numerous commercials for Australian TV networks and technical work on a DVD. No real sources, of course. Fails basic WP:BIO. PROD tag added but removed without comment. Calton | Talk 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have a vested interest in this page. David Roati has produced documentaries which are sourced. These documentaries are widely available throughout Australia. Are you implying that a director is not noteable? These documentaries are sourced. Micca12145 04:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifying those sources, would be a start. We need to verify that the information in this article is correct, and I'm afraid we can't just take your word for it. He is mentioned in the only source as winning several minor "outstanding student" awards at his school, but no mention of television or DVD work. If you want the article to stay, reliable sources will be need. Delete unless very compelling sources appear. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified for a start, and even if it was verified, there's no assertion of notablity. --RaiderAspect 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • go delete it then....i dont give a fuck .....(personal attack removed)

Micca12145 06:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A glance at Micca12145's contribs sure makes it look like he's David Roati, and a vandal as well, here, here, and here, for starters. I've edited out most of them. Static Universe 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • what do you have against david roati anyway?

Micca12145 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article does not contain sources. Further, a search of Google News Archives [16] and Google News comes up with nothing [17]. This may even be a speedy delete if Micca12345 created the article. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Yuser31415 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete because you are all just being difficult. Why cant you just leave the page up? Check the external links!...the information is sourced!

Micca12145 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • also...(personal attack removed)

Micca12145 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My dear sir! I must confess that your rapier wit and iron-clad logic are completely unanswerable! Well played, sir, well played! --Calton | Talk 04:08, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ponjoe[edit]

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

Probable hoax. I can find no verification of the term, and, although I'm trying to assume good faith, the fact that the author's name is the same as the article makes me suspicious. Joyous! | Talk 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Consider forwarding to WP:BJ. YechielMan 04:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense -- Selmo (talk) 05:38, 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 Speedy delete a7 and g4. No need for 2nd AFD. NawlinWiki 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Sackett[edit]

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

Creating deletion discussion page for Evan Sackett because this page was already deleted yesterday, and is already back up. COI, sock puppetry suspected. Speedy Delete? Rockstar915 02:20, 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC) you suck![reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funkyjenn[edit]

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

Autobiographical, no sources, imdb comes up blank. There is no mention of her band anywhere. --Infrangible 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carpet9 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete junk. JuJube 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO. hateless 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google search of Funkyjenn turns out results from the Funkyjenn Gazette. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Rudjek 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This article is about a random person in.....I guess Los Angeles. It has no facts that can be backed up. Chickyfuzz123(user talk) 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at the moment this is a wannabe actress, musician, popstar, presenter, writer............. If they ever make it they can recreate the article. Nuttah68 15:05, 21 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Durno Murray[edit]

Mitchell Durno Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Does not appear very notable. Fails WP:BIO. Fewer than a dozen google hits which do not derive from WP. Only claim at notability is that he won a medal for amateur ornithology. Not enough. Wehwalt 02:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, he may pass WP:PROF, and his presidency of those organizations suggest a certain degree of notability amongst those who care about such things. Bucketsofg 03:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Being President of the Australian Bird Study Association, itself a rather marginal group, for one year or less is hardly grounds for establishing notability. Eusebeus 08:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an interested party in this (I created the page), I will try to add something to this stub to demonstrate sufficient notability. However, in the interim, please note that the amateur ornithology angle I am coming from is only one facet of this person. As far as judging notability by Google hits is concerned, one could try Googling 'Durno Murray' rather than 'Mitchell Durno Murray'. 'Mitchell' is seldom, if ever, used. Maias 11:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You might want to consider doing the same for the other winners of that medal, many of whom seem to have similar problems.--Wehwalt 12:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. It does put the spotlight on the notability (or not) of the Hobbs Medal. My feeling is that being awarded the Medal in itself makes the recipient notable. This is because a) it is a national award (rather than a regional or local one), b) it is made no more than once a year at most (i.e. they are not handed out like jellybeans), c) it is made by Australia's peak ornithologal body (the equivalent of the AOU plus the National Audubon Society in the USA, or the RSPB plus the BOU in the UK), and d) it is not made for 'amateur ornithology' but for 'ornithology as an amateur' (i.e. contributions to the science of ornithology, not recreational birding, by someone who is not being paid to do it, even though they may, as in the case of Durno Murray, be a professional in the biological sciences anyway). The equivalent, or sister award, for professionals in Australia is the Serventy Medal. Maias 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep strongly tending to delete. There must be a little more of note and some more sources to pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF and assuming that they could be included I am not suggesting deletion. Alf photoman 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The major source for this article is a book on ornithology which may establish his notability in the field. Capitalistroadster 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added some material and references relating to albatross research to the article. Maias 05:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"*Weak Delete - seems a very marginal case. He's been published but referred to in only one journal article I can find but has no Australian news article and no books about him. Looks well published but I can't find any way that we can have verifyability from reliable sources. All of the bio information appears to be single sourced from the Bright Sparcs website.I'm happy to change my mind if someone can find that anyone else has written about him... - Peripitus (Talk) 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to keep - per some comments below but also a few days of searching shows that he is at the top of his game. Seems far more mentioned that most other people in Australian Ornithology - Peripitus (Talk) 23:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep do not be misled by the seemingly non professional name of the organization, it is the major National Ornithological Society, just as Emu is the major national journal. This is a notable person, who has done notable work. Unfortunately, most of his work predates the web. that he's an amateur makes it more notable, not less., and , re. the original nomination, the standard is not "very notable", but "notable." DGG 06:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently Emu is the national journal so winning their medal means he passes WP:Prof # 6. But that needs to be sourced not just claimed.Garrie 00:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs improvement especially sources, theres appears to be a confusion over the definition of "amateur" in that this AfD infers its as the negative performance where as the award uses the "unpaid" efforts definition. Definately a notiable person as per WP:PROF Gnangarra 08:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gnangarra. JROBBO 01:40, 21 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 Redirected to Woodway, Texas. Merge already completed by User:Uppland. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carleen Bright Arboretum[edit]

Carleen Bright Arboretum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

reason non noteabel gradern article does not say why it is impotent enough to be on here no reason to be on here wikipedia is not the yellow pages and wikipedia is not a place to list botanical gradens in the world Oo7565 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomOo7565 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But … but … but … "If you are lucky, you will get to see cardinals"! Cardinals! Ok, delete it anyway. Bucketsofg 03:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come for the "cute little chapel" stay for the possibility that a bird will show up. Feh. Caknuck 09:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete this article, which is part of a series on arboretums & botanical gardens in the United States. I think many people would disagree with the statement that "wikipedia is not a place to list botanical gradens in the world". If you feel this article's description is not up to Wikipedia's standards, please mark it as a stub in need of improvement, but please do not delete a factual article because you don't like some sentences in its current wording. Cheers, Daderot 10:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not so much that I dislike the wording, it's just that it's a stub about a non-notable botanical gardens that probably won't progress much past the 4 or 5 sentences there now. The fact that two of the aforementioned sentences talk about the chapel and the possible appearance of a common songbird underscore the lack of notability. Caknuck 19:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the current article sounds a little (very little) like an advertisement. Is there any local signifigance to the garden as per WP:LOCAL? -- Whpq 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears to be a local tourist attraction as well, since there is a page for it at the local convention and visitors bureau. Searching for it at the local newspapers http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Carleen+Bright+Arboretum%22+site%3Awacotrib.com and http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Carleen+Bright+Arboretum%22+site%3Awacocitizen.com results in several mentions as a meeting location, but no article on the Arboretum itself. There were probably several articles on it as it was being planned and built, but I can't locate those articles. --Eastmain 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I quote from the article "gardens (6 acres), an amphitheater with covered gazebo, a cute little chapel, and a rental facility. " DGG 07:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Woodway, Texas, where 8,733 people had the opportunity to enjoy this arboretum in the year 2000 (I don't know whether they did or not, but the 2,8% of the population living below the poverty line probably appreciated that it is open without any fee). There was actually plenty of room in the Woodway, Texas article, which was all just statistics, and I have have already merged the arboretum there per WP:BB. (If more is found in the future, it can be broken out again.) Throwing out articles like this one is really a waste, when a merge is so easily done. up◦land 11:38, 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 Deleted by Scimitar (deletion log). BryanG(talk) 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves of the world[edit]

Wolves of the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article about wolves. Redundant since the information in the article is already in (and better written) at Wolf. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Bucketsofg 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete speedily if possible, per above. Pete.Hurd 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, already well referenced in main article. Probably a good faith creation by the author, but misplaced. -- Kesh 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, appears to be part of a weird pattern of vandalism that consists of pasting in unreferenced text dumps to create poor duplicates of already existing articles. See also Chinese winter solstice festival (same author), Teacher guide (prodded), Shark bonanza (deleted). Tubezone 05:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant with wolf. JIP | Talk 07:54, 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 Redirected to List of country name etymologies. All content already present at target location. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of meanings of countries' names[edit]

List of meanings of countries' names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Duplicates List of country name etymologies, which is a much more complete list. --Astrokey44 03:11, 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

Considerations:
  • Per the MONGO/ED arbitration, we probably cannot link to the site any longer as it now hosts attacks on Wikipedia editors. This does not affect the outcome.
  • Nmaster64 is blocked for gross incivility and attacks, both on and off Wikipedia, continuing long after the time when he had been told it was unacceptable to behave in this way. This does not affect the outcome.
  • Offsite solicitation took place, and several brand new users came along to venture an opinion. This does not, in and of itself, affect the outcome, but most of this input was (unsurprisingly) not founded on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Welcome, please do spend some time reading the five pillars of Wikipedia and turn your thinking round from "This is great, it must get an article", to "These are the standards, what subjects meet those standards". That works in a way that vote-staking a process-which-is-not-a-vote does not.
Arguments for deletion:
  • Several editors argued that the comic fails the primary notability criterion, being multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This is discussed in a subject-specific context at WP:WEB. This was not credibly rebutted.
  • It was argued that the comic achieves a low rating on the "Google test" ([18]), under 80 unique hits. This is supporting information only, in that this list of hits does not appear to contain reliable sources and the small number of unique references indicates that such sources will probably be hard to find. Low unique Google hits is not a good sign for a web-based medium, but this is not in and of itself an argument for deletion.
  • Low Alexa rank (~ 250,000). Alexa ranks are open to manipulation, although a very low rank may, like a poor Google result, be an indicator that sources will be hard to come by.
  • Lack of verifiability from independent non-trivial sources: Noted by several editors, a compelling point not rebutted by any Keep advocates. Although there is legitimate debate about what precisely would constitute a reliable sources for a webcomic, there were really no sources to weigh up, either in the article or in the debate.
  • Original research: Noted by some editors. The entire contents is indeed sourced solely from the comic and its associated forums. This speaks to the content more than the subject.
Arguments for retention
  • Google searches are not in themselves reliable. Valid argument, but does not replace the Google test with anything that does indicate notability or importance.
  • Growing in popularity, receives thousands of hits. Interesting but not relevant, even if reliable independent sources existed. Thousands is a small number anyway, and "growing" is subjective and meaningless without a base figure.
  • Featured on (e.g.) Destructoid, Joystiq, Dueling Analogs. These are potential sources of neutral critical commentary, but no such commentary was in evidence. Simply being there is probably not enough; definition of featured is also open to interpretation.
  • List of "less notable" comics: Irrelevant, ignored.
  • Eloquent testimony of impassioned fans: Irrelevant, sorry, also ignored.
  • No reasoning given: Ignored, obviously.
  • Accusations of malice: Ignored.
  • Joystiq Weekly webcomic award. Not actually an award, a weekly online poll. Slightly under 2,000 votes cast, and having seen the way the fanbase can be mobilised this may be due to astroturfing. The award itself does not appear to be particularly important, even if the site is, so this does not override lack of sources.
  • "WP:WEB does not allow webcomics" - an interesting argument, one which probably needs to be addressed somehow, but doesn't help us with sourcing.
  • "Per Nmaster64" might have been persuasive if Nmaster64's reasoning was stronger. Sadly it wasn't.

Summary: On the weight of argument from policy and guidelines (which represent community consensus in a way a poll of a few editors does not), I must call this as Delete. It is not unlikely that at some time in the future we may have sufficient independent reliable sources for an article on this subject to be written. It is unlikely to be in the near future, though. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F@NB0Y$[edit]

F@NB0Y$ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable webcomic - more than one comic called Fanboys - Google search on "F@NB0Y$ Dewitt" narrows field to 10 unique out of 57 total. Search on "Fanboys Krudman" returns only 16 unique on 6,580. Delete MikeWazowski 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Google searches to determine notability, in this case specifically, are not viable. The use of non-alphanumeric characters and the general reference to the comic as "fanboys", a term not easily searchable given it's common usage, especially within circles where it's popular, makes it completely unfair to judge in this manner. There is simply no good manner to search for this and return an accurate count which is usable to judge anything.

The comic has recently been featured on extremely popular gaming sites such as Destructoid, Joystiq, Dueling Analogs, and more. The comic is continuously growing in popularity, and receives thousands of hits a day. Certainly it has achieved a popularity higher than many of the comics on the wiki's list of webcomics.

The article itself is well-made and appears to meet all Wikipedia standards. Given it's growing popularity, it's winnings and features in Joystiq's weekly webcomic poll (Joystiq sits w/ an Alexa rating around 2000), and it's mention on numerous other gaming and comic sites around the net, I think F@NB0Y$ has certainly earned itself a small wikipedia article. I'd also like a viable explanation as to who the hell it's hurting by existing. This seems counter-intuitive to the concept of the Wikipedia, when good information is censored based on a few people who don't feel the work "popular enough". --Nmaster64 11:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---Wiki-approved Webcomics with lower traffic rankings than F@NB0Y$---

Note: the list above marks every webcomic existing on the Wikipedia's List of webcomics that has a lower Alexa traffic rankings for it's domain than Fanboys-Online.com. This does not include any comics who's sites do not have data available, nor comics who's rankings are increased due to co-existing on a domain with other content or comics. Thus, it is likely the list is in reality longer.

Based on the above information, the basis that the webcomic F@NB0Y$ is non-notable is at best ridiculous, at worst an example of horrible bias. It's clear F@NB0Y$ is even at current a relatively popular webcomic, and with it's continued growth, especially as it begins to see more and more exposure, merits the existence of a Wiki article. --Nmaster64 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above list looks like a ready-made batch AfD nomination. We don't have to keep non-notable things just because there are even less notable things which haven't been deleted yet. But that does not mean that the less notable things automatically get a pass when it comes to WP:N WP:V and WP:RS, such as the hundreds of Pokemon characters with their own articles and zero independent cites for notability. Edison 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic ranking has nothing to do with notability. We don't keep articles just because they have a traffic rank or another. Please see: WP:WEB and WP:RS. The criteria require that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". bogdan 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Wikipedia guidelines cannot understand the concept of userbase, then they have failed. The point I'm trying to push forward is that F@NB0Y$ enjoys a much larger number of readers and traffic than a LARGE number of the "notable" webcomics, and therefore it is a given there are going to be more people interested in the Wiki entry than for some relatively unread webcomic who happens to have the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" criteria met. Also, it is my opinion the comic HAS in addition met with WP:WEB, as Autodmc explained so well. I understand the need for notability guidelines, but if they've sunk to this point, then the Wikipedia is being limited and censored on a level that completely goes against the original principles of the project. --Nmaster64 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, we get the point. Waaaay too many links... -Ryanbomber 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per Nmaster64, both times, and bogdan. F@NBOY$ is WP:WEB, it has won awards that can be independently verified.
A webpoll? That's your award? Hah. I don't think it passes WP:WEB. bogdan 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my last Google search of "fanboys," fanboys-online.com ranked 4th from the top.
The article is in the style of Penny Arcade (webcomic), Ctrl+Alt+Del, 8-bit Theatre, and Press Start To Play. PSTP links to F@NBOY$ from their website.
This article is not an advertisement, it's written from a Neutral Point of View, all claims are verifiable, it doesn't contain original research, and it doesn't have any copyright issues. It's simply an informational webcomic stub article containing information about a webcomic that is gaining in popularity and notice. I see no reason to limit Wikipedia's informational vault in this case. Autodmc 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense alone should garner the growing popularity given it's increase feature in the Joystiq polls, and it's recent features on numerous other webcomic sites and Destructoid. Alexa also shows a solid growth in traffic over time, especially recently. This is all coupled with direct speak from the author of the comic. I will see if I can't get any more specific information out of him regarding this. --Nmaster64 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It got a whole 911 votes at Joystiq. An informal, low turnout net poll is scrapping the barrel for notability. The creator isn't a reliable source for the popularity of the strip due to the conflict of interest.--Nydas(Talk) 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vote turnout is not as relevant as the site traffic. Joystiq marks probably the biggest gaming blog on the internet. That is hardly scrapping the barrel. Besides, I don't see why it's necessary a webcomic need some award or plaque to say their notable.
Website stats are conflict of interest? Wow, now I know the Wikipedia has failed. Opinion has overruled fact in an attempt to remain "neutral". That's both the funniest and most pitiful thing I've heard all week. --Nmaster64 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless of all that, I'm going to post some anyway. I checked the tracker myself, independent of the creator, and found the comic averages almost 3,000 uniques a day, and over 17,000 a week. The comic nabbed over 74,000 in December, and almost 70,000 in the first half of January. This shows it's growing, and from what I've heard (even though I know it's "conflict of interest" due to source), this has been consistent with previous months. Also, I've found links to F@NB0Y$ featured everywhere from RPG-TV and Hockey Zombie to the Bungie blog. It's also somewhat notable also in my own opinion that this is all with practically no advertising or marketing, almost all word of mouth. I believe it was just yesterday Scott commented he was getting into advertising, so that should further grow the comic. --Nmaster64 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you contributed on a more even basis to Wikipedia, rather than just pushing one article, you would understand why we have to have strict rules on notability. You're obviously angry that this is threatened by deletion, but you can place your article on Comixpedia, the wiki for webcomics, so it won't be wasted.--Nydas(Talk) 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can take your Wiki-Elitist attitude elsewhere, I fully comprehend the need for notability rules regardless of my contributions. I'm simply stating that if they contend with a webcomic with this level of traffic that has a well-made stub, then they have gotten TOO strict, and quite so. There is no harm in this article's existence, period. And the Comixpedia Wiki is simply a failure, although a F@NB0Y$ article is up there. Ironic to note, F@NB0Y$ has about twice the traffic ranking of that entire wiki. --Nmaster64 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As is stated below, this is not the place to overturn guidelines and policies. If you want to do that, try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics and Wikipedia talk:Notability (web).--Nydas(Talk) 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For refrence, everyone read WP:GOOGLE. As for my personal opinion, a Google test alone is not enough to delete an article. My distaste for the growing number of webcomics aside, this should be Kept. -Ryanbomber 16:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to "the Google Test", I think it's important to point out, as Autodmc noted, the comic does return 4th when searching simply for "fanboys". That's an extremely common word, and is actually technically not the correct name of the comic, so for it to be featured so highly on that search, as far as I'm concerned the test is passed. --Nmaster64 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Which is one of the reasons I pointed it out. Like so. -Ryanbomber 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Plus, I think we're starting to see some meatpuppeting in progress. TheRealFennShysa 16:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem. -Ryanbomber 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But true, nevertheless. TheRealFennShysa 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Albert Einstein went up for AFD and a bunch of meatpuppets voted "Keep," would that be a valid reason to delete? -Ryanbomber 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I think you have to admit there are a lot of new or inactive users who vote keep. ;-) bogdan 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I flagged a SPA myself. That doesn't undermine the fact that there's no real argument against the article except "as per" votes and two search engine tests. -Ryanbomber 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My delete vote was based on the original nomination - I noticed the suspicious pattern and looked into it *after* I made my choice. TheRealFennShysa 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just sayin'. -Ryanbomber 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to request the "Delete per nom" people evaluate themselves, as the nomination argument has been pretty much invalidated. The ONLY arguable part remaining is the first 2 words... --Nmaster64 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invalidated to your specifications, no doubt, but I remain unconvinced. It's obvious you're a fan - you're quite vocal about this on that forum. However, you're letting that blind you to the stark realities - outside your circle of fans, there doesn't seem to be much to back up the notability of the comic. Also, by trying to bring all those other webcomics into the argument, you're going for what's been called "The Pokemon Test" - they aren't under discussion here, though. If you feel they're not worthy, take it to those pages and initiate AfDs there, if you have valid reasons to do so and solid evidence as to why they're not notable. But the simple fact that they exist isn't reason enough to keep this one.
Yes, I'm an avid fan of F@NB0Y$. Regardless, I've always been an avid fan of the Wikipedia and it's founding principles, however this insanity completely shatters that in my own opinion. The need for some notability standards is obvious, but when you approach this level, there's no viable argument as to what it's hurting by having this article exist. If I hadn't spent a good 6 to 8 hours of my life writing it, it might not bother me so much...
I'm using a variation of the Pokemon Test, I admit. Well, I'm a supporter of the Pokemon test. If X is more notable than Y, but X is "not notable enough", than Y should not exist. Thus, go get Y deleted then come back and you have an argument to delete X. That's my thoughts on the Pokemon test. --Nmaster64 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since I was a bit bored at the moment, I did a little searching on my own. According to this page, Fanboys is currently ranked 2475 out of 8163 webcomics. Let's look at some of the first few on your list - Achewood is #202, Alecto: Songbook is #3545, Alice! is #2133, Angels2200 is #89, AntiHero for Hire is #61... I'm not going to go through the entire list, though. However, a quick glance at those comics Wikipedia pages shows that Achewood has apparently seen some actual print publication, Alecto: Songbook has been physically published, as has Alice! - all solid bases for notability. Also, check the discussion page for WP:WEB - Alexa rankings (none of which your provided, just the claim that Fanboys is higher) is no longer considered a valid source due to some reporting problems it has with some platforms. TheRealFennShysa 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that entry is for a different comic. Check the web address, it's missing a dash...If you don't believe my Alexa rankings, check 'em yourself, I gave the URLs. Many of them sit in the millions, nowhere remotely close to F@NB0Y$. Any way you look at it, F@NB0Y$ seems to certainly have enough readers it should merit a frikkin' Wikipedia article. When it comes to something like a webcomic, magazine, newspaper, websites in general, anything that's got a "subscription" type release schedule like that, should be judged more on it's reach and reader base than links from other sites. I'm a game journalist, and used to run my own news site. I could probably link to a hundred sites that sourced me for stuff, hell even the Wikipedia entry for Wii once linked back to me. Does that give my site notability to where I could create an article for my site? I never thought so, because despite my success in marketing, I had a very low consistent reader base. By the standards your pushing forth however, my site deserved a Wiki article more than a site with a thousand times my traffic but without the links from Slashdot and everyone else. That just doesn't make sense, that's not how things should be judged. Then your playing into marketing, which is supposed to be what the Wiki tries to avoid... --Nmaster64 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious, what would be considered the "High Water Mark" for a webcomic to be allowed a page on Wikipedia? A certain number of readers? [Self-]Publishing a book? Does that book have to be in major book stores? Does the comic have to have a set number of characters, a set number of hits-per-day (as reported by the ISP), a set number of fans who notice the article and the mark for deletion? A set level of quality? Inclusion in an archive/collective/syndicate? Mention on CNN or in the New York Times? I think that's what the real issue behind this discussion is: *What is the criteria for inclusion of a webcomic in Wikipedia?* (This is a sincere question, not meant as, for example, a defense or prop or sarcastic reply to the above mentioned "Pokemon Test") Autodmc 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the relevant guidelines in my post above. But for clarity's sake, take a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines for web-based content. TheRealFennShysa 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does need to be addressed, seriously. That link? Yeah, that's the problem... --Nmaster64 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to dispute policies or guidelines. Seriously. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Nmaster64. --Arctic Gnome 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Have we really come to having to discusss webcomics over and over? Just because wikigeeks like something does not give it inherent notability. Delete em all if there isn't a clear case for overcoming WP:WEB. /Blaxthos 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because wikigeeks DON'T like something does not give it NO notability. --Nmaster64 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (i.e., not a fanboy or fangirl covering F@NBOY$). GassyGuy 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep although I don't know that it is the best article, the subject appears to meet the criteria of WP:WEB -- Just barely. I would like to see more outside references and significantly less self-promotional links. Pastordavid 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly remove a couple of the links and replace them with outside references if that would make some people happy... --Nmaster64 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and GassyGuy. Bigtop 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nmaster64, yo really need to read Wikipedia's policies. sockpuppets used to cast more than one AfD vote is not allowed. You also can't solicit votes from forums, as it's meatpuppetry. Will be requesting checkuser once this closes -- Selmo (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's this bullshit? I've never sockpuppeted before, and I take full offense at that accusation. Now your just flaming in bad taste to discredit me. I'm completely aware of Wikipedia's policies, heaven-forbid I claim a few of them are full of crap. I don't know why I tolerate that warning at the top either, unless linking and critiquing are the same as solicitation. --Nmaster64 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Please be civil and don't swear at me. Thank you. -- Selmo (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be civil and don't accuse me of your bull. It's much more offensive to make unfounded accusations than it is to swear. Thanks. --Nmaster64 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say you know Wikipedia policy and then canvas on off-wiki forums for keep votes. I wasn't uncivil. My accusations are based on solid evidence. "Your bullshit" is far from civil. -- Selmo (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it's illegal now for there to be discussion outside the Wikipedia of stuff happening within it? You can't not expect users on a forum of a given wiki article to talk when that article goes up for deletion. It's a given, and hardly marks me as soliciting because I've engaged in such conversation. And what of your sockpuppet claim, huh? What nonsense is that? Stop being a Wiki Elitist, your not better than others because you waste your life trying to censor harmless information. --Nmaster64 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's wrong to tell someone of known bias that a Wikipedia article is up for deletion, because it obvoiusly leads to votestacking/meatpuppetry. Also don't make personal attacks (ie. Stop being a Wiki Elitist, your not better than others because you waste your life trying to censor harmless information.) -- Selmo (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't grasp this...there is this big ol' banner at the top of the article's page that says "This is up for deletion!". I didn't have to point out the deletion debate, other people just kinda noticed ('cause, ya know, they can read it without my help?). The fact a discussion arose on said topic is not solicitation, it's just that, discussion. The topic at hand was the wiki article, so whenever people go and see that huge banner at the top, you can't claim that as solicitation/meatpuppeting/canvasing/etc. You can't hang a sign above your head saying "COME HERE!" and then blame someone else when other people come over. In addition, nobody even knows if anybody from this apparent "solicitation" has shown up. --Nmaster64 02:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entry on your blog is blatant solicitation of votes - you posted So please, save my hours of work. Just please, login to Wikipedia, go to the Article for Deletion entry, and add a keep. Do me a favor and add to the discussion if you can, so they don’t just further accuse me of soliciting votes. Pretty clear to me. MikeWazowski 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, reading it again, it came across worse than I meant it, and I apologize for that. The meaning was to request people to actually add valid discussion. Unlike the Fanboys forums, there's nothing that says readers of my blog are fans of the comic, so they can just as much vote Delete as Keep. In fact, I've received a number of comments in the past about people NOT liking the comic. Honestly though, I could really give a crap less at this point what you wanna call it, except I will not be accused of sockpuppetry. --Nmaster64 04:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TraceTheory 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC) — TraceTheory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Non-notable web comic, breaking Wiki rules and discussion has resulted in swearing and name-calling. Rockstar915 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication why this would pass WP:WEB. Seraphimblade 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable web-comic that doesn't pass WP:WEB; no reliable, non-trivial third party sources to back up WP:N and WP:WEB. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based almost entirely on primary sources and original research which wouldn't pass WP:V no matter who much you shake a stick at it. The article is also an external link fest to the webcomic. I can't assess notability of the award, but the fact that it is a popularity contest leads me to believe that the award isn't inharently notable. --Farix (Talk)
  • Delete Doesnt pass WP:WEB. Being associated with a noteable site does not make itself noteable. Obviousl double standard against the other articles - but they should be deleted as well! --155.144.251.120 04:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, Nmaster64's list of lower-ranking webcomics should most definitely be put up for a mass-deletion nomination afterwards. Carson 06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate the idea of simply setting up redirects to each comic's respective Comixpedia article, assuming a viable one exists or the Wiki entry is good enough to move over. It seems like an awesome solution for a large number of webcomics that don't supposedly quite meet Wiki standards. The Wiki can just toss users over there and wash their hands of the matter. Seems like that would make most everyone happy... --Nmaster64 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose they could be moved over, but we can't have a bunch of redirects to external wikis. Pages on Wikipedia that warrant their own content can link off to their specialized wiki site (like Star Trek and Memory Alpha). Otherwise, we can't have a page that simply redirects to another site. The software won't allow external redirections anyway. Carson 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's as I assumed then. What about an extremely small stub that essentially says, "this is a webcomic. You can find out more about from the comixpedia," or something simple like that? I can even go a step further to try to make some people happy. What if instead of each getting it's own page redirecting to the comixpedia, there was a single page internally where they all redirected to that either maintains a list of links for these comics and their comixpedia articles, or simply even just links to the Comixpedia's list of comics. Anything, just as long as someone who comes to the Wikipedia searching for information on a given webcomic are able to easily and quickly find the information they were looking for (assuming of course it exists). That is my goal, and seems like it should be the goal of the Wikipedia... --Nmaster64 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have something similar already set up on list of webcomics, as well as a link to Comixpedia at the end. It isn't necessary to specifically link off every webcomic listing to its respective Comixpedia article (otherwise it may bring up issues of Wikipedia endorsing Comixpedia, stuff like that), but a blurb could be added to the intro of the list saying that most/all of the listed webcomics have a page on Comixpedia (if a bunch of them ended up being deleted off Wikipedia). Carson 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, though if we don't keep, do a mass AfD on the list of Webcomics.
  • I'd say keep if it was a little older. The problem with webcomics is that they tend to die out quite fast. Some of the 'accepted' Wiki-articles have the same thing also.
  • I would propose to give a certain age-limit for webcomics to be included. And if they are regularly updated still, and show a real sign of life, don't nag too much about notability. If they're too young, only include them if they've won a notable award or have gotten notable attention. JackSparrow Ninja 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a reasonable idea to me. A hard age limit that requires younger webcomics to provide a touch more evidence of notability. That works against my case for Fanboys, but it makes sense. Webcomics that are no longer updated should be assessed to see if they hold any historical value or can be considered to have had been big enough they merit staying archived, which probably eliminates most webcomics once they've stopped updating. If it's current and popular, it should be here. If it dies off without leaving notable impact, just delete it at that point... --Nmaster64 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---Propositions seperate from "keep" and "delete"---

A couple ideas hit me for more reasonable answers to this debate, and I thought I'd throw them out for consideration.

  • Delete and merge with Bomb Shelter Comics. Since F@NB0Y$ exists under the umbrella of Bomb Shelter Comics, it seems feasible if a quality article could be written for the webcomic group, the F@NB0Y$ article could be shrunk and merged into it. The Bomb Shelter Comics would serve as a good single article listing that particular group of smaller webcomics, and thus could stem this occurance from happening again with any of the other comics in that group. If none of the comics in that group are considered notable, it seems to make sense all of them combined likely do. This is of course assuming the fact some independent sources can be found to help define the included comic's and/or the group's notability.
  • Article redirect to the comic's Comixpedia page. If it doesn't merit it's own big Wikipedia entry, why not hand it off to the Wiki for comics? This seems harmless and win-win, and seems to me a good solution to 99% of webcomic article debates.

--Nmaster64 06:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I find it strange that everyone is fine with trying to point out the site having little traffic as basis for deletion, yet when someone proves that the site gets plenty of traffic, he is told that having much traffic is not basis for keeping an article. And for anyone's information, i saw the note added to my last edit, and I just happen to have a special interest in webcomics. This is not a sockpuppet account, simply a person who mostly edits webcomic articles. Again I say, Keep per Nmaster64 Zaron 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to "vote" again - once was enough. MikeWazowski 06:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quite clearly marked what I said as a comment, in case you didn't read. I made it extremely clear that I was restating my opinion, not "voting again." Zaron 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Web traffic is an effective negative argument for notability, but not a positive one except at extreme levels. In other words, getting 200,000 google hits doesn't make you automatically notable, but only getting 12 does make you automatically non-notable (unless you're like an 8th century philosopher only mentioned in Persian texts and academic papers, or something else pre-internet). --tjstrf talk 08:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You obviously have no clue what makes a web page notable by Wikipedia standards, as there are many other reasons a web page can receive little or no traffic (without being of historic value) and still be notable. Do your research. Zaron 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm calling you on that one. The three criteria for notability are independant mentions, republication by a notable independant source, and awards from notable independant sources. No notable website exists which is not either historically important or high traffic for its field. --tjstrf talk 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll call you both. Tjstrf is indeed technical correct about what Wikipedia standards state in terms of requirements for notability. However, Tjstrf, I'd request you point out to me how each of the comics on the Wiki meet those criteria. In terms of historical importance or republication, VERY, VERY, few qualify. Even some insanely popular ones like Dr. McNinja or VGCats don't seem to fit the criteria. The third criteria, "independent mentions", needs to be much more defined, as it's obvious there is argument over how many mentions are needed, and of who qualifies as a source reputable enough to make a mention. I would say that by these policies only a handful of comics should exist, certainly 90% of the list above should disappear, which personally seems unacceptable. We are knee-deep in a horrific case of double standards... --Nmaster64 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notably covered or of historical interest. --tjstrf talk 08:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Are there no opinions on my two other ideas? I thought they were both reasonable, that maybe some middle ground could be established with one of them... --Nmaster64 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AfD has obviously become malformed with requests for outside influence. It is a sad day when notability requirements are circumvented by editors' personal preferences. If one editor tries to refute every delete vote with broken logic like Just because wikigeeks DON'T like something does not give it NO notability then it seems his efforts are more hell-bent on keeping the article online at any cost instead of actually abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just because it's a community encyclopedia does not mean anyting you like warrants inclusion... nor does justification come from well look at article XYZ. /Blaxthos 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You vastly misunderstand me if you think I fight simply because I like this comic, my personal fanboyism would never go to such lengths. I fight 'cause I busted my ass for a good 6-8 hours to make that wiki, and it pisses me off to see my work destroyed in an effort to, however you wanna label it, censor perfectly good information. I feel the Wiki's standards are completely broken and inappropriately written in the case of webcomics, and nobody could possibly give any reason as to how expanding the Wikipedia to include webcomics of this level of notability would hurt the project (and that does NOT mean every Joe Schmo comic, but nobody can deny it's obvious F@NB0Y$ enjoys a solid user base and is noted by a few reputable sources). It's just damn stupid to limit information like this, and if there's one thing I hate it's stupidity... --Nmaster64 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your fanboyism has gone to such lengths.
  2. If you are so strongly advocating keep because [you]busted [your] ass for a good 6-8 hours to make this article, then it is simply sour grapes and not arguing the merits of inclusion.
  3. Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.[1] We are not censoring any objectionable material, we are simply applying minimum notability standards to what we include. Please stop intentionally missusing this term.
  4. By saying nobody could possibly give any reason as to how expanding the Wikipedia to include webcomics of this level of notability would hurt the project(sic) you are, in fact, asking us to change Wikipedia policy so that your favorite webcomic can be included.
  5. You destroy your credibility by attempting to influence AfD discussions via outside channels (blogs and the like). Couple that with...
  6. You gather no respect by trying to refute every delete vote and most especially by using words like stupid with regards to other editors.
Perhaps you're just wrong, and bitter that your favorite comic isn't opted for inclusion. This isn't personal, and by reacting with such force you make it seem as though you have some sort of vested intrest in its inclusion, even when the community opposes such. /Blaxthos 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Your opinions of my reasoning are both severely flawed and meaningless. My feelings are in no way limited to this specific article, and I am not asking for a change in policy JUST for this webcomic. It's obvious the policies are poorly written and need to be better established first off, and second off it disturbs me so many people can be so blindly faithful to them, condemning any varying opinion or disagreement thereof. It's this close-mindedness that I cannot tolerate and bear no apologies when referencing anyone who thinks as such as "stupid". You can accuse me of meatpuppetry 'til your blue in the face, but the majority of people here are of the Wiki community, not from any of my own. I honestly could give a crap less about the vote at this point, I have a more vested interest in seeing a reasonable middle ground be found so as to not deprive those seeking information. I don't care if it's F@NB0Y$, ExtraLife, or any comic on that entire list above, 90% of which I've never heard of, regardless, if I'm looking for information on them the Wikipedia should either be able to provide it or point me to the correct Wiki that holds it. I argue I am not misusing the term censoring because it seems to me that Wikipedia holds a strong biased against webcomics, among other things, and in a certain sense does look upon it as objectionable.
Say what you will about me, accuse me of whatever, but when it comes down to it I am the one trying to help the USERS of Wikipedia. The opinions of this community, which the majority of portray themselves as nothing less than elitists, are of no concern to me. It's the people, like myself, who find the Wikipedia a valuable resource and feel it should strive to be the best source of information available I look to. Does that mean maintain a directory and entry on every little webcomic ever made? No, certainly not. But it does mean possibly toning down the notability requirements, looking to reader base as a viable means of judging notability, and most importantly, at the least, pointing users to where they might find the information they are looking for. A comic on the notability and with a user base on the level of F@NB0Y$ at least deserves so much as a "This is a webcomic, you can find more information on it at it's entry on the Comixpedia, the Wiki for comics, found here." (and there are even less obtrusive ways I can suggest too) If you find that as unacceptable, then please evaluate on the damage such a thing causes by existing, as I can certainly describe the negatives of giving users pages that say "Sorry, we've got info on this, or at least know where to find it, but refuse to give it to you because WE don't think it's important enough. Your own opinion is of no impact, as your just a filthy user." That is what is being portrayed to me by this event. --Nmaster64 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know you folks from the comic forum think this is unfair, but this is an encyclopedia not a directory. Once you have gained attention of multiple third party reliable sources try again. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not satisfy WP:WEB, WP:N or WP:V. The only thing that even attempts to satisfy notability is the Joystiq award, which isn't notable itself either. -- Kesh 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, meatpuppet army. --InShaneee 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's amusing the endless accusations of meatpuppetry, when there are only maybe 2 or 3 votes here I can see as being from a link of my own that could be considered as such. A couple people is a far cry from an army, and it seems to me it's being used simply to dodge any legitimate discussion on the matter. The people on the forum already agreed they'd keep away, and I've stressed to non-Wiki members not to get involved. Honestly though, I fail to see why a couple outside users completely demolishes the establishment of a resolution, and in all reality it seems the Wiki community could use a little bit of outside opinion, as it seems to close-minded in it's own. The "outsiders aren't welcome" policy is kind of ridiculous in a certain light, ya know? Believe it or not, the users of the Wikipedia may feel different from the editors, and it may be a good idea to interact with them. In the case of a yay or nay vote of course it's a problem and nothing comes of it but arguing. However, it's amazing if you think outside the box for a second then there may be actually be an option OTHER than keep or delete that can satisfy people on both sides, although that can only be achieved through discussion and putting new ideas forth. I personally would much more enjoy hearing different ideas being tossed around than this "eff you webcomic people"/"well eff you wiki people" that this is degrading into, partly of my own fault I admit. --Nmaster64 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion about F@NB0Y$ in particular, but... about that list.
Does the AFD crew really want to piss off that many people across the globe? Webcomics are very popular, and causing the global consensus to go against wikipedia might not be so terribly great.
Many of the webcomics articles seem well researched, and fairly easy to verify (you just go to the webcomic pages and see for yourself). Note that some of the webcomics in the lower alexa rank list are likely going to be quite easy to verify because they have a lot written about them, or are very old, or both. For instance a webcomic that ran last century is not going to have a high alexa rank today, for instance. It can be very notable if it has since influenced much newer comics. On the flip side, a comic with a higher alexa rank could be rather non-encyclopedic.
So, if you use the measures some people are proposing, we'll end up deleting a number of historical and notable webcomics, that have contributed to web culture greatly, and simultaniously we'd end up keeping a bunch of one-day flies.
On the long term, of course, you'd end up deleting all webcomics... some people might love that idea, because they think webcomics are inherently non-notable.
To them I say Meh! What's the alexa rank for Shakespere these days, guys? :-P
--Kim Bruning 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa rank of Shakespeare? Pretty good, it looks like to me-855 even if you don't count the Wiki page. I don't like using Alexa rank in terms of AfD, though, some unpopular things are notable and some popular things are not. The question goes right back to WP:N-does enough reliable third-party material exist for a full article, or not? In this case, the answer seems to tend toward an "or not". I personally don't care if something is a Webcomic, a Pokemon, or a "literary classic"-if the material exists, it stays, if not, it goes. Easy enough! Seraphimblade 03:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, if we were to be persuaded to keep simply because deleting would annoy webcomic fans, we'd also have to keep all the articles about blogs, fanpages, forums and flash animations people are fans of. WP:N is the only way we can prevent Wikipedia from becoming a repository of every little fan-item that pops up on the web. -- Kesh 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks the multiple non-trivial sources necessary for writing a trustworthy, neutral article. -- Dragonfiend 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has spiralled into a group of webcomic fans who want to bend or break the rules because of personal affinities. I believe Mr. WhalesWales as well as the community writ large has defined what wikipedia is and is WP:NOT, as well as what thresholds must be met for inclusion (both in notability as well as verifiable information). It is absolutely incomprehensible to me how an emotional set of users seems to think that the voracity of their appreciation for webcomics should trump our most basic principles. The law is the law, except when I don't agree with the law. /Blaxthos 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wales. ;) Carson 04:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close-mindedness is the greatest threat to both the evolution of the human mind, as well as the progression of the Wikipedia project. --Nmaster64 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please address the facts of the debate, rather than disparaging other users as "closed-minded." -- Kesh 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:V as it provides no sources for notability for those outside the webcomic world. Wikipedia is not a place to catalog things; it is an encyclopedia that is full of information that will be verifiable in 10 years and interesting in 100. Also the disregard for Wikipedia guidelines in this afd is staggering. - Ocatecir 09:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ENOUGH WITH THE AD HOMINEMS ALREADY! Yes, we get it, he's elisted an army of meat puppets. Stop bringing it up. Nmaster, as a personal bit of advice, I'd say go enlist your crew to go find some outside sources. That's the biggest issue with the article, so if you can get some good sourcing on this, then there's absolutely nothing to complain about. Oh, and the mass AFD of webcomics is moronic, if for no other reason then it's just a giant glob of aimless google tests. -Ryanbomber 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. People don't understand I'm more interested in discussion and resolution than votes. And furthermore they don't realize I am pretty much alone here, I have no army or helpers in this matter, at most just a few people on the sidelines cheering me on. As for outside sources, an honest question, where do you expect me to go? What IS considered a notable mention for a webcomic? Nobody talks about webcomics except blogs, there are no really good sources for these cases. It's just one of those things, a webomic could have a million readers but that doesn't mean the New York Times is gonna comment on them. That's my problem with the notability standards, there needs to be some way to acknowledge webcomics that most certainly have a really big following, even if their only claim to fame is a few of the more popular blogs (and I'm speaking in general here, not necessarily just in the case of F@NB0Y$). There HAS to be a way to do that, although I admit I haven't come up with a good solution yet myself... --Nmaster64 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After seeing Joe Loves Crappy Movies get deleted from Wikipedia I've become convinced that Wikipedians simply don't want Wikipedia to fulfil the idea that you can find any information about anything on it. I understand that many people try to use Wikipedia as a way to advertise and get hits to their webpage (anyone remember Jesus Camp?). However, F@NB0Y$ is not using Wikipedia any more than any other person that has an article about them on Wiki. Just because the comic is not notable to one person, doesn't mean it isn't notable to the people that view it. I bring to light evidence A, the fact that Torchic was a featured main page article recently. ALL information is notable. Pop culture classification does not mean that it has no merit as knowledge. Webcomics have become extremely popular and the more we know about them the more we can study the trends. You all have to realize that Penny Arcade was once just a no nothing comic like this one and has since then become one, if not THE, most dominent name in the gamer subculture. Deleting yet another webcomic on the grounds of notability doesn't make sense because the notability of anything comes down to personal bias. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree with you to a point H2P with the idea that notability is in a sense "in the eyes of the beholder", and non-notability just the same, we do have to recognize the need for some standards and requirements in terms of independent sources. I just feel people don't recognize that in the case of webcomics, there are almost no sources to pull from. Nobody talks about webcomics besides blogs. F@NB0Y$ getting the props from Joystiq, Destructoid, as well as numerous other "notable" webcomics seems to me about as good as it gets. Looking at traffic, we know it gets thousands of hits a day, so that seems like a decent reader base to me. At that point, what's the harm in the article existing, or maybe a stub pointing to it's Comixpedia? --Nmaster64 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The harm is in information which is not reliably sourced existing on Wikipedia. If blog mentions are "as good as it gets", the subject is not notable, and does not belong here. There are certainly webcomics such as Penny Arcade which do meet the standards, but if most webcomics don't, that doesn't mean they need a "special exception"-it means, until those webcomics start attracting wider and reliable attention, they're not suitable for articles yet. As to a "link to Comixpedia", WP:NOT a directory of links. Seraphimblade 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it's not a matter of it not being notable. Millions of people read webcomics, there's plenty of proof to show they have a substantial following. It's quite clear the subject is notable, it's simply a matter of the data that does exist not being considered acceptable by the Wikipedia, and I feel there's probably a little room for broadening that scope while keeping things in a good check. --Nmaster64 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable third-party sources documenting any of this. WarpstarRider 14:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point[edit]

Why are you guys so obsessed over notability (a guideline) when the glaring problems are with verifiability and original research (policies). Even if it meets with what you believe is the notability threshold, the problem is with non-negotiable policies. /Blaxthos 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is non-negotiable. See: Pillar #5 of the five pillars of Wikipedia. -- Nmaster64 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here." One of those five general principles is "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" which states "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." This IS non-negotiable, as stated, as you mention, in Pillar #5. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is however room for clarification and further evaluation on what may be a reliable or notable source. --Nmaster64 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the reliable source guideline? It doesn't leave much up to chance, and any "up in the air" certainly doesn't apply to articles that have little or no third-party sourcing at all (as found in most Webcomics articles). Face it, the articles are (for the most part) completely original research, primarily because third party reliable sources don't write about each webcomic, because (in the big scheme of things) the comics really are not notable (despite how notable a wikicommunity fanbase thinks). So, even if you get over the hurdle of our (wikipedia) measure of notability (which is still contested by some), there is probably little (if any) chance that there will ever be reliable third party sources (as defined in the guideline). QED they will, most likely, never truely be in compliance with our most basic principles on Wikipedia. That is why they keep showing up in AfD -- no matter how many different ways you slice it, the fundamental problem (which most seem to conveniently overlook) remains. /Blaxthos 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then there should be talks and ideas thrown forth upon how that fundamental problem may be resolved. Nothing with Wikipedia is set in stone, and even if it seems impossible to you, that hardly means there aren't possible solutions. Could there be a reliable way of measuring traffic? Should a comics ranking be taken into account? Is there a good way to use the Comixpedia for handling these? There are a number of things that seem open to discussion and possible middle-grounds to find other than "screw all webcomics" and "every webcomic deserves a page". Good solutions never lie in extremes.
Remember, the goal is simply to give users the information they're looking, or at least point them in the right direction. The details of how this is handled is not important, but "you don't get any information on this because WE don't deem it notable" is not acceptable. And that's not for webcomics but the Wikipedia in general. --Nmaster64 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not relevant to this AfD. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, feel free to bring it up for discussion on the policy Talk page in question. But right now, we have to go by policies as they are. -- Kesh 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to see changes in the notability criteria, please go to WT:WEB and/or WT:N and bring up concerns there. But remember, this project goes by consensus-and consensus doesn't mean unanimous. If a huge majority is in favor of something, it is sometimes necessary to go ahead with it even though a few people aren't convinced (and probably never will be). This is nothing against those who still disagree-it just means that there comes a time to end debate, recognize a clear consensus, and act on it. If you have concerns, please bring them up! We invite everyone to participate in policy discussions, but so long as they remember to beware of the tigers. Seraphimblade 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't get too worked up about this whole issue. In the long run, there's nothing to prevent you from recreating the article (if it's deleted), once it attains more notability. In the meantime, you can copy the page to your userspace and work on it until it's ready to return to mainspace. Carson 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again (ironically?) everyone has just glossed over the WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V issues. /Blaxthos 05:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can read. Still, for instance some people are calling Joystiq a non-reliable source PURELY because it's defined as a "blog". Last I checked though, they're an official member of the press and get into every event the industry offers pretty much. They've got more clout in the industry press-wise than much of the media it seems. Destructoid is not far behind in those terms either. They're just as reliable as the NYT as far as I'm concerned, being labeled a blog just gives them some leeway in joking around and being a little less "professional" in their writing. It doesn't change the validity of their articles however... --Nmaster64 10:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From official policy WP:V#SELF: self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head -- unless a reliable third party has published the blog's finding (WP:RS back in the mix), it doesn't really meet the exception requirement. Also, I believe the NYT and Washington Post are held to a little bit higher scrutiny and credibility standards than a blog (hence the policy). /Blaxthos 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that before, and I'm saying that if Joystiq is not considered a reputable source, than reputable sources do not exist on the internet. On this I stand 100% firm, if a site like Joystiq is not to be considered a reliable source, then the policy is wrong, in every possible way, and needs to be changed immediately. Personally, I don't think it was the intention necessarily to block a site like Joystiq, because it's far from your "typical" blog. I just think it's sort of a casualty of generalization, and some clarification is needed. They are an official member of the gaming media, and generally have full press access to most everything. Barring a couple non-printed sources like IGN, they are about as reliable as come. Their articles might not go through the rigorous editing processes the others do, and they have a bit more freedom on what they can write about, but it hardly makes them any less notable. Them, and a handful of other extremely popular multi-editor blogs are reliable sources, and if the policy has been adapted to the strict level where none of these can be referenced as sources for notability, then it needs to be changed ASAP, because that conception is ridiculous. --Nmaster64 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset indent

I think you're missing the point of the policy. As a general rule, yes, a source that is self-published on the web is not an acceptable source, because anyone can publish anything on the web. Now you're calling for a complete rewrite of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Isn't that a little arrogant, expecting Wikipedia rules to change so that a webcomic you like can have an article on Wikipedia? Your rabid defense and attempt to explain away/refute every delete vote, your attempts to influence AfD via meatpuppetry, and now you willingness to spit in the eye of our policies shows your motives serve no interest other than your own. /Blaxthos 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, calm down. It wasn't his intention to solicit meatpuppets, and his ideas aren't that revolutionary. He is trying to invoke some changes for the greater good, not just for this AfD. Carson 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Carson for that edit conflict...I removed a couple choice words...Now listen, do you honestly think I've been trying to save this little article this whole time? Do you honestly believe I've held any hope of this staying? I've been trying to encourage discussion of new ideas and possible solutions to what I see as a serious problem in the Wiki. I see an area with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of readers and the Wikipedia not providing information like it should be, instead shooing users away because it doesn't feel the topic is notable.
I'm not calling for a complete rewrite of policies, I'm calling for some clarification and broadening of what's defined in the rules. For example...Joystiq is not a single guy in his basement ranting about his life, it's a rather large team of people who are industry insiders and for the most part do this for a living. If that doesn't fit the exception, then it's NOT a general rule, and yeah, it should be changed. The only eye I'm spitting in is editors refuse to allow the concept that maybe the guidelines are wrong, that maybe we could make things better with a little change, into their mind. You say I'm explaining away every delete, but aren't you and the other editors doing the same with every keep? All you can seem to respond with is "the rules say that doesn't count" and "ZOMG Meatpuppets!" You refute everything with a simple WP link, and nobody even seems open to thinking about non-keep/non-delete solutions...
This isn't an isolated case, it's one among many. At some point, people should be willing to stand up and say "hey, maybe we should try something else. This ain't working too well..." Simply put: having thousands of thousands of readers makes you notable, in a most true sense, so the question that should be asked is how can that be established in certainty, since no one magical trustworthy source just gives us this information.
And honestly, I'd still like a good explanation as to why there is such voracity in getting things like this removed, the articles seem 100% harmless too me, and don't understand the concept of limiting information on this level... --Nmaster64 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what other intention one could have (regarding soliciting outside influence). As far as encourage discussion:

Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in Wikipedia itself.

— WP:POINT
.

do you honestly think I've been trying to save this little article this whole time? Do you honestly believe I've held any hope of this staying? I've been trying to encourage discussion of new ideas and possible solutions to what I see as a serious problem in the Wiki.

— Nmaster64
So, you're now blatantly admitting to violating WP:POINT. Way to win respect for your position. As others have already pointed out, you should bring this up on the appropriate policy talk page, or at the village pump, not by supporting AfD's that are being held to current standards. /Blaxthos 21:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete compliance with WP:POINT if you read through the examples, as I didn't make this article to prove a point or anything of the sort, I just randomly one day felt I'd contribute by throwing up an article for this. It was supposed to be harmless...I had no idea there were such people that spend hours each day removing useful information. I support this AfD because I feel it merits supporting, that there's a bit more room for interpetation than you may think. I still have yet to receive any real replys to my earlier ideas instead of just keep or delete entirely... --152.7.199.2 (aka Nmaster64, sry, changed computers) 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(dialogue about indentions removed)

  • How so? Besides more sources, what do you feel can be done to improve it? --Nmaster64 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point of NMaster's use of the other articles as examples. He simply meant to point out that Fanboys' Alexa ranking isn't such a low rank, as there are many notable comics on Wikipedia with lower rankings. It was not a defense of the article itself, just pointing out the significance of Fanboys' Alexa rank, as it is a relative measurement. I could be wrong, but that is how I took his list of references, or else I think he would have linked the articles themselves, not the websites of the comics. Zaron 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you got it. I know Alexa doesn't provide the best of measurements, and I'm never one to say they should be used to directly compare a couple sites. But the idea of comparing to ALL of them is the idea of proof in numbers. I think it's safe to say given that huge list, F@NB0Y$ is one of the more relatively popular webcomics, and I think that should count for something, if only a little bit. By the way, anybody read today's comic? Hehe... --Nmaster64 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure of WEB and WP:V. Counterpoints are unconvincing. --Beaker342 07:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is only for self-promotion. --Jannex 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to imply the artist had something to do with this, which he has not, other than granting permission to use stuff here. Besides, you can say that about pretty much every single article on Wikipedia... --Nmaster64 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is getting out of hand. Nmaster has brought it up and I'm going to bring it up again, and I don't want to see another "delete: per nom" or WEB reference until this is answered. WHERE do you guys want us to get sources? This is the main problem WEB presents to Webcomics. They aren't notable in the academic world so we can't pull the information from CNN or anything similar. I know on the TV show I edit we can site episodes for the information, is there a way to do this here? Is there a way to directly site the author through an e-mail or something? If you can answer this then we will go to work and find the sources. But you can't just sit there at your desk claiming we don't have sources and not verifying what constitutes as a source. AfDs are not just for deleting, they are a call for cleanup as well. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You can look at WP:WEB, and WP:RS for info on what type of sources. If you are having trouble finding them then it is very possible the comic does not meet inclusion standards. However, if you are going to find a source it needs to be done fast as this AfD is close to ending. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, TV shows get some type of critical review through newspapers, magazines, or other editorially controlled reliable sources. If they don't, they're not notable either! Some things aren't mentioned in reliable secondary sources yet. That means they're not suitable for an article, not that we need to change policy so that they will be, not that secondary sources should be replaced with primary ones, not anything of the like. Seraphimblade 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just really confused as to what the sources are supposed to prove. Are they supposed to prove that the comic exists, cause a quick link to its site will prove that. Sources are supposed to back up claims. I'm not saying this page is perfect, it does lack... content of any kind (nMaster go actually write something about it on the page!) and I may just be jumping here because of the WP as a whole (in which case someone point me to where I can open a discussion). I don't think notability should be the issue, notability is a biased understanding and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." -- Dragonfiend 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you got me there. NO webcomic other than PA will ever make impact or historical significance. That takes years and Wiki is too short term to see any of the comics out. And if you don't count Joystics awards then I guess you win. It's one of the reasons I'd like to discuss the policy somewhere relevant, but at this time you win. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For examples of webcomics-related articles that cite reliable sources discussing impact or historical significance, see Gene Yang, Amy Kim Ganter, Megatokyo, Fetus-X, Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet, Penny Arcade (webcomic), Van Von Hunter, When I Am King, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonfiend (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well removing PA, pages about authors not the comic, and comics that were in print before the web, I get three. Megatokyo may as well be a comic book in terms of comparison to other smaller comics with many readers. So really the only links you give me lead to one comic currently with an AfD and one comic that is one paragraph wrong with two sources to random lists in a couple of magazines. All these webcomics out there with thousands of readers don't fit into any catagories that is approved. So where do we put them? I can't agree with you that they just don't belong. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I don't even know where to jump into that...but this is some good discussion. First off...I did something wrong with the article? Damn, I thought I did pretty good...well, what's it missing content-wise? Second, I've definitely got a problem with policies if they require historical significance. It seems to me the Wiki should be worried about current significance, not historical (in regards to things that are in fact current and updating of course). So, for example in the case of webcomics, a very popular comic should get it's own article, IMO. If that comic stops updating or disappears or whatever, then the article needs to have it's historical significance put into question, and most in most cases the article should be deleted.
As for sources, H2P is hitting around what's been bugging me. Now let's compare to TV shows for example. TV shows are big business (funny how Wikipedia is pro-BigBiz, anti-LittleGuy, eh?), so no surprise there are all sorts of sources looking at them. Some are probably even paid by the people making or airing the shows. So tell me, does it make a TV show immediately notable when some published source reviews them, even though it's that sources job to review every show? See, there are sources for many mediums that will look through EVERYTHING that comes their way. Any show that comes on a major network is gonna be noted and reviewed by someone. That doesn't mean anybody watches it though, or that it has any historical significance. It could get canceled the next week, but because there's a paid published source that mentions it, that makes it notable? Seems money is defining notability here...and I don't see why being printed on a piece of paper makes you any more verifiable than being stuck on a screen. There is no evidence some of the rags that do entertainment reviews have higher editing standards than say Joystiq, that's purely a conception.
I'm also wondering about why site statistics like it's rank and stats from independent sources, like eXTReMe Tracking can't be used. It seems to me if you've got hard number data on visitors, then it should be easy to define in those cases whether something has enough readership to garner an article... --Nmaster64 18:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all points that need to be debated at WP:WEB, not here, as current policies unequivocally speak against inclusion. --Beaker342 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - F@NB0Y$ is a notable webcomic, even under the current WP:WEB. It does need some additional sources and information. But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Destructoid and Joystiq are both highly notable and popular video game blogs. F@NB0Y$ is a largely niche comic, but it's niche is significant and the comic is VERY WELL KNOWN within that niche. You trot the Alexa number out without any sort of context to present it in. The fact it, according to Alexa's website, F@NB0Y$ often has the same daily reach as El Goonish Shive and The Wotch [19], both highly notable webcomics within their niche. The people clamoring for deletion are looking at the breadth of notability, which is the population in general, people who are mostly casual readers and don't do much beyond look at it and occasionally chuckle. This comic's notability is in it's depth, it does NOT appeal to a wide audience, which is what the people hiding behind WP:WEB think is the only thing that matters. The fact is, most people in the population at large would get the "Giant Enemy Crab" jokes, but those who do, would find them absolutely hilarious. That, is the draw of F@NB0Y$' humor, and it has succeeded in carving out a niche for itself, if the weekly webcomic polls on Joystiq are any indication. skyman8081 01:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)— Skyman8081 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Given that you have made only a total of 10 other edits (the aforementioned 'few') and have not participated in the project for almost a year, I came to the not unreasonable conclusion that you were directed here by the rampant off-site canvassing. While I am sorry if I offended you, I felt it necessary to tag your post given the canvassing problems that have plagued this discussion. --Beaker342 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next time sign your posts. The SPA flag is for accounts that have made few edits OUTSIDE of a topic. I've had this account for a while, but I infrequently use it, and often I simply end up logged out because of cookie issues. Accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet is a VERY SERIOUS accusation. So if want to make that accusation, you better be certain that the person you're accusing is a sock/meatpuppet. skyman8081 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Very well. Meatpuppetry/canvassing has been a serious problem here. Given the evidence, I don't feel I was unfounded in coming to that conclusion. I'm sorry that you were offended. --Beaker342 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what, you just pop up out of the blue after months of absence on one of the hottest AfD's in recent memory? That dog don't hunt. Sorry to accuse you of bad faith, but the tag is absolutely appropriate -- you appear to be here with the single purpose of supporting a particular outcome. /Blaxthos 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm angry because the tag was put on unsigned. I would appreciate it if we could get back to the actualy content of what I said, NOT where I came from. However, since that is not going to happen, I would like to see evidence that I am a meatpuppet, or that my vote was canvassed. Since you are the one making that accusation. skyman8081 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
SPA templates don't need to be signed. You haven't edited more than ten times (or more than three or four topics), you haven't been around in ten months, and you've never participated in an AfD. Even if you really just magically stumbled upon the AfD by accident, decided to become familiar with the policies (except the ones you ignore -- WP:V and WP:OR), and then logged in just to participate you should still be able to recognize that your account appears to be a single-purpose account and that the tag was appropriately applied. /Blaxthos 04:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Though this discussion seems to be going down hill there are a few clear issues that need to be adressed. First of all policy states that for a web related article to be notable it must meet one of three criteria. The second criteria is that the subject in question must have one a notable award. Fanboys Online has won the Joystiq Weekly webcomic award. One can debate the worth of an award who's winner is determined by a web poll but two things are a bundantly clear. The award was awarded by a notable body as Joystiq itself passes the notability tests which makes it valid and the means of conducting polling and determining the winner of said award, is an accepted method. Hundreds of notable, undisputed awards are determined by web polls including the 2005 and 2006 People's Choice Awards.

Inaccoredence with the policy these awards are noted on the article page.

People are also using meatpuppetry as a reason for deleteing the article are just absurd as it completely throws all acedemic merit out the window in favour of spite. Since the subject of the article is not doing this themselves it hard seems right to use it as a reason to remove the article.

I suggest a quick read over of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions by anyone trying to use the Google test as evidence either for or against the deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Njiska (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC).— Njiska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment What EXACTLY in this article is unverifiable and needs sources? If this comic is as notable as people say it is, then it should be easy to back this up with evidence. This could simple be a case of the article being worded poorly and in a way that makes it seem less notable than it really is. Rather than run around in circles with keep vs delete, we should consider cleaning it up and adding more 3rd party sources to it. I'm seeing people throw WP:V and WP:OR around, but I would like to know what exactly in the article is original research. --skyman8081 04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden of WP:V is on the article to include reliable sources. If it is so easily verifiable using appropriate sources, then you should simply improve the article instead of asking the AfD forum to simply ignore our rules and policies. In the end, there are no reliable sources because the topic is simply not all that notable on a worldwide scale. /Blaxthos 05:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would elaborate more on "clean it up". Ok, so for one it needs more 3rd party sources, I got that. Can someone please elaborate beyond that on how it should be "cleaned up"? Seriously, I'm asking for advice here... --Nmaster64 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs to calm down here[edit]

  • Neutral - This AfD has clearly provoked greater strength of feeling, on both sides, than any other in which I've participated. It might be a good idea for the various users above - both pro- and anti-deletion - to stop arguing for a while and give everyone else a chance to state their opinion. Personally I lean towards deletion, as it would be a bad precedent to state that all webcomics with a large fan base are inherently notable (not to mention a fairly broad interpretation of WP:WEB). Yet at the same time I can see the argument for keeping this article, so don't treat the above as a "vote" for deletion (not that we technically "vote" on these anyway). To any admin planning on closing this AfD, I certainly wouldn't advocate deletion now that it's provoked so much ill-feeling. Walton monarchist89 17:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm not really for the keeping of this article as it is. It needs serious clean up and actually something worth reading as it really has no decription other than character bios. My main problems with this AfD right now is the constant deletings of every webcomic with a page on Wiki. WEB doesn't allow for webcomics (other than like 5) to have pages and I think the policy itself needs to be looked into and that the delete happy manuevers be toned down to allow all the webcomics out there to catch up. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really wish someone would have told me sooner...all anyone has to do is tell me what it needs and I'd add it... --Nmaster64 18:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, what it needs is reliable third party sources, which will probably never happen, because it really isn't notable (no matter how much noise the fanbase makes). As someone else pointed out... THe criteria at WP:WEB is made so that we don't get 20,000 articles about every webcomic and video on the internet. /Blaxthos 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete THe criteria at WP:WEB is made so that we don't get 20,000 articles about every webcomic and video on the internet. While i don't believe that this should be an article, i don't see why we can't change the criteria in order to allow a certain alexis rating. (begin sarcasam) That And after looking at his comic strip, I felt i should do this after he called the people deleting this "Wiki Trolls".(end sarcasam) The Placebo Effect 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on 20000 part, but would it be so bad if a few of the more popular ones got in? Does it really hurt anything? --Nmaster64 18:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will it really be so bad if this one doesn't get in? Can't folks be content to enjoy their comic without having it Wikipedia-ized? I'm sure it already has a Comixpedia entry... GassyGuy 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it does now...and for cases like this where there are entire Wikis specifically for the topic, why can we not use them to help out? Like, point the stuff that doesn't merit it's own article over to there. It doesn't bother me so much about webcomics not getting articles as much as the idea of giving users searching for them a big fat nothing. If the wikipedia doesn't want to hold the info, point them to the wiki that does for gods sake! Just that would make me happy... --Nmaster64 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting proposal, but this isn't the place to discuss new soft redirects. You'll have better luck over at The Village Pump. GassyGuy 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And speaking of comics, does reposting an entire edition of a webcomic on one's user page constitute copyright infringement? GassyGuy 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not if you've got the artist's permission. ^_^ --Nmaster64 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I have to imagine a webcomic strip is not covered under WP policy when it's not being used to illustrate something. Perhaps a link to the appropriate website from your page would have the same effect? GassyGuy 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't realize the Wiki was all serious about user pages too...anyway, I just threw it there temporarily before I work on a serious page... --Nmaster64 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do be careful though-by submitting to Wikipedia, you don't just need the artist's permission for use on Wikipedia. Unless it's used under fair use (which is not allowed on userpages, but is in some cases in articles, for example a single comic panel could be used under fair use in an article about that comic), the artist would have to agree to release under GFDL, which would mean, among other things, anyone in the world could make use of the webcomic so long as they follow the GFDL's terms, on a personal or commercial or any other type of site. It's certainly not something the artist would want to agree to lightly or without consideration. Seraphimblade 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I quote, "I don't care where my comic ends up. I encourage it. So no copyright violation. NYEH!", Scott Dewitt. That's as clear as it gets, end of discussion. --Nmaster64 04:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ILIKEIT doesn't trump WP:V. Whispering 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a serious webcomic with a high fan base and several thousand unique hits a day. Google search for "fanboys" brings F@NBOY$ as the Number 4 hit, with "F@NBOY$" bringing the comic to NUMBER 1. Yahoo also confirms the correct redirection for both. It follows every guideline cited by the argument for deletion. I also highly doubt deleting it will do any good, since, upon it's deletion, frequenters to the site will be notified immediately, and many new entries will appear. User:tehmorte 20:19 , January 22, 2007 (UTC)— tehmorte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment If this is deleted, I would recommend salting based on this evidence. GassyGuy 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of Comment That would only apply IF multiple pages were made AND those pages were made in an "unencyclopedic form or against policy". User:tehmorte 21:31 , January 22, 2007 (UTC)
Note I am not encouraging anyone to do this, simply stating a possibility. I in no way condone such behavior. User:tehmorte 21:31 , January 22, 2007 (UTC)
  • The F@NB0Y$ community has agreed to stay clear of the Wiki. If it pops up again it won't be from us unless after some time and with a handful more notable sources. Salting it would be a regrettable decision... --Nmaster64 04:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: SPA accounts are removing appropriate SPA tags. I believe if indiscriminant CHECKUSER was available, we would find at least one puppetmaster amongst the keep voters. /Blaxthos 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If anyone is seriously doing this, messing with SPA stuff, seriously, stop it. It's just a stupid little tag, it's not gonna kill you... --Nmaster64 04:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snapshot Total[edit]

As of midnight, 23 January 2006 (central standard time, GMT-0600):

  • 40 Definitive Responses Overall
  • 65% Delete (Raw)
  • 79% Delete (adjusted for SPA)

DISCLAIMERS: My counting could be inaccurate. Simple vote counting is not the main determination of consensus. These numbers are simply to show where we stand right now, and to demonstrate that when extrapolating WP:SPA accounts that consensus appears clear. /Blaxthos 06:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the closing admin will be perfectly adept at handling this sort of thing... this page is grossly long as it is. Maybe move this (and my comment) to the talk page at least? GassyGuy 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume I wasn't counted (as I didn't "vote" either way). Just trying to make this discussion clearer. Walton monarchist89 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I was acounted as a SPA, since someone did mark me as one, but I honestly don't think I should have been marked as one, since I do have more than a couple of edits outside AfDs, and it's been almost a year since I have participated in an AfD anyway. Zaron 12:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments without delete or keep were not counted. Any vote with SPA template next to the vote was counted as an SPA. Every SPA tag appeared to be legitimately placed, including USER:Zaron (contribs). /Blaxthos 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the Disclaimer, simple vote counting does not reslove an issue, however my intent was to show that consensus is clear. /Blaxthos 15:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Stop Being Trolls I know I don't have many edits under my belt and they are all about web comics. I can also tell by the timbre of this discussion that somebody is going to make a snarky comment about that. This has gone beyond childish into the realm of the absurd. If you want to accuse someone of being a talking head or "puppetmaster" it's very easy to do because you can hide behind your monitor and flame away. It's much harder to actually try and see both sides of an issue. We're seeing trolling from both sides of the fence and the delete trolls are being down right rude. If you are stepping in just to call someone a "meatpuppet" then don't post because you honestly have NOTHING PRODUCTIVE to add to this conversation. SPA's are just as valid as chronic posters so back off of them. More posts does not make you more important. People tend to forget that. It is a neutral article that is strictly informational. All the information is verifiable by outside sources. The nasty comments about notability are 100% SUBJECTIVE. You can say whatever you want about how notable something is and change your criteria the next day. It's the same as having a discussion over what supermodel is the skinniest choosing weight one day and the number of ribs you can count the next. It's pointless unless you agree ahead of time what your metric will be. Let's get back to being grown-ups and present some more cogent, FACT-based arguments. If you want to use metrics such as Alexa, get together and set up official rules about what parameters make that metric valid. The government assigns committees that evaluate what metrics to use and how to use them. It generally takes them 6 to 12 months to institute a single metric. I figure the wiki community can do it in 3 - 6 weeks. So let's get started. -- Brutilus 10:56, 23 January 2007
If SPA's are just as valid as chronic posters then why do you think we have WP:SPA templates? We recognize (and therefore attribute less significance to) single purpose accounts because, by and large, they do not bother to learn the appropriate rules and policies of Wikipedia; they do not intend to truely improve Wikipedia. Generally speaking, SPA's show up simply to manipulate the system or influence a particular discussion's outcome without showing any regard to what is actually appropriate or within established guidelines and policies. SPA's generally advocate discarding the rules in favor of an emotional or loyalty-based argument on subjects that coincide with their particular interests or likes. That's exactly what is occuring here, and tagging SPA accounts as such doesn't constitute trolling. /Blaxthos 16:21, 23 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. Renaming should be discussed at Talk:Miscellaneous defunct or merged Netherlands banks or elsewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous defunct or merged Netherlands banks[edit]

Miscellaneous defunct or merged Netherlands banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic and akwardly titled article with unsourced and unverified information about businesses that fail notability requirements.
The article topic would probably be better handled as a List or a Category, but only under the conditions that the content met notability requirements and referenced reliable sources. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (but some of the data might find a home in History of Banking in the Netherlands (or sim.) Bucketsofg 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references, including a list of archives of various Netherlands banks. Someone with access to a catalog of Netherlands banknotes could expand this article considerably. I think that all these banks were notable when they were active, and would have been mentioned fairly frequently in Netherlands newspapers. The fact that they are now defunct doesn't make them not-notable. --Eastmain 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and rename to List of defunct banks of the Netherlands. The information is relevant, since many current Dutch banks are the results of mergers and corporate takeovers, such as ABN Amro, Fortis, Rabobank and ING Group. AecisBravado 18:29, 17 January 2007
  • Keep per Aecis Jcuk 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Clearly important for financial historians. Would be nice if this was expanded. --JJay 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Aecis. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Aecis.--Rudjek 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No prejudice to forming part of a properly written article on Banking in the Netherlands (perhaps forming part of a subsection on history). Agent 86 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I quote from the article, : "This page exists to list banks from the Netherlands about which we have only the barest information." If there ever was a confession of non-verifiability, this it it. DGG 07:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per Aecis --Isolani 14:05, 22 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 Already merged and redirected. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 08:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diaper Dandy[edit]

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

Neologism coined by Dick Vitale. All relevant material is already in the Vitale article. Article history shows 3 human edits total. YechielMan 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - redirect to Dick Vitale (I actually came to this article intending to put this redirect too!). We won't get any more information than what is already presented in this article. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 03:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dick Vitale. The term is not notable enough just because it was invented by someone notable. JIP | Talk 07:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - I remember the term, I just can never remember who coined it. Well, couldn't; I will now. Anyway, it isn't notable (or substantial) enough for its own article, but I know it had enough permiance(sp?) throughout mainstream society at the time that I should be mentioned in the Dick Vitale article. Since the term might be searched for, we should keep it as a redirect; they're cheap anyway, no harm in having another redirect. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected definition of neologism to Dick Vitale per WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius 02:38, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperspace Calculations (book)[edit]

Hyperspace Calculations (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

An e-book originating in 1990. The original author removed the prod tag and asked for help to improve the article, but I doubt it comes anywhere close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books). Google search for "hyperspace calculations" & "perry jones" yields three hits (2 tripod, 1 blog}, and Newsbank and JSTOR searches for the title yield zero. ~ trialsanderrors 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable. Argyriou (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:RS. Book is published through Lulu, a print on demand publisher.
  • Delete - a pretty clear-cut case of insufficient notability. --Scimitar 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.--Rudjek 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —David Eppstein 08:00, 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 nomination withdrawn, speedy keep Ashibaka (tock) 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of social networking websites[edit]

List of social networking websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles should not exist as link-farms or directories;

reference Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stock_photography_archives, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_open-content_projects and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fax software (2nd nomination) Hu12 04:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:LIST. Lists are appropriate to to wikipedia, including stand-alone lists. Rather than having a 50 long bullet list at the end of every article on this list for similar sites, its spun off in one link to a list. Spinning off long sections to new articles is long practice on wikipedia. This article is well watched to remove any spam. These links do not link (at least they shouldn't maybe they need checked) directly to the websites and instead link to their wikipedia articles. As for it being a directory, its not. its not different than a see also section of any other article on any other subject. The subject has simply become so large and encompassing so many articles that it is better served as a single article. Neither policy applies here.--Crossmr 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar to the last time this article was nominated for deletion I'm placing a notice on the talk pages of all related articles as time permits.--Crossmr 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, it might be best if you just let the AfD process run its course. Soliciting opinions for AfD's can be a touchy subject, and many editors and admins are very sensitive concerning the WP:CANVASS guidelines. -- Satori Son 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#CfD_canvassing. This is a neutral message, identical to the one which was posted last summer when this was up for deletion. Many people watch those articles, but don't watch this article, even though its deletion would effect the article. They would have to work some kind of lengthy see also list into their article were it to be deleted, or then work on a policy for which sites should be listed as see also, because if they try to artificially limit it, you're going to have people constantly trying to add to it. It would be very different if I were to say go about targeting individuals who I know always make keep statements or who I know shared my opinion. The message is neutral, bipartisan and open. So far its limited in scope, thats a vague clarification (see the table right below that discussion)--Crossmr 19:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Usually the Guidelines to follow are on the Policy page, NOT the talk page. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Votestacking, Campaigning, WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS either way it Smells like fish.--Hu12 21:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read WP:AGF. I was forthcoming with my notes and didn't make any attempt to hide it. There is also a precedent for the involved pages being notified during the previous AfD to which no one objected. And if you could possibly find anything in those notes would could possibly look like any attempt at PoV or attempt to sway the vote, feel free to point it out. Oh and regardless of whether or not its on a talk page, an emerging consensus is just that. You might also want to read the section on WP:CANVASS labeled Friendly Notice. Also read the "If you've canvassed section" those guidelines for canvassing, which have wide acceptance havea ll been followed.--Crossmr 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read WP:AGF and it states Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, especialy with "List Of..." type articles, as they are Listcrufty, and of interest to a very limited number of people. Consensus needs to be made in order to improve the quality of content for the larger readership, not just those few who have a specific interest in keeping a particular list. I'm not the one soliciting for votes or participation.--Hu12 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption that I was being dishonest when I left a neutral message on a few article talk pages which I openly disclosed here when I did it is you assuming bad faith. I didn't attempt to hide the messages or leave messages which would indicated I wanted people to leave comments indicating it should be kept or deleted. Consensus is built on input. The more input, the better the consensus. If you have some evidence that I made a statement or attempted to influence the way people commented here, feel free to show it. Otherwise the evidence of your assumption of bad faith is rather clear by stating that my behaviour smelled like fish.--Crossmr 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you felt the comment was criticism, it was. However it should not be attributed to malice or be imputed as bad faith because that, it was not.--Hu12 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather hard to read your criticism as anything but an attack, when you use the phrase "Smells like fish" and you are factually incorrect regarding the policy. Argyriou (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smells fishy (informal- if a situation or an explanation smells fishy, it causes you to think that someone is being dishonest[29]). WP:AGF Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. guess not--Hu12 03:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
guess not what? Your own quote makes it clear the phrase implies your target is not being honest, ie. acting with malice. -- Kesh 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For semantics sake, WP:AGF states This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Based on those edits any editor has the right, within policy, to question the editors intentions, without being assaulted or accused of "bad faith" and WP:AGF. Burden of intent is on the one who made the edits, not on those questioning them. "Smells like fish" is not an unwarrantable claim, see assumption. Ununorthodox and informal yes, an attack and malice, No.--Hu12 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats right and my intent was rather clear from the accompanying edit you left out which is above, where I was honest and forthcoming about the neutral and non-partisan messages I left on the talk pages of articles which would be effected by the outcome of this discussion. You cannot selectively pick edits out of a group and claim you know my intent while ignoring the one edit which did explain my intent. You can continue to assume bad faith if you like, but I was quite clear on my intent and you still haven't show even the slightest hint of anything I did that could be seen as attempting to sway the AfD in a particular direction, because there isn't anything. And as pointed out above, question doesn't mean subjected to personal attacks, which your own definition that you've given twice clearly indicates.--Crossmr 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position. I don't interperate a decision to keep or delete an article i've nominated for deletion as a bad thing or take whatever the outcome personaly. Nomination isn't a win-loose for me. Here's why, Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, especialy with "List Of..." type articles, as they are Listcrufty, and of interest to a very limited number of people. Consensus needs to be made in order to improve the quality of content for the larger readership, not just those few who have a specific interest in keeping a particular lists. You cannot argue "neutrality" after sounding a partisan vote for Keep. It just Smells fishy!.--Hu12 06:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence your assumption of bad faith. Perhaps you cannot remain neutral in asking for input after taking a stance on an issue, but I have no such trouble and you made a bad assumption. And again you continue to make insults. You assume I wasn't being neutral, but I've challenged you several times to indicate where in the messages I left there was any degree of partisanship. As you've failed yet again, and only continue to hurl baseless insults and accusations I believe we're done here. My edits and behaviour stands on their merit. There wasn't a remote hint of partisanship in the messages I left, there was unchallenged precedent for those messages being left on related talk pages, they were completely neutral in tone, and honestly, this AfD isn't remotely contentious as not a single person has shown up to agree with you that it should be removed. In fact I'm surprised an administrator hasn't closed it on the basis of speedy keep or WP:SNOW at this point. I was also forth-right and honest in the fact that those messages asking for input per those reasons would be left, as soon as they were challenged, I ceased leaving them. You've been asked to stop assuming bad faith and to stop making personal attacks, as you've failed to do so the discussion on my part is done here.--Crossmr 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have done any of the things you have chosen to do. However if i did it would be well before I sounded my partisan vote, for fear edits or messages after such vote may appear to fellow editors as fishy. --Hu12 07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crossmr. Unlike most lists, this one is actually well-referenced and appears to follow WP:N guidelines. The Talk page seems to be patrolled fairly well, keeping random blogs and forums out. Could probably still use a trim, but a useful resource. For once. -- Kesh 04:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The most notable social networking sites have articles, "social networking websites" has better relevance as a (self-maintaining) category, instead of an external link directory/repository. --Hu12 05:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It only contains notable social networking sites (sites which already have articles here). Good for a quick comparison of the sites for determining relative notability. --- RockMFR 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all of the articles in this list have their own wikipedia page, so the list is a perfect way of creating easy navigation for those articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are all valid subjects with their own Wiki pages, as already mentioned. The external links are there to help verify their existence, not ostensibly to generate traffic to those sites. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 14:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, such lists are encyclopedic and are appropriate. The list is linked only to Wikipedia pages of the site which are notable. And the list is often maintained, so there shouldn't be a big problem removing non-notable sites from the list. It is for information purposes, not for advertising. Terence Ong 14:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I often use wikipedia to get generic information about terms, definitions, example etc. But sometime, I need to get real life examples and this list work great for this for Social Networking. --195.115.78.114 14:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a central "see also" list for all of these sites. It's not a mere "repository of links" - it's a list of Wikipedia articles, giving some information about the differences between the sites (which has should be considered notable per our guidelines to have had an article created about them in the first place). What harm is it doing? └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Crossmr. Argyriou (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, any article I actively search for has got to be useful. Found this today, and it gave me the data I needed. --163.1.165.116 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- this is not just a list of links, it is a taxonomy of of an important and rapidly growing field — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.164.192 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, again, per all above, per WP:SNOW, and also for the following reasons: This list serves more detailed information than a category could, and allows users to compare various social networking services. The article is well-sourced. Finally, it includes only to social networking sites whose articles survive on Wikipedia, and links to the Wikipedia articles about them -- this is not an external link haven. --Czj 07:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is one of the most useful pages when I was researching social network services. Unless this list gets merged with one of the social network/network-service articles, I think it should be kept as it's valuable information. 90.192.79.203 08:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A legitimate and sourced list. Honbicot 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. --real_decimic 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is extremely useful to Wikipedia; it provides a summary of verifiable information about notable articles which many people are interested in. Ashibaka (tock) 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely useful; provides an up-to-date list of projects in a very important industry. JiriDonat (tock) 9:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons above. Great resource for research. Milchama 16:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawal of deletion nomination consensus on Keep was established quickly, appears to have a fairly Good layout, better than most lists. I still believe this would be better served as a (self-maintaining) category, however, by watching edits to the article during this Afd, it apears to be maintaied well from the recent spam attempts. I believe that to be the most important aspect, and main reason for withdraw. keep it up!--Hu12 17:11, 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. Thanks to the author for clarifying the matter. Chick Bowen 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OggSync[edit]

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

Article was created by user with the name of the product, possible advertising -Painezor TC 04:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE -- Selmo (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the person who created the entry, I did just now read the guidelines and it notes that having the author do the article is discouraged, my appologies, I leave it to the judges here to note if OggSync is worthy of inclusion.
  • Delete - per Selmo in not satisfying WP:SOFTWARE. Luke! 07:44, 22 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 all to Ground Control II: Operation Exodus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Control II: Operation Exodus characters[edit]

(View AfD)

Up for deletion are character articles from the Ground Control II: Operation Exodus videogame. To begin with, these characters are already described at Ground_Control_II:_Operation_Exodus#Characters. Their individual pages include either speculative elaboration (see Dr. Alice Mcneal) or useless trivia (from Centurion Cezarus: "Age: Unknown, Weight: Unknown" etc.). Wikipedia is not a game guide, and it shouldn't be a repository of half-drafted cruft. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect all to Ground Control II: Operation Exodus: there's a couple of titbits of information which can be gleaned from these articles (eg the voice actor for each), but there's not encyclopedic content here to mean they each need their own article (insert references to WP:FICT as desired). --Pak21 08:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect any content which can be cited to an independent reliable source and delete the rest. Per Pak21. Pure articlespew. Unsourced original research, possible fanfiction. Edison 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect The voice actor information is useful and verifiable. The rest of it doesn't seem a huge loss if deleted. --Park70 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect only the citable encyclopedic content. Jerry lavoie 01:21, 26 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. Ms. Kidd is encouraged to marry 68.230.85.142. Chick Bowen 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Kidd[edit]

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

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non-notable per WP:BIO. Just about enough here to avoid a speedy delete via CSD A7 in my opinion. --Pak21 08:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only assertion of notability is being voted "best local news anchor in Arizona" in some uncited poll. Not good enough. Caknuck 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (borderline speedy) non-notable, only claim being "at or near the top of" some uncited poll, which smells very much like a mammal in the genus Mustela of the Mustelidae family... yandman 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn local anchor. Static Universe 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough.--Rudjek 20:59, 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 delete. Chick Bowen 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wgwag[edit]

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

Dictionary defintion for a neologism. There doesn't appear to be any coverage of this word or it's usage by reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Author removed prod without explanation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

  • Do you guys get your kicks deleting articles? Clearly, accuracy is important for an enyclopedia, but why wouldn't one want to have the broadest, most complete enyclopedia possible? Is it a bandwidth of webspace issue? I am just fundamentally confused - normatively - why articles like this, and the soccer league deleted by NeoChaos are excised. Perhaps you guys should edit encyclopedia while you're at it.Awesomdude 06:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment: I'm pretty sure you meant encyclopedia, but from someone that can't spell "awesome" I don't really have high all that high of expectations. While the rest of us are editing wikipedia, you may want to read a dictionary -- wtfunkymonkey 06:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I must say it is indeed a surprise to see an ad hominem from a mind lofty enough to conjure up a moniker as impressive as "wtfunkymonkey." I am sure you are considered a pun-pundit amongst your friends. It turns out, illustrious funkymonkey, that awesomedude is already registered. I am glad you were able to hone in on my typo. It was a significant contribution to this discussion. I rest assured knowing that wikipedia's content is edited by people of such magnanimity! Awesomdude 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEO. – This is a useful article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.206.231 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:NEO --- Tito Pao 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:NEO. Never heard of this acronym before.--Niohe 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism not meeting WP:NEO and as an article which exists to attack and ridicule a racial or ethnic group. Edison 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP stop the hate 75.55.177.247 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP (incase it wasn't officated by my comments above) 168.122.174.19 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for admitting your vote-stacking. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what vote-stacking means; but, if you're implying that I have created dummy accounts, you are sadly mistaken. My comment was simply trying to take part in what appears to be a roll call vote, given that I never explicitly forwarded a "Keep" / "Delete" position. Nice try, though. [Awesomdude]168.122.174.19 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 168.122.174.19 00:52, 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 go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, Afd is for the mainspace only. --- RockMFR 07:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Translation/Image:Chinese Pythagoras[edit]

It should be deleted because translation projects are not translating images. And even if translation projects allow the translation of images, nobody (probably not even university professors) could really interpret the meaning of those words because it was written at 222 AD (almost 2000 years ago). To put it in western perspective, you're analyzing something much older than Shakespeare's language and we all know that some words can't be translated nowadays in Shakespeare's plays. OhanaUnited 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is for mainspace articles. If you want to delete something in Wikipedia space, take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Or if you just object to the translation project, just post it on the talk page of that project. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:45, 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. Farewell, tubcat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tubcat[edit]

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

Another unverifiable "funny cat picture" article with no real assertion of notability and no coverage in reliable sources. The previous AfD in March 2006 was filled with !votes claiming that it's a "notable internet meme", without providing any sources to back the claim of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:N. WarpstarRider 05:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, that's one big kitty cat, and it's a cute kitty cat, so I'm biased to a keep, but for only the bias, I'd have to say Abstain. I will say this - the article shows potential for improvement, so someone would have to demonstrate some notability here. --Dennisthe2 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the notability of Tubcat cannot be supported with references, then this shouldn't exist. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - limecat would not be pleased ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiability, not truth. Feezo (Talk) 07:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Limecat is far superior in every way more "notable" than tubcat, and that was deleted (thus we have precedent to delete cat-related memes no matter how much WP:ILIKEIT). Obviously fails WP:V and other policies. --- RockMFR 07:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If Longcat, a more notable meme, can't have his own article, then neither should this one. Metrackle 08:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just one big joke; delete per nom. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 11:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no encyclopedic value andy 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And put the damn cat on a diet. Less than 1000 Ghits does not make a meme.Edison 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another of literally hundreds of funny/cute cat pictures people pass around on forums. Nowhere near WP:WEB, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves for having kept this last time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.--Rudjek 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too bad db-bio only applies to humans. Tubezone 13:17, 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 Delete. --Fang Aili talk 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modulate (band)[edit]

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

no assertion of notability per WP:BAND — Swpb talk contribs 05:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:BAND (even listing the small numbers of CDs released) and it looks like the author is not backing up his info with reliable sources, reviews, etc, so fails WP:V, and there's WP:COI on top. - IceCreamAntisocial 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BAND, conflict of interest. ShadowHalo 10:43, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Enigma Project[edit]

The Enigma Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

no assertion of notability per WP:BAND.

I am also nominating the following related page because this album does not assert notability beyond that of the band, which is itself not asserted:

Astronaut/Microcosm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Swpb talk contribs 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."
I believe the hour long radio show at BBC Radio Berkshire, and the numerous quotes about the band from numerous sources, including the NME all stated in the article, nullify and void your claims for deletion. --Scuzzmonkey 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band in question have been on the prime time show the session on BBC Radio Berkshire.

Is doing a UK TOUR from 28th March - 5th April in many venues from North to South of the UK

Album released on Napster/Itunes by Record label Automator records and was also stocked in HMV and Fopp stores nation wide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.67.151 (talk • contribs)

The band does not meet the touring criterion, as it has not actually happened yet, and the record label is not established as a major or an important minor label, so that criterion is not met either. Could the band's appearance on radio be characterized as the band being "the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast"? If not, that criterion is failed as well. — Swpb talk contribs 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also cite Special:Contributions/86.138.67.151 as indicative that 86.138.67.151 is a single-purpose editor. — Swpb talk contribs 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The band was broadcast out on the hour long BBC "The session" which has established bands on the show. Including bands like Biffy Clyro.
Been reviewed and fetureed in UK and USA magazines. Also been a feature in NME.
I state that Wikipedia is to provide knowledge and information for everyone to enjoy. During the UK tour the public of the UK will be searching the internet for information on this band. Is it such a big deal that Wikipedia get the internet traffic that it wants for the information that people want. This is what the service is all about
86.138.67.151 was myself who forgot to sign in
I state that more then one criterion has been met to and put across this article should not be deleted. Alexbeglincontribs 10:50, 19 January 2007 (GMT
  • I beg to differ, as more than one article has been edited using this account.Scuzzmonkey 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only thing I can garentee I know the most about. I find this rather pethetic that a user like myself tries to contribute to Wikipedia and gets put down constantly by somebody who seems to be nominating this article for deletion purley on the basis of pride and not for wikipedia represents. This band meets some of wikipedia's rules on Bands, I don't see why this is not the end of the matter— Alexbeglin talk contribs 18:28, 19 January 2007 (GMT)
There is no need to get personal. I have not insulted you in any way, I have only addressed your arguments. The matter is not settled because the article does not convincingly show that the criteria are met, no matter how sure you are that they are. There is no "pride" involved on my part, as I have no personal feelings about this band, though you, as the band's manager, have a definate Conflict of interest. Considering the edit history of a user as a way to put their comments on an AfD in context is a perfectly acceptable and well-established practice on Wikipedia; users who have edited numerous articles in different subject areas show a dedication to the project, rather than just to their particular cause. — Swpb talk contribs 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cite No Personal Attacks as a source that Swpb has attempted to disregard Alexbeglin's view due to his affiliations with the band whom this article is associated with, as stated within the policy, and I quote;
There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: [...]
  • Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.--Scuzzmonkey 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI is perfectly legitimate and is the applicable guideline here. Attacking a contributor based on ideological or political affiliations is one thing - pointing out a distinct conflict of interest is something else entirely. I have not said that this discredits any user's opinion, so your quotation is not applicable - but I stand by drawing the conflict-of-interest to the attention of anyone who reads this discussion. I am very familiar with the letter and the spirit of the policies, I think I adhere to them very well, and I don't find your attempts to make them apply against me to be very constructive. — Swpb talk contribs 05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in WP:COI
  • conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is.
The notability of this article has already been proven, as I have stated above, and below, but shall get repeated again, the hour long radio show at BBC Radio Berkshire, and the numerous quotes about the band from numerous sources, including the NME all stated in the article, are proof of this notability.--Scuzzmonkey 10:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, not as the article creator, but the major contributer to a vast majority of the information supplied on the page believe that reasons stated above by Alexbeglin are both valid and indeed very good reasons as to why the article should not be met with deletion. The hour long radio, as well as the upcoming tour, plus the reviews by several magazines and a mention in the NME all qualify this article about The Enigma Project to stay, and not be deleted. Scuzzmonkey 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I cite Conflict of interest. as source of this face by arguing that Swpb has a conflict of interest between personal issues regarding the deletion of this artical and the facts that stand for this artical. The facts have been proven to how this artical has met the requirments regarding bands WP:BAND. (As proven at the top of this discussion by Scuzzmonkey. alexbeglin 01:34, 21 January 2007 (GMT)

I have followed the progress of The Enigma Project for a considerable length of time now. It is true that at the time of creation, this article did not meet the required criterion. However, as it currently stands the BBC Has articles on their website regarding the band Enigma Project BBC Article exhibit A Enigma Project BBC Article Exhibit B. This thus means the band has at least met the criterion for a verifyable article by a notable company, and hence, the band's notability is confirmed as it has met one of the criterion, which is all that is required according to WP:BAND. Furthermore, Itunes (on which The Enigma Project's work can be found) is significantly notable- could this be counted as a label of production? Finally The broadcast 1 hour long on the BBC Berkshire mainstream radio confirms this band's notability. Therefore, I feel that this article no longer qualifies for deletion under Wikipedia's policy, as any artist must only meet ONE of the criterion listed on the link given earlier- as such I would move that this discussion is closed? Phil 10:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that motion--Scuzzmonkey 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this isn't Parliament, and you don't make motions, you wait for an administator. Secondly, stop twisting my words. I didn't use WP:COI as a reason to delete, I raised it as a valid factor potentially affecting editors' motivations. Thirdly, isolated quotes do not constitute non-trivial coverage, full articles do. And fourthly, still no one has explained whether the band was the subject of the entire hour broadcast, or merely appeared on a brief portion of it, which I believe would definately not meet the criterion. — Swpb talk contribs 17:26, 21 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, — Swpb talk contribs 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failure of WP:MUSIC. Band manager should not be involved in writing articles about his own band - that's self-publicity and an obvious conflict of interest. Read WP:NPOV. Walton monarchist89 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would research into the show in question on BBC radio Berkshire you will find that bands are the feature of the show. They are subject to an hour long show being interviewed and even playing live on the shows. They played two songs on the show and interviewed for at least 45 mins. This means an hour long broadcast purley on this band. More information about the show can be found on http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/the_session/index.shtml. Also all users can find Wikipedias rules on deletion and all users can see that after 5 days administrators make their decisions. It is clearly stated at the top of the main article. There is no need to explain this and patronise other users. I find again a personal Conflict of interest into the deletion of this artical. — alexbeglin talk contribs 17:43, 21 January 2007 (GMT)
I am not the band manager, I am just someone who goes to all thier shows because of my interest in thier music. I said I was to try and convince wikipedia that the facts are true as sometimes facts can not be backed up by things on the internet. A perosn by the name of Alex is the manager and part of T.N.T music http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=87532714 I herby retract the statement of the band manager above and have deleted it. - alexbeglin talk contribs 17:53, 21 January 2007 (GMT)
I apologise, I meant no offense and must have misunderstood your comments above. Nor did I mean to patronise anyone. Walton monarchist89 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was directed to a different user SWPB not you. You did not cause offence nor did you patronise in any way. The comment was not directed to you. I respect your opinion with your previous band manager comment. However I am not band manager but understand that if I was it would be a conflict of interest. Please note to all users reading this discussion I am not band manager.alexbeglin 19:09, 21 January 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep: Regarding Swpb's comment about isolated quotes, the quote from Josaka is infact referenced, and the full article is availible by the link provided at the bottom of the article, or by clicking here. Also the feature article regarding them on the BBC, which can be read by clicking here. Those are two articles from different sources, on top of the other quotes, on top of the hour long radio programme. There surely cannot be any reason to delete the article, as more than one criteria stated in the WP:BAND (which is the orginal reason this page was submitted for deletion) has been met. I therefore cannot understand why this discussion needs to be continued, and if you (Swpb) could explain why it would be much appreciated. (the previous statement is not meant to be read in a sarcastic or patronising way, if that is how it came across, then I apoligise.)--Scuzzmonkey 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Also even though BBC Berkshire is a "local" radio station, as it is part of the BBC it can be listened to internationally via the internet by clicking here. As such, it reaches a far greater amount of people than standard local radio, and as such is notable. The cited articles on the BBC are notable due to the fact the BBC actually had to approach the band and ask if they could feature them on the website, thus proving the BBC must know about the band, and thus they are notable. --Scuzzmonkey 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MUSIC, and also WP:COI as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have already stated above as to why WP:MUSIC is not a valid reason for deletion, and the WP:COI is possible to only 1 person, I myself have no connection to the band, as manager/roadie or any other position.--Scuzzmonkey 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI State that the users comment Andrew Lenahanshould be disregarded as this user has just repeated what others have stated without looking at evidence from above. I also state this user has not given any reasons to why it violates certain rules. alexbeglin 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of anyone reading this page, The preceding post was made by user 86.138.67.151, but signed as alexbeglin. I believe this indicates that the two editors are one and the same, and should be treated as a single user for the purposes of this AfD. — Swpb talk contribs 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be stated that this was confirmed earlier, by Alexbeglin himself.--Scuzzmonkey 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails every part of WP:MUSIC except the radio broad cast. However their '1hour show' wasn't on BBC radio nationaly it was BBC berkshire local radio only, thus it fails as it wasn't a national broadcast. Both 'cited' BBC articles are under 'berkshire local bands', therefore they are trivial. So there are no non trivial and notable sources of information at all, and nothing that passes WP:MUSIC. Josaka site is non notable.--155.144.251.120 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly user Swpb is finding stupid things to attack me on to try and back up his claims. I CLEARLY stated above that ip address was me that I forgot to sign in, and I just forgot to sign in this time again but still signed, but yet you seem to feel you need to mention this. In response to the above comment .--155.144.251.120 I cite that this user is a single purpose account as has not signed in OR signed. I find his arguments are NOT BACKED up with proof at all and move that they should be ignored . — alexbeglin talk contribs 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly its not a single account it has a history, secondly it was me just not loggin in. Thirdly the 'proof' is in the articles you linked to, as said the mentions on BBC were not national and were local only and so there is no proof from you or anyoneelse that it passes WP:MUSIC DELETE--Dacium 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck second vote, user voted above. I have struck the second, rather than the first as alexbeglin had done, because it just makes sense - the first is formatted in the standard way, and the second is in response to a reply to the first. Frankly, whatever administrator reads over this is not likely to be confused by this so-called "double vote", but I have struck it through all the same, in the futile effort to keep alexbeglin happy. — Swpb talk contribs 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me that seemed to be a rather personal attack Swpb as regarding to "keep alexbeglin happy". He is just after all attempting to stop an article, that he and others believe to be satisfying criteria stated by Wiki's Policies, being removed. It also seems (to me) that you are attempting to discredit his opinions by insinuating that he has lost his temper or started attacking other users, when it seems to me, the only user that is personally attacking over users is in fact yourself. (Again, the previous is only how I see it, and I apoligise if it has been read in a way that is different to anything other than an insight)--Scuzzmonkey 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BAND as it stands, potential to pass in future, so everybody just chill and hang out until they do. Very disappointing continued personal attacks on the nominator and other editors. Advice: don't sour people who might be inclined to support you if you behaved. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Soltak | Talk 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alexbeglin Talk 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Josaka is non notable. BBC articles are only local to berkshire and not national and therefore not notable to WP:MUSIC standard, as has been pointed out twice already.--Dacium 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the articles suggest there may be some notability here, but I'd be happier to see an album on a known label before keeping. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Moved upto my original vote, due to actually making more sense there. If this is against policy then I apoligise.
Struck through multiple !vote. One opinion per person, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Dacium has voted twice above as he claims it was him who signed the first one. Have struck threw his 1st vote vote. alexbeglin (arf!) 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most people are saying it is a weak delete because it is very close to meeting criteria. Well the band are doing there UK TOUR in the next 2 months, and it does seem rather silly to delete this and then within 8 weeks having to spend hours remaking the page. This is one of the reasons plus many of my other arguments why i am not backing down from my previous vote of KEEP. alexbeglin (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one needs you to back down. But your opinion has been thoroughly expressed, and at this point you're not accomplishing much but giving the admins more to scroll through. Feel free to keep commenting and complaining about people attacking you, but be aware that you're probably hurting your argument more than helping it. — Swpb talk contribs 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BAND. If they're almost on the borderline, well, then wait until they pass it and then recreate the article. Wiki is not paper -- it's exceedingly easy to recreate content once its topic becomes notable according to our applicable criteria. —ptk✰fgs 03:36, 24 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. --Fang Aili talk 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Escape[edit]

Hitler's Escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable book, published by vanity press (Athena Press), by author without other books, gets 17 distinct Google hits[39], mainly from the homepage and from online sellers like Amazon and BarnesandNoble (who both sell everything and are no indication of notability). Non notable, no WP:V independent sources about the book. Fram 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Confused comment: if it is listed on Amazon then it DOES meet WP:V. It is verifiable. It may not be referenced (but that's not a reason to delete). As to notability, I've no idea, so I'll abstain.--Docg 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an unusual interpretation of WP:V... Are there any WP:V sources about the book? Reviews? Interviews with the author about the book? Articles about the controversy it may have created? Scientific articles referring to it? Are there any WP:V sources indicating the notability of the book? It is verified as far as its existence goes, but that has never, as far as I have been aware, been the interpretation of WP:V used (otherwise, almost every conceivable article would fulfill the core policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR). What arguments would you use for articles for which there is no specific accepted notability guideline? Note that Wikipedia:Notability (books) is only a proposed guideline. What argument would you use to support the deletion of such a clearly non-notable book, if someone would argue that it fits WP:V (per Amazon), WP:OR and WP:NPOV, doesn't fall in any clear WP:NOT category, and there is no accepted guideline on its notability? Or would you argue that in that case, we have to keep it? No, this book does not meet WP:V in the normal sense of reliable independent sources about the book, which Amazon (and Barnes and Noble and so on) are not. Fram 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is really quite simple. And it has always been policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability. Amazon IS a reliable source for the book's existence. (They don't sell non-existent books.) So the existence of the subject of the article is verifiABLE and indeed VerifiED. However, Amazon inclusion is not evidence of notability, so WP:N is not satisfied by that - although a very high Amazon ranking might be. Further, as the details in an Amazon listing may be supplied by the author - Amazon listings are not WP:RS for details. So there may well be reason to delete. But, the existence of the book is verified, so Verifiability is not a reason to delete. The debate is over notability and whether we can say anything reliable about it, not about verifiability. (OH, on that basis delete by the way) --Docg 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment/Question I'm not contesting the existence of this book, but I'm pretty sure being listed on Amazon doesn't actually verify that a book exists. Wasn't there a hoax book that somebody made an Amazon listing for in an attempt to keep it on Wikipedia? I wish I could remember the title... GassyGuy 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just to reply, even if you assume that Amazon included a hoax on one occasion, that doesn't alter its overall reliability as a source for verifying the existence of a book, its author, its publisher and other basic data. Major news organizations sometimes report misinformation or are fooled by hoaxes, but those imperfections don't make them any less reliable in the aggregate and so we continue to use those as references as well. Dugwiki 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • YEAH. I remember that too. It was called "Trout". Here's the discussion: Brent Henry Waddington. Wavy G 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, I wasn't arguing that it is a hoax, I agree that Amazon is a WP:V source for its existence (and verifiable does not necessarily mean true, so hoaxes on Amazon are covered :-) ). It may be due to a poorer grasp of English on my part, but when I said in the nomination that there are no WP:V sources about the book, I intended (by using "about") sources giving any verifiable information beyond the basic existance (beyond the directory listing Amazon essentially is). Sources giving background information, showing the notability. So, yes, like most AfD discussions, it is about notability, but that has to be shown by using WP:V sources or the lack thereof, no? Anyway, this is more a semantic discussion, I think we basically all agree, but the use of the WP abbreviations differs a bit. Fram 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BK GabrielF 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability criteria, and blurs the line between fact and fiction. yandman 09:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep Could do with some cleanup and/or expansion if it stays. --John24601 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you keep it? What makes it notable? What sources would you use to expand it? Fram 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the book nor do I know anything about it, but I'm inclined to think that if this were a bigger, more established article, then we would be trying to save it. The fact that nobody has expanded it yet doesn't necessarily make it a candidate for deletion, however conversely it is of no use in its present form. If nobody comes forward to establish notability or attempt to expand the article in, say, 3 months, then at that point I think we could reasonably assume that it's not notable enough for anybody to be interested in. I realise this is a rather weak argument, which is why I'm so tentative, and the more I type the more I'm considering changing my opinion to delete....! --John24601 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: mere existence may be verifiable (although Amazon are far from infallible) but that doesn't justify an article per WP:N, or allow one per WP:V. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:41, 23 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 for delete, though there seems to be a growing consensus for possibly merging all into one article. Please discuss that on the article talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affluence (KCR)[edit]

Affluence (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Butterfly (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chestwood (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Choy Yee Bridge (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chung Fu (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chung Uk Tsuen (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fung Nin Road (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fung Tei (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ginza (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goodview Garden (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hang Mei Tsuen (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ho Fuk Tong (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ho Tin (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hung Shui Kiu (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kei Lun (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kin On (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kin Sang (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lam Tei (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leung King (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Locwood (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LRT Depot (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lung Mun (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Melody Garden (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ming Kum (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nai Wai (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ngan Wai (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On Ting (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ping Shan (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prime View (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pui To (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sam Shing (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Hui (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Wai (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shan King North (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shan King South (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shek Pai (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shui Pin Wai (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siu Hei (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siu Lun (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tai Hing North (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tai Hing South (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tai Tong Road (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Fu (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Heng (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin King (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Sau (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Shui (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Tsz (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Wing (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Wu (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Yat (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Yiu (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tin Yuet (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tong Fong (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Town Centre (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tsing Chung (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tsing Shan Tsuen (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tsing Wun (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tuen Mun Swimming Pool (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wetland Park (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yau Oi (KCR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Batch nomination of all the above transport stubs I stumbled across. These were mostly created in January 2005. These are light rail stops, and are only a little more noticeable than bus stops. These are a pretty indiscriminate articles, most of them contain not much more info than "[Station] is a station on Hong Kong's KCR Light Rail. It belongs to Zone [zone] for single-ride ticket. This station consists of [number of] platforms, and is situated on [road 1] near to its junction with [road 2], and serves [placename]. Routes : [route number] [start point] to [destination]". Also, most of these names are made up by KCR and do not correspond to any recognised districts which would allow us to merge per WP:LOCAL. I do not feel they are encylopaedic, as none of them have any sources to show how/why they may pass WP:N. Wikipedia whould be better served by improvements to KCR Light Rail and/or List of Hong Kong KCR stations. Furthermore, wikipedia is not a travel guide. Delete. Ohconfucius 06:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nomination, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An admirable attempt, but far too specific to meet notability requirements. wtfunkymonkey 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is there any difference between these articles and stuff like Category:Yellow Line (Washington Metro) or Category:Railway stations in Glasgow? We have a long history of keeping this sort of "indiscriminate" collection of information, and besides for the length of the articles, I'm not seeing any difference between transport articles of the US/UK and the ones nominated here (besides for the obvious - there is little chance that any editors on the English wiki care enough to write anything substantial about rail stops in Hong Kong). --- RockMFR 07:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should note that the two categories I picked were not at random - the Washington Metro cat contains lots of articles that would be easy to source, and the Glasgow cat contains Jordanhill railway station (the millionth article), along with a bunch of other stations nobody would normally give a damn about. --- RockMFR 07:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that rail fandom seems to know no bounds. ;-) Ohconfucius 07:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. There's no Transit Wiki at this time, which would be more appropriate - but Wikipedia is not the proper home, nor is it a way point for it. --Dennisthe2 07:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with hearty kudos to Ohconfucius for taking the time and effort to clean up this travelcruft. Eusebeus 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A number of templates exist that are primarily or solely used by these pages: {{KCRCStations}}, for a start, not to mention all of Cat:Hong Kong rail succession templates (and others). Keep in mind if this goes through. –Unint 09:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - no need to loose the info. Boring but not unverifiable.--Docg 09:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, I don't see the point of having such articles in an encyclopedia. Thanks to OhConfucius for the good work he does in removing lots of crufty articles... Fram 10:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Doc glasgow. Verifiable (well, in Chinese anyway, and in English as well when we have people who can translate form Chinese) by looking at the light rail map. Light rail stations are about as stable, permanent and notable as subway stations. But articles which only say "X is a station on Y line between X-1 station and X+1 station" don't merit separate articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My sentiments exactly. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said that WP:V was not at issue. Ohconfucius 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per other users' comments.--Hadžija 17:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Sjakkalle is correct in noting that light rail stops are far more notable then bus stops, because the route of the later can easily be changed while light rail lines require permanent infrastructure and (usually) platforms. However, these stops are far less significant(and often more frequent) then regular railway stations, and thus could be more efficiently combined article absent the development of further information in individual articles. Thus, as an alternative, I would support a "Merge all." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danntm (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete all This set of articles offers the same info in a less useful form than could be obtained from the source transit authority at [40], and such a spew of articles becomes instantly stale and out of date. Transit systems are subject to change, and there is no mechanism to detect when a platform is taken out of service or added. A transportation network is better represented by the transit system's own map, timetable, and fare guide than by a Wikipedia copy in the form of a linked set of articles. The individual stops of a light rail system are not much more notable than an equivalent set of bus stops. There is no automatic gimme just because someone chooses to make articles about them. None of them appear to have been the subject of multiple independent, verifiable and reliable sources, because they just are not that notable. Edison 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOT. I wouldn't necessarily object to merging these all into one big list either, although finding reliable sources might be a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. No problem with articles of this sort. Fg2 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If these get deleted then I think thousands of articles will have to. There are articles for almost every train station in existance. having said that all of them fail to be notible so I would tend towards delete.--Dacium 07:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All if they are equivalent to metros or train stations. Delete if they're buses. Metro/train stations are notable, I would hate for the London Underground stations to be deleted given that I use those articles as a reader frequently including the Docklands Light Rail. MLA 11:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Please take a look in Chinese station articles. If anyone agree, I could do my best to provide extra information in the Chinese Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia articles. I hope Wikipedia could improve by providing more information, not by deleting more articles.Peterwhy 08:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have linked up some of the chinese articles to the english ones, but am finding that these contain very similar bits of info to each other. You may have to look elsewhere for more information to add. Many of the stops are named after housing estates which, are not notable by default per previous discussions. I would venture this was a best case merge per WP:LOCAL, meaning we would have articles for said non-notable housing estates by extension of that logic. However, I am meeting some resistance with that course of action. Ohconfucius 09:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per my previous comments, Sjakkalle's comments, and prior precedent for other stations. Of course, keep can be interpreted as merge if the editors of the articles care to do so. --- RockMFR 16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Rail stations are notable and WP precendent agrees with that. These aren't bus stops. --Oakshade 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They are bit of a hybrid, and precedence seems to indicate default non-notability of bus stops. Light rail stations are only slightly more than bus stops, with an elevated platform, shelter, and no formal access controls. Unlike the Docklands Light Rail, this system serves what could be considered "semi-urban areas", linking 3 of the more densely populated centres in the New Territories. As already mentioned, some of the "stations" take their names from housing estates which they serve, and so many of the place names (Affluence, Butterfly Goodview Garden, etc) which are not recognised as districts. Ohconfucius 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Light rail stations are distinguishable from bus stops because light rails stations can not be as readily changed. However, what troubles me is that "light rail" is a nebulous classification, that can range from grade-separated, third rail powered lines with high level platforms, like the Docklands Light Rail and Norristown High Speed Line, serving only semi-urban line, to tram lines running down city streets.-- danntm T C 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge all. Just don't see any encyclopedic value. --Fang Aili talk 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge all. This may be satisfactory as a list, but not as individual articles. -- Donald Albury 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per other users comments. Jerry lavoie 01:23, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Black (politician)[edit]

David Black (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

doesn't meet notability standards for elected officials adavidw 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Local politicians, in particular council members, do not receive the widespread media scrutiny of nationally elected politicians. While mayors may receive plenty of attention in local press and attain notability by virtue of that, only particularily active or notorious city council members do that. In this case I cannot find any significant independent media coverage so WP:BIO standards are not met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Sjakkalle. There's pretty clear consensus about this. Eusebeus 08:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability (being a member of a city council is not notable). yandman 09:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Sjakkalle. --Scimitar 20:36, 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 speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

180 Phoenix Band[edit]

180 Phoenix Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

non-notable by wikipedia standards adavidw 06:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Band local to Phoenix area, does not appear to fulfill any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 06:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP standard for bands. Eusebeus 08:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy deletion, no assertion of notability. I can't seem to find the article in which Jesus says they're spreading his word. Does he write for the Guardian or the Times? yandman 09:48, 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 delete by Kinu (CSD A1/A7). --- RockMFR 08:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhona McCluskey[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The First Doll 06:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. I'd go with a G1 (nonsense) myself, but somebody tagged with an A1 (nocontext). I'm not about to pick nits, close enough. --Dennisthe2 07:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Just a kid having some fun at wiki's expense. Speedy per {{db-bio}}. Ohconfucius 07:39, 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; it's a tough one here, but due to the fact the article was referenced and improved since the nomination, there seems to be a rough consensus to keep that article. Yuser31415 20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown people[edit]

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

Well I think that this should be quite obvious. There is no academic source or scholar who attests to the existence of this mythical "Brown people", a term with racist connotations. Many Middle-Easterners, Pakistanis and Indians are varied in skin-tone, and can range from Caucasoid to Mongoloid in ethnicity. Looks like a WP:NEO violation, at best, Neo-Nazi/far-right propaganda at worst. It would not be so bad if the article were sourced reliably and had some kind of academic context instead of just a couple of sentences. However, I do not think that such a thing is possible. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it can be sourced. --- RockMFR 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. "Brown person" can be used without negative racial connotation, but the page as it stands isn't what we need. Marskell 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a POV fork of race that tries to define the term simply by the amount of skin melanin, as defined in the article, would include nearly everyone who's not albino or of pure African tribal lineage. Tubezone 08:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sounds very POVish and as with all of these things has to rely on original research in the absence of any sources and references. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per complete rewrite today by Uncle G. The term "Brown race" may not be valid today, but it was historically used by scientists along with yellow, white, red, etc. Wikipedia allows articles about discredited or obsolete scientific theories, and this article is now well referenced, and is of historic importance. Edison 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are all brown, blacks are really dark brown etc yet there are clear concepts of whitye and black people but not of brown people, SqueakBox 00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Silly, unsourced, and offensive.futurebird 00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and eye on this, it has sources but it will be a target for all kinds of racist vandalism, I fear. futurebird 20:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison. I advise others to look at UncleG's rewrite. Zagalejo 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it looks as if it had been fixed. It has many refernces, and seems to be writtem mostly from NPOV. It also mentions that no people are actually brown with a refernce. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a well-sourced, description of the relevant outdated concept, see [[41]]; if that's what we're talking about, it doesn't need a new page with Blumenbach's alternate term.--Carwil 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is now a well-sourced article on the notable historical concept. --Charlene 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Charlene. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that sources are provided. --- RockMFR 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has totally been rewritten during AfD to satisfy WP guidelines. It should be noted that all comments prior to Edison's are now limited in relevance since they could not have had the current text in mind when deciding. It would also behoove the AfD submitter to reconsider in light of the total recreation of the article. ju66l3r 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What utter offensive rubbish. Since when have you, Ju6613, had the right to speak for other editors? Please strikle your arrogant remarks, SqueakBox 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What arrogant remarks? I thought most people are saying it should be kept. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I'm not speaking for anyone else. I'm pointing out that the article has been completely rewritten since the timepoint of AfD submission through just prior to Edison's remarks. That needed to be explicitly stated for the reviewing administrator because the arguments given for deletion prior to Edison's addition to the discussion are based on different content entirely (and should therefore be re-timestamped to show that they acknowledge and maintain their opinion of the article as it stands now, otherwise their comments are irrelevant to the AfD discussion of the current version of the article). The submission is also based on different content entirely and therefore the submitting editor should reconsider their submission. Whether they reconsider and feel it still does not meet the inclusion criteria is up to them, but it is something they should have to deal with as opposed to ignore entirely. There is nothing in what I said before or how I clarify it now that is said out of arrogance or speaking for anyone else. ju66l3r 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no obviously offensive remark there, no "Interpret all deletes as keeps". It merely reflects fact- admins should (and probably would) not change those opinions but discount most of them altogether, or at least treat them as being of minimal weight. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a democracy. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its offensive to ask an admin to ignore the comments of those one doesnt agree with. The admin should ignore Ju's comments on other users intentions and focus on the votes. Both Carwil and I still think it is a rascist article that needs deleting and for anyone to claim that other voters who voted delete dont think that is clearly trying to affect the vote in a negative and entirely spurious way. Its not for Ju to decide that delete means keep, nor anyone else. To ignore the delete votes would be little more than trolling and I trust that no admin will do so, SqueakBox 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion about the text of the article (regardless of whether the discussion signifies keep or delete) prior to Uncle G's rewrite of the article in its entirety are not applicable to Uncle G's contribution to the article. Is that not clear to you? The only part of the article that remained the same between the edit just prior to Uncle G's involvement and the current text is the title. The nomination even states that "academic context" would mitigate the need for deletion. You are continuing to falsely characterize my statements because in no way have I said "delete means keep", nor have I said "ignore the delete votes". Finally, I'd like to say that it is possible to discuss race without inherently being rascist or violating WP:NPOV. There are numerous academic fields based upon race and the approaches taken to studying race are encyclopedic. ju66l3r 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope you will respect the delete of all users who wrote delete. Of course we can discuss race without being rascist. IMO Uncle G's contributions are to be lamented, he turned a troll bait article into something wikipedia might be stuck with (7-5 in favour of delete right now) even though the article is so full of holes (eg it says brown people dont exist, so why if that is the case is this article being used to justify anything other than its own deletion). In terms of watching comments (your edit summary) that is exactly what I am asking you to do and not to dismiss the delete of any users as you have asked for, so taking some of your own advice would perhaps be a good idea, SqueakBox 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they based their discussion on sound guidelines and the current text, then I give their comments due credit. If they are based on a different text entirely, then the responses need to be updated. If an article meets the guidelines then Wikipedia is better for having it. The article discusses a term of historical significance. At one point the term was used to classify people in an anthropological system based on skin color. Furthermore, there are still references in more modern situations (as also written in the article). Articles are frequently started for many wrong reasons but concern notable topics (e.g., if a "Paula Abdul" article is created saying Paula Abdul eats goats., then it should be rewritten to discuss a notable entertainer and abide by WP:BIO and WP:BLP). There are articles about concepts that have little or no place in today's society (like Phrenology) but are notable and historical concepts which makes them encyclopedic. Unless the article violates a guideline, then I'm not sure why it would require deletion. Can you point to the guideline(s) that the current text violates? ju66l3r 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well people are still voting delete. The text itself says it is at best a shoddy concept and at worst there is no such thing. The fact that one new person has called for delete and I continue to do so is the clearest possible indication that the other editors won have changed their minds either. IMO this article was writen as troll bait and I am sure the person who wrote it is having a laugh at our expense. I also think in rewriting it Uncle G has damaged the reputation of wikipedia and has done more harm than good, SqueakBox 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete -- There's no central underlying concept here that has an encyclopedic meaning. As the article now says, "Historically, the appellation "brown people" has been applied by various people to a wide range of disparate, and disconnected, groups of people." Throw all the referenced material to Color metaphors for race. I think we should be really hesitant to reify prejudicial and racist concepts, starting with Blumenbach's categories, but extending from there. If racists call people brown, ignore it. If notable racist systems call them brown, put them in the relevant articles (Blumenbach, Neo-Nazism, etc.). At most, though I think this is worse than just dropping the page, disambiguate to relevant articles (Colored (South Africa), Malay, Latino). Note that quick google search suggests that Brown people is used as a racist term most frequently.--Carwil 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article that claimed all Mexicans were brown is hardly high quality encycloepdic material, SqueakBox 17:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are not reading the article. The only point in the article's history where it came even close to saying that was when Falconleaf (talk · contribs) added "Latino" to the five-colour system. I checked the sources, found no support for that addition, and removed it. As also explained to you on the talk page, the article does say something quite different, which is that some people refer to Mexican Americans as brown people. It then proceeds to characterize the debate over that appellation (as documented in the cited source). I strongly suggest that you read the article properly. Uncle G 18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in whom are doing the referring but in whom is being referred to. When I point out not all Mexicans are brown you delete it. Is iot cos you want to perpetuate the rascist stereotype that Mexicans are brown? SqueakBox 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please see WP:AGF and assume I have read it, trying to defend yuor poor editing by attacking me as not having read the article isnt so far from trolling, SqueakBox 18:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Continuing to insinuate that everyone who does not agree with you is motivated by "trolling" is not an assumption of good faith and is not a civil way to carry out discussion. ju66l3r 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everyone, just you and Uncle G, though the real troll here is User:Maleabroad, some sensible person blocked him and this article ahould be speedied too, SqueakBox 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No particular encyclopedic value, prone to racist generalisations. --Asteriontalk 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per re-write/wangi 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep following Uncle G's rewrite. Folks, Uncle G rarely bothers to put in this amount of work unless the subject is worth it. Several people seem to be reading a different article from the one I read, which is well written and well referenced (as usual for this editor). You disagree with the term? Irrelevant. It's documented in multiple sources over a significant period. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is such a commonly used term that I'm amazed it wasn't already an article.--DarkTea 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-written in this last re-write. Encyclopedic, historical, and cited. Provides context for the reader that is of value. Jerry lavoie 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unencyclopædic term (the clue lies in its absence from other encyclopædias or relevant anthropological reference works). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? ju66l3r 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're confusing the use of a phrase as a term of art, to name an accepted concept, with the combination of two words in passing. You coukd do a search on a phrase like "the theist may choose" or "difficult journey", and find hundreds of thousands of books that use them — but they're not worthy of articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Brown is used by Mexican people. Brown is used by Desis. Who is the real brown? UPS? Let's get rid of this anomaly.Bakaman 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brown is used by Mexican people It is? There is no exact equivalent in the Spanish language for the English word brown, only words describing various shades of brown. The Native American people of the US, some of which are of the same lineage (Uto-Aztecan, for example) as many native Mexicans, are often described in English as.. redskins. Should we have an article on "red people"? Of course not, that's covered by articles about Native Americans, a "red people" article would be equally silly and redundant as this article is. Minus things that ought to be moved to other articles, what's left are dicdefs of several definitions of "brown people". This will be kept by "no consensus" and by "administrative courtesy", no matter what arguments go on here, since Unca G is an admin, but that's my pinche cinco centavos worth of opinion. Tubezone 09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My status should not be used to determine the disposition of this article. Please consider the article in light of its content, the sources that discuss brown people (which I recommend that editors read, so that they make informed choices), and our verifiability, no original research, and deletion policies. Uncle G 11:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except we do have a redpeople article: Redskin (slang). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is cited. And lots of new material can be added into this article. Counter arguments can be made within the article instead of deleting the whole thing. Lukas19 01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article tries to be neutral and objective, but comes up short. With such a subjective and culturally sensitive topic it should be more accurate. For example, being "brown" has nothing to do with being Hispanic. Parts of this article appear to be written by very ignorant people and as such it is unencyclopedic. Deepstratagem 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite. Somewhat of a troll magnet, but as of now this article is worthy of inclusion. People are conflating what "brown people" actually are - almost impossible to describe - with what the article actually details, which is how the term "brown people" has been used throughout history. This is an error. Moreschi Deletion! 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite, original nomination and early delete votes are based on a much earlier and weaker version of the article. Killroy4 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)— Killroy4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - unredeemably POV. Also violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) - WeniWidiWiki 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Well, why cant there be a brown race? There is a Yellow race, but East Asians dont look yellow, why dont they go under white? Some are very pale yet they are called yellow. Now I dont say that in a racist way, in fact I am Hispanic/Latino and I beleive there is a Brown Race, im darker than White people but not as dark as Black people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.44.93 (talk • contribs)
    • Please note the point isn't to recognize or deny a brown race but to discuss pre-existing recognition, refutations or discussions. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute?
  • Keep Though the subject matter is distasteful, and it is going to remain a POV and vandalism target, the article is sourced and meets with policy. /Blaxthos 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep At the very least, there is a strong historical (and encyclopedic) note to be kept on the term as used by Enlightment thinkers and early refrences like On the Natural Variety of Mankind. The rewrite seems close to this context, or at the very least more well-founded and better written. You may take the term to be antequated or ultimately flawed, but the term certainly existed and was used as a point in time. Even if I personally wouldn't recommend the usage of a term currently, that doesn't retcon the historical usage. (In fact, if verifiable, a section on the decline in usage of the term or possible modern offensiveness would be entirely appropriate.) Bitnine 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (As a slightly off-topic expansion of that, to be honest there have been a couple of times that I've been researching for a paper and come across usage of a term that I found questionable. To be perfectly frank, it may have raised for me a question close to: "Huh, was this author a racist douchebag?" But in such cases, I try to research any historical usage of such terms such that I may well later say, "Ooooh, that was a legitimate term for such things back then. Huh.") Bitnine 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is, Blumenbach et al. were in fact racist douchebags, building a "scientific" system in large part to reinforce their underlying prejudices. (See the chapter on Blumenbach in S.J. Gould's Mismeasure of Man) --Carwil 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case (I must admit to not being familiar with Blumenbach in particular), I would tend to think that citations and referencing in the proper context with a NPOV is a screen enough. In any event, I'd much rather judge Blumenbach to be a douchebag because of a knowledge of his beliefs and reasoning, not a lack thereof or impromper connotation of terms. Various articles discuss distasteful things in a (hopefully) neutral fashion, so long as they meet the standards for notability. I'd would certainly trust that editors such as yourself would be watchful about such articles spreading a POV even through their subtext; that is definitely something to be mindful of and remove. Bitnine 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To everyone who's said the delete's aren't based on reading the new article; let me be clear I've read it (and the new, new one). But:
  • Most importantly, none of the users described in the article use "Brown people" as a primary description of their concept. If the encyclopedia is about concepts and not words, "brown people" doesn't rise to the occasion. Contra the article, it is neither a political nor an ethnic nor a cultural classification.
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a concordance. So if Reds refer to American Indians, Russian communists, Cincinnati professional baseball players, and British colonial soldiers in North America, (plus, hypothetically Sitting Bull would prefer to be called "copper-colored") the word itself doesn't need a page.
  • The outdated, racist and pseudoscientific nature of the anthropological writings involved are best addressed on single pages about their theories (Blumenbach, Race (historical definitions), Color metaphors for race). If, and only if, these pages need to be split, then let them have their own sections.
  • The "race scientists" don't use brown people as a central concept, but rather Australoid or Malayan race. Brown is an add-on descriptor, not the central concept. Using it to link to anyone who's called their collective group of people brown (and contra the article, lots of people have brown skin) to these terms stretches the page into two unrelated concepts, and (this may be what's most important to those of us writing about the racism involved) gives legitimacy to very problematic concepts.
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) suggests: "Avoid outdated terms when describing people. For example, Asian is preferred over Oriental." So, retconning is indeed appropriate.--Carwil 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, are you sure about that application of the naming conventions? That would certainly apply to the term as used in an article about people from that particular region, however, not to an article about the term itself. In the latter case, the term is not being used to describe people, rather the term itself and past usages are described. I suppose you could try and fold the term into the pages of all of the Enlightenment era authors that used it, but that seems a little off as a reason behind an AfD to me. Bitnine 23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete largely per Carwil, above. Many sources are cited, but the individual facts are of no interest. It is the assembly of the disparate pieces into a single article, where there is no RS saying that this is one topic, it is the construction of this article itself, the overall synthesis, that is Original Research. Jd2718 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are reliable sources saying that this is one topic. One such is the second source actually cited by the article as it currently stands. Its chapter title alone reveals this. Please actually look at the sources. Uncle G 00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an anthropologist's book on the language of race. I can't comment on the research in the book, not having read it. But without quotes we have no idea what he is saying. The title of a book, the title of a chapter, these are not RS's. Jd2718 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No-one said that it was. Please actually read the article, the citations, the sources, and what I wrote above. The fact that you have no idea what the source says is a direct result of your not having read the source or (it appears) the article. The article outright tells you some of what he is saying, in several places. I repeat: Please actually look at the sources and read the article. You haven't looked at the sources. Even the title of the title of the chapter alone reveals that this is one topic. To see it you don't even need to open the book, as it is given right there in the citation in front of you. As such, your argument that there are no reliable sources that treat this as one topic when one is cited right there in the very article under discussion is wholly fallacious. Uncle G 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A read of three academic articles by Jack Forbes on the issue, and using the word brown reveals that he uses brown only as a color descriptor, and makes no attempt to conceptualize or reify "brown people." The articles were: The Hispanic Spin: Party Politics and Governmental Manipulation of Ethnic Identity, Jack D. Forbes, Latin American Perspectives > Vol. 19, No. 4, The Politics of Ethnic Construction: Hispanic, Chicano, Latino...? (Autumn, 1992), pp. 59-78. Mustees, Half-Breeds and Zambos in Anglo North America: Aspects of Black-Indian Relations, Jack D. Forbes, American Indian Quarterly > Vol. 7, No. 1 (1983), pp. 57-83. Undercounting Native Americans: The 1980 Census and the Manipulation of Racial Identity in the United States, Jack D. Forbes, Wíčazo Ša Review > Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 2-26. In any case, the book does nothing to bridge the totally different concepts of Australoid/Malayan with Black-Indian mixed descendants (Forbes only writes about the latter).--Carwil 15:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - But rewrite "No people are really brown in colour". For example, the article Blue-eyed soul says "Blue-eyed soul is a term used to describe R&B or soul music performed by white people. The term is a misnomer, in that the artists don't all have blue eyes. The term doesn't refer to a distinct style of music, and the meaning of blue-eyed soul has evolved over decades." Should we delete the article Blue-eyed soul just because it is a misnomer? No. And have you ever looked closely at eyes called "blue"? Lots of eyes called blue are simply a lighter shade of eyes not called blue. Someone who wants to find out about either "brown people" or "blue-eyed soul" should be able to find such an article in wikipedia. We don't censor based on a common term being a misnomer. 4.250.168.170 09:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article doesnt look as if it has anything to do with brown people, whoever exactly brown people are. I agree that this is original research. El Rojo 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Brown and Black Peoples Presidential Forum sponsors primary debates during each American election cycle. People use the term and the article may need content cleanup, but it shouldn't be thrown away. SchmuckyTheCat 19:56, 22 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 normal delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the puppetman[edit]

Do you know the puppetman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is a hoax, there is no such programme on CBeebies (or any other channel for that matter) ChrisTheDude 08:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax. Tthe links are to other programs, 390 episodes in 1 month, not really written in english etc... I'll give the author a "test1article", as it's blatant vandalism IMHO. yandman 09:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:HOAX and WP:BOLLOCKS. If this programme exists, I'm the Queen of Hersheba. Tx17777 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as deliberate misinformation. The BBC link provided 404s, and the IMDB link goes to Tweenies. No need towaste time on this obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant WP:HOAX.-- danntm T C 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a blatant hoax: absolutely no evidence anywhere on the web, or in print to prove it. --SunStar Nettalk 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definite hoax. ShadowHalo 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. --DachannienTalkContrib 07:24, 21 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 A3. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of data recovery software[edit]

List of data recovery software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The whole article is merely for advertising Candam 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CSD A3: "Any article consisting only of links elsewhere". Will tag as such. --Pak21 08:17, 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. --Fang Aili talk 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Illinois Club Baseball[edit]

University of Illinois Club Baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No assertions of any notability, aside from campus popularity. fuzzy510 08:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of coverage by independent sources. Eludium-q36 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not asserted, no reliable sources provided. Eluchil404 09:00, 23 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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Snare[edit]

Tom Snare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Tom Snare's World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

del vanity WP:MUSIC. failed to find independent reviews (may be me being lazy...). `'mikka 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • VERY Weak Keep This article lacks verifiable sources, unfortunately. Searching for the Philosophy EP (which supposedly shot him to fame in France) shows Wikipedia as the first hit, but one site which isn't verifiable claims he hit the #2 spot in the France Top 40. This site shows that he hit the bottom of some Top 40 charts and stayed there for a fair amount of time, though according to that source the highest he got was up to #28. I'll do some more digging to see if I can find any verifiable sources... There might just be something. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:21, 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, trialsanderrors 08:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. AMG has nothing on the subject or his album. Subject's Web page & article in fr: gives me nothing to believe that this guy isn't like thousands of other DJs/dance artists out there. Also delete the article for his album Tom Snare's World. Caknuck 08:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, charting musician. Allmusic isn't always comprehensive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as per WP:MUSIC, meeting any one criteria isn't necessarily sufficient for notability. Rklawton 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting the guideline directly: "A musician or ensemble...is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria." Emphasis mine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While he might be weekly charting, that is only 1 point passed out of 12 on WP:MUSIC such that he fails it by a long shot, isn't noteable enough. There is are no sources to anyone mentioning him so no assertation of notibility.--Dacium 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY Weak Keep Last.fm lists him as reaching "No. 1 in several countries", so that might be evidence of notability. User:Jonwilliamsl
  • Delete - per nom. Rklawton 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; article claims a charted hit single and album, and he may have had a hit in 2003. The 12 points noted by Dacium are indications of notability to meet WP:MUSIC; satisfying any one suggests the act is probably notable. I've added what appear to be reliable sources - profiles by Fun Radio and MCM - and incorporated what I can glean from these articles. Eludium-q36 19:29, 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 delete. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Freaks 365[edit]

Game Freaks 365 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Del nonnotable gaming page. Previous nomination was inconclusive. Only 53 unique google hits - a mizerable show for an online thingy. `'mikka 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable, semi-ad. johnpseudo 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This may be more notable than previously assumed based on a google search. I can't really figure it out. But it does read like an ad. johnpseudo 17:56, 19 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, trialsanderrors 09:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently self promotion, still reads too much like an Ad, and fails notibility •CHILLDOUBT• 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not assert notibility. Fails [WP:WEB] as no external mentions. There is a interview link but it on a site even less notiable than this one.--Dacium 07:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Please explain what you call "unique google hits". The link Mikkia gave http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Game+Freaks%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&start=60&sa=N shows 271,000 links. Anomo 10:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google is acting really strangely! Try the search "game freaks 365". It returns 140,000, but then try to click on the 6th or 7th page- the results then reveal that there are only 77 unique hits. I definitely tried this search a week ago and it wasn't acting funny like it is now- it just returned 53 unique hits. johnpseudo 15:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm.... I kept clicking and it got to page 30 and said, "291 - 296 of about 387". I don't understand the relevance of this. If you put wikipedia in google and go for unique hits, it gets "Results 21 - 30 of about 33", which is very little unique. Maybe someone can explain this concept? Anomo 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've copied the unique google hits conversation to the WP:AFD talk page so I can discuss it more there. Anomo 04:24, 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, although the consensus in favor of cleanup is overwhelming. But AfD is not the place to settle content disputes, that's what WP:RfM, WP:RfC, WP:RfArb are for. ~ trialsanderrors 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II[edit]

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

A POV/edit war magnet, including the title. The content should be merged/split between Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II#Ukraine, History of Ukraine#Ukraine in World War II (or German occupation of Ukraine in World War II), History of the Jews in Ukraine and/or Holocaust in Ukraine during World War II. We don't have Romanian-German collaboration during World War II, Hungarian-German collaboration during World War II, Polish-German collaboration during World War II, French-German collaboration during World War II, or Austrian-German collaboration during World War II. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete is not a possible outcome. --- RockMFR 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that some people don't quite understand- per GFDL requirements, the edit history for content must be maintained. Therefore, if the current content of the article is to be merged somewhere, it can't be deleted. It can be redirected however. Is this what you mean? --- RockMFR 15:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and Delete - This is a definite fork article. It has been and still is an edit war magnet. In its present form it is singularly antiukrainian and prejudiced. If one wants legitimately treat the subject of Ukrainian German collaboration, than there should not be an exclusive focus on Holocaust, there should be at least an attempt to look at other forms of collaboration including non-military. In its present form it is "How Ukrainians murdered Jews". If this is an objective of the author, than there should be an article about how "Jews murdered Ukrainians". This is not a legitimate or in any way serious treatment of the subject. These events are already covered in a number of articles. It should be merged with History of Ukraine and these events could be covered and expanded there.--Hillock65 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II#Ukraine discusses the same thing but the article sub sections are only stub paragraphs or less, much information is lacking, especially by encyclopedia standards, it would be better if that article redirected to individual articles like this one, the topic is unique and deserves much more information than just stub sections in various articles --Yarillastremenog 10:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yarillastremenog. Additionally, the fact that it is a pov or edit war magnet doesn't mean that there shouldn't be such an article. The rationale for deletion really seems to boil down to "I don't like it". Individual national collaboration with the Germans in WWII are each worthy of articles, if someone has the time and expertise. Books have been written on the subject, you know.--Wehwalt 12:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Because of the extent of Nazi activity in Ukraine during WWII, and the notoriety of some Ukrainian collaborators, there is enough material for an article. There are similar articles for state-level collaboration in Vichy France, Nedic’s Serbia, Independent State of Croatia, etc, (linked from Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II) and the article ahould be named consistently with these. I'd suggest Reichskommissariat Ukraine, but (a) that is a large and badly organised article already, and (b) it's about the Nazi civil admin rather than Ukraininan collaboration. I incline to weak keep, partly because there seems to be edit warring and accusations of POV pushing, which should not be resolved by AfD. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After thought and reading other people's points, I am persuaded that good, NPOV and sourced material should be merged, mostly into Reichskommissariat Ukraine, (possibly some into other holocaust topics / articles about individual people), and the page deleted. So I now vote Merge, but then delete the current article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is more than sufficient material to keep it as a separate article. The title is a neutral description of historical events; collaboration took place in Ukraine, just like elsewhere in Europe. The lack of separate articles on collaboration in different countries is a problem that must be addressed through content writing. Deleting this article is not a way of solving this problem. Beit Or 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many articles, and you know that, exist in wikipedia that are edit war magnets. the content is notable and for the most part referenced.Bless sins 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or Move to a future article called "Occupation of Ukraine" per Galkovsky [42]'s suggestion.Bless sins 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge — It's a legitimate topic. But the article should spend more coverage on the failure of Germany to better exploit the mentioned national divisions, which is considered one of their key strategic errors during the invasion. — RJH (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic topic, and worthy of its own article. The article is referenced. If it is an edit war magnet, it can be semiprotected, and disruptuve editing or 3RR violations can be dealt with appropriately other than by giving in and deleting the article. The title seems appropriate and NPOV. Lack of the other reedlink articles is perhaps a reason to create same, but hardly a reason to delete this one. Edison 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment partly per Squiddy. This is a hopeless grabbag, typical of a POV fork. Parts of the content are encyclopedic, and would seem to belong in Reichskommissariat Ukraine, which itself needs major work. It is actually two distinct topics, littered with POV fluff confusing the picture: Ukrainian military, police, or guard units that served the Germans, and Ukrainian local populace collaboration. The two overlap at the Holocaust. But there is nothing convincing that these are the same topic. Perhaps I would be more inclined to keep an article on participation in the Holocaust by non-German populations in the east. Jd2718 06:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and Delete --Galkovsky 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If the more comprehensive article is justifiable, then so is this, because it is unfortunately enough material. Desires to merge it are not NPOV. DGG 07:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and Delete this ukrainophobic article should not be kept in Wikipedia. --Alex Kov 09:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is a POV fork, then so is Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II. And describing crimes by Ukrianians is in no way Ukrainophobia, but rather an accurate depiction of history.--Carabinieri 12:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIn its current state it is no good, but it can be expanded (maybe renaimed) and if well referenced and concise, this can be a good article. Of course it has to be kept neutral as such, but it can be done. Just take one step at a time. And no it is not Ukrainophobia but just a reminder to all Svidomy Ukrainians' the truth about the people they call "heroes".--Kuban Cossack 13:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to change my opinion to Merge with other bits already on wiki and create History of Ukraine in World War II--Kuban Cossack 01:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is notable, poor and even possibly partisan/highly POVed contents of the article are no ground for denying the need to have a separate article on that subject.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and delete There are valid issues and facts contained in this entry which have a place in Wikipedia, but not as a separate article which so specifically singles out Ukrainians, and certainly not under this inflammatory title. It should be noted that until Adam Carr moved it, the title was the even more incendiary Ukrainian Nazi Collaboration during WW2. By its very nature and uniqueness, it posits as a given fact that large numbers of non-Jewish Ukrainians behaved in such a heinous fashion towards Jewish Ukrainians that they deserve an article which would serve to direct more condemnation against them than against any other German-occupied national group. This is the very point raised by Humus sapiens in his opening comment and reiterated even more strongly by User:Hillock65. Reasoned examples of articles about other countries under German occupation are provided by Squiddy. All of those countries had collaborators and militias which rounded up Jews and transferred them into German hands, to be sent off to death camps, but the titles of those articles are neutral—Vichy France, Nedic's Serbia, etc. Squiddy notes that the Reichskommissariat Ukraine entry is primarily about German administration of occupied territory, not the Holocaust, but the same can be said about the Vichy France entry, and yet no one has spun off a separate article about French-German collaboration in the Holocaust. French police chief of Lyon, Rene Bousquet, who personally ordered and supervised the delivery of thousands of Jews to the Germans, doesn't even have an entry. The proposal by Jd2718 of combining this Ukrainian entry into a broad article on the entire region's culpability makes the most sense. Romanspinner |talk 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and delete per Humus Sapiens and Romanspinner. I don't consider this ukrainophobia, but the entry is not balanced and can better serve its informative role under an appropriate title, such as mentioned above (e.g. Vichy France, etc).
Kuban kazak, although we differ in our political views, when it comes to working on wikipedia subjects, we usually find common ground. So I am puzzled as to the usefulness here of your comment that Ukrainians call Nazi collaborators their heroes. I disagree. Further, on your User page, you have a picture of Stalin (!), allegedly in protest of "nationalist xenophobia", yet Stalin's murder count rivals Hitler's. Remember the Gulag? the artifical famine during the 1930s? the deportations to Siberia of Poles, Ukrainians, Tatars? the "dekulakization"? or the murder of Don Cossacks? So who are you to make comments that Ukrainians worship the Nazis, when you so admire Stalin?!--Riurik (discuss) 17:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If my disclaimer could not be more clear...actually Stalin was the person who signed the order to reestablish the Cossack hosts in 1936 and kept them going until his death... However what are we talking about here? And yes it is a sorry sight, not to watch how those former UPA veterans march on the Kreshatik, but how they allow themselves to be used as dolls in a political game...--Kuban Cossack 12:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like Piotrus has already stated, the fact that the article is badly written in so many ways is not a reason for deletion, but rather one for improvement. The fact that there are no corresponding articles does not "serve to direct more condemnation against them [the Ukrainians] than against any other German-occupied national group" like you claim Romanspinner. Wikipedia is not for about directing condemnation against anyone - it is for describing historical truths, for example. And the fact that a lot of Ukrainians collaborated with Nazi Germany is such a historical truth. Croatians, Lithuanians, Albanians also did that and that should be mentioned too - in the correct articles. A higher level of detail on the Ukrainian collaboration only goes to show that there are more Wikipedians interested in writing about it than about the Croatian collaboration, for example. We should encourage more people to write about those topics rather than deleting information about topics with better coverage.
    • If Wikipedia was to follow your logic, Romanspinner, the majority of all US-related articles would have to be deleted, because the country definately gets undue weight on Wikipedia currently compared with other countries with comparable sizes. If there is to be a reasonable discussion about this, everyone will have to ignore the emotional aspects connected with dealing with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.--Carabinieri 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and delete per above. --Fire.Tree 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Perhaps the fair think to do would to also expand the sections dealing with other nationalities. and given them separate articles. But we have this one already so let's keep it; there is no excuse to decrease the coverage of the parts we do have. DGG 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and delete per nom. --Yakudza 17:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a Ukraine during World War II, History of Ukraine (1941-1945) or something of the sort article and delete the redirect. —dima/s-ko/ 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then delete redirect (Conisistent with my comment, above). Content belongs in Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II#Ukraine, History of Ukraine#Ukraine in World War II, History of the Jews in Ukraine, Holocaust#German-occupied Soviet territories, and Reichskommissariat Ukraine. There is encylcopediac content relevant to Ukrainian collaboration during WWII, and we should be careful that this is preserved and mreged into the appropriate article(s). Jd2718 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC) (changed delete to redirect) Jd2718 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and delete per above.--Chuprynka 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and delete per above.--redSUNRISING 10:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a solid article and meets all the requirements of WP:V 100%. The fear about "POV magnet" is unfounded, as Wikipedia's function is not to hide the facts and truth of history nor to become an accomplice to historical revisionism by splitting up and scattering important, albeit painful, articles to the four corners of the Earth just because some people can't face the frightening facts of history. IZAK 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK --Nfvatutin 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is its current form is just a place to grind an ax for various editors. If to exist, it should be rerwitten from scratch with strict adherence to WP:V and WP:NPOV. In the current form the article is a waste. The best is to blank its content by a redirect so that that whatever valuable and referenced in it could be merged into other articles or to be used in an article to be rewritten in the future. --Irpen 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to where?--Bryndza 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somewhere like Reichskommissariat Ukraine. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, [[Reichskommissariat Ukraine would work for now. Sorry to have forgotten. The only reason why I want it replaced with a redirect, rather than deleted, is to preserve the history as a source for whatever refs there are now and, mainly, as a lesson to learn upon. Nothing can possibly come out from the disgusting mess in which this article is now. --Irpen 01:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can see, nobody actually wants to delete all the content. Merging and moving should be handled on the article's talk page, not on Afd. As I said above, merging and deleting is not an option. It can be renamed, or maybe merged and redirected, or both, but merging and deleting is not an option. --- RockMFR 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and Delete per above.--A4 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no matter where it is, the information should be kept. --Shamir1 23:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I dunno what, but the current name deosnt go. frummer 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve rather than delete. //Halibutt 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, although I think most of the reasons for deletion given in this discussion are wrong. It should not be deleted because the quality is poor, or because there are no corresponding articles for other nations. Deleting the article for that reason would be completely absurd, since that would justify deleting large parts of Wikipedia. And Wikipedia articles are not designed to place blame as has been mentioned by several editors, but rather to inform. I do, however, believe that starting a History of Ukraine in World War II article first and then splitting information related to collaboration into its own sub-article once there is a lot of it would be more helpful. For one, those Ukrainian nationalists, who start to cry and add irrelevant information about resistance just because they can't bear the thought of having crimes committed by Ukrainians mentioned by themselves, would be satisfied (I hope). Further, I just believe it would be more easy to write good, informative articles about this topic if a general article about Ukraine in World War II is written first and then other articles are split off once there is enough information.--Carabinieri 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one, could you just name a single Ukrainian nationalists among those opposed to this article in this shape? Secondly, no one denies that an article on collaboration specifically could have been written but this would not be an "improved version of this article" but a complete rewrite. This disgusting piece of crap started by a confirmed sock solely to grind an ax cannot serve as a basis for the article improvement. Anything encyclopedic on the topic would have to be written from scratch. So, this, so called, "article" belongs to the wastebasket anyhow. --Irpen 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you implying that Ukrainians did not participate in the massacres of Jews at Babi Yar and elsewhere and did not enlist in the SS Division "Galizien"? These are the facts that you want to throw in the wastebasket. Beit Or 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all I imply this. I added the info you mention to articles in WP myself and fought the Ukrainian nationalists who tried to suppress this info. I am implying that this article in its current form and shape belongs to the wastebasket since it cannot be improved but rewritten. Crimes committed by Ukrainians do belong to Wikipedia all right. --Irpen 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Noone is suggesting Ukrainian participation in German units didn't happen, although it should not be painted black and white either, not to mention that not all of them committed crimes. History is full of exceptions and different circumstances, it should not be used for smearing someone with labels but rather to educate. What is objectionable in this disgusting piece is that the author of this "article" posts pictures of bare brested girls as evidence of collaboration. This is the level of the whole article. All aspects of Ukrainian German cooperation should be covered but preferrably by adults with serious approach.--Chuprynka 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with you that this article is mostly crap, which is why I voted to merge this article. It just really got on my nerve that there were editors who started writing about evil Zionists who were allegedly culpable for the Holocaust only in order to relativate what Ukrainians did. Further, the "Righteous people of the world" is really interesting and definately belongs in Wikipedia, but not in article about Ukrainian-German collaboration.--Carabinieri 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • BTW, if you really want to hear some names: I am mostly referring to User:Hillock65 and everyone he recruited to help him win edit wars.--Carabinieri 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are not arguing with Hillock here. Please no Straw man arguments. If someone wrote somewhere that Jews are responsible for starving Ukrainians and it is still in the articles, show this to me or delete this crap yourself. In no way the antisemitic edit by one editor justifies the appearance of this Ukrainophobic piece of crap written by a sock and defended by you and some others. --Irpen 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was not arguing with anyone. You asked me "just name a single Ukrainian nationalists", which I did and I explained why the Ukrainian nationalists were getting on my nerves: they were adding anti-Semitic crap to this article and removing sourced information I added to it.--Carabinieri 12:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hillock has left enwiki. His antisemitic insinuations is a poor excuse for this xenophobic crap written by a sock that you are trying to defend. --Irpen 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and Delete Evgeny 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and Delete per above. Serebr 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete -- Serguei Trouchelle 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and Delete per Humus sapiens. --Igrek 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the article is indeed of pretty low quality, but it's a valid topic and can be improved. bogdan 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the pictures are good, the article needs work and expansion -- possibly a better title could be found, but thats a matter for the talk page, not AfD. - Francis Tyers · 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This AfD has been featured on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. - Francis Tyers · 15:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: not a single voter I've seen is a single-purpose account that came from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Please do not try to present this vote as falsified for no reason. --Irpen 18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Francis was just mentioning that fact. Calm down.--Carabinieri 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please do not calm me down. What's the relevance then? --Irpen 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is relevant because it could happen that people come here from the Ukrainian Wikipedia just to push this discussion one way and I guess that's what the user wanted to warn us (though I can't read his mind), but I don't want to argue with you about idiotic things like this. Just remain civil and don't make a big deal out of things like this.--Carabinieri 02:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Pardon me, where was I uncivil? --Irpen 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per above. -- Esp rus2 16:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least merge. While poorly written in parts, the subject is a valid one. Just because we lack articles on Romanian, Hungarian, Slovak, etc. collaboration isn't grounds for deleting this article; it should serve as a challenge for us to write articles on those other topics. Biruitorul 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that those editors who voted merge and delete do not dispute or question the validity of the subject or that it should be covered. The delete should only come after merging is completed.--Riurik (discuss) 04:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The topic is indeed valid all right. The question is whether the article in its current form is of any use for the topic. If the current article can be improved into something encyclopedic, keep could be justified. The point is that anything encyclopedic would have been written from scratch. This so called "article" belongs only to a trashcan. --Irpen 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, merciless cleanup. While this article, as well as the main one, Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II, are in an atrocious shape, there are bits and pieces about collaborationism in various wikipedia articles. Time to put all this into an observable and controllable shape, beginning with a standard title for all involved countries. I am repeating, since it is a sensible topic, the work must start with merciless cleanup. Anything unreferenced and dubiously phrased must be deleted at once. `'mikka 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per above. --Zserghei 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beit Or. - Darwinek 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete as previously said. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - notable subject, needs to be re-written, though. Constanz - Talk 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it is not appropriate to delete article because they have the propensity to attract pov/edit wars. Keep the article clean per WP:NPOV but do not remove it. Jerry lavoie 01:25, 26 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golden Globe winners[edit]

List of Golden Globe winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Prodded for deletion, prod tag removed. I feel that this is listcruft. The title seems to indicate that this article contains all of the Golden Globe winners -- not the case. This article would be better to be replaced with either a list of the lists of winners, or a list of the lists of nominations/winners by year. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, just needs to be reorganised per nom. No reason to delete it. yandman 10:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable award. I see no reason why this list doesn't belong. It certainly isn't listcruft. 23skidoo 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup crew. -Ryanbomber 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it is likely that all people who have won Golden Globes will have their own article, there is no need to have a list of them. Category is fine. Nlsanand 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be nice organize-wise to have it in a better formatted list then a Category can give. But that's just my call. -Ryanbomber 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above.Jcuk 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a famous award and the list is nicely organized. Way better than a category. --JJay 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists and categories serve different purposes. Lists can be annotated and can include redlinks. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as for Dhartung, JJay and 23skidoo by Snowolf (talk) on 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above.--Rudjek 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reorganize/rename In principle the list seems fine. It is, though, misleading since its name implies it lists all winners. I'd recommend expanding it to include all winners as the title suggests. Dugwiki 23:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia articles, including lists, are not born whole; they grow. Fg2 01:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable award, and it's totally sensible and useful to group together information on who has won GG awards in various categories over time. Postdlf 01:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from the deprodder. A fine list. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 05:37, 22 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Belu[edit]

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

Non-notable Dahn 09:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. yandman 10:01, 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. ST47Talk 11:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IfMUD[edit]

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

Small MUD that doesn't meet any of the WP:WEB guidelines. No reliable sources are cited for notability, and I am familiar enough with the subject that I would be shocked if any exist. Eluchil404 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral... it's connection to XYZZY Awards might make it notable, but I'm not sure if the XYZZY Awards are notable by themselves. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; it needs sources, but seems to assert notability. Yuser31415 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep found a reliable source for notability (see article). 82.12.227.48 01:28, 23 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 G11. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveRain[edit]

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

Article was speedy deleted with G11 as a reason[43], though I contested the speedy deletion tag [44] and explained my reasoning on the talk page. I requested undeletion from the administrator who deleted it and am now listing it here to get more opinions on the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, my original reasoning for contesting the G11 speedy deletion was:
    • "G11 is for pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic (emphasis mine). The article is written in a reasonable style and does not read like advertising to me. If deletion is wanted, this should go to AfD instead, because the question here might be notability (although I cannot say anything about that), which definately is not a speedy deletion criterium." --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11: reads like an advert to me "Another interesting aspect is the impact which the ActiveRain Real Estate Network is having on a single industry despite a small user base" and the like. --Pak21 11:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy delete Agree, reads like an advert..eg. Emboldened "Currently Membership is free" etc •CHILLDOUBT• 13:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11 advert. Note: contributors consist of single purpose sock accounts promoting activerain.com. There's even a link to their feed-back page under "Contact Information". As for notability, its a newly created site which are inherantly non-notable.--Hu12 13:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11. Terence Ong 13:56, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince, Manhattan[edit]

Prince, Manhattan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails WP:V. Googling turns up nothing. It's been prodded since November. An inquiry on the talk page in late December was not responded to. Seems fictional. There is of course a Prince Street in Manhattan, but that doesn't seem to be what is being referred to. Maybe created by a bored NYU student? Wehwalt 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Even if it isn't fictional, there is nothing in the article to indicate any kind of notability. --Onorem 12:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fictional, unverifiable. Terence Ong 13:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not a bored NYU student; I created the article because "Prince, NY" is apparently a real geographic location with ZIP code 10012. It is one of the links from List of ZIP Codes in New York. If you search Google Maps for "Prince, NY", it will indeed show up. There must be something notable enough to have a ZIP code named after it there, presumably some sort of neighborhood or defunct city. If it's not notable enough to have its own article, for completeness, this title should be redirected to Greenwich Village, or whatever other article explains why this ZIP code has this name. Getting this information might involve using ::gasp:: offline sources. -- Beland 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh. A light begins to dawn. A little research indicates that the NYC post office for zip 10012 is "Prince Station" located on Prince Street.[45]. It must be a quirk of Yahoo! Maps, because when I google "Canal NY" or "Cherokee NY" (two other post office stations for other areas of Manhattan), I don't get presented with a map. Interesting. But a quirk of Yahoo! Maps does not a notable article make. Sorry about the NYU Student crack.--Wehwalt 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Looks like more likely than not this is just a post office, then. Sometimes you have things like Fort Point Station, which is named after the Fort Point area in Boston, but List of Manhattan neighborhoods seems to have thoroughly mapped out this area, and Price is not on the list of neighborhoods. I have updated the ZIP code list to indicate this for future reference. To help people solve this mystery when they (like me) type "Prince, NY" into the Wikipedia search bar, should this title redirect to List of ZIP Codes in New York? -- Beland 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only a post office district. The street name is not connected to a former community. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A post office district does not justify an article. There is no other data that this ever was a separately named neighborhood. EdJohnston 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think population centers are inherently notable, but not post office districts (unless one somehow gains notoriety).--Oakshade 08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per norm. Killroy4 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Late to the show here, but to add confusion, the USPS thinks this exists (search for Prince, NY here). An address in Prince, NY was listed in an add in an 1897 issue of Garden and Forest,[46] and a few businesses list Prince, NY addresses (although most also advertise at the same street address in NYC).[47][48] Serpent's Choice 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we´re running into USPS policy on acceptable addresses. I know in Virginia, the USPS will accept either Älexandria or Kingstowne for zip (I think) 22315. I played with the ZIP finder, it accepted CHURCH STREET NY but warned it was not an acceptable address. In other words, it is still a post office district thing.--Wehwalt 16:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this one probably if it is a fictional or fake borough yuckfoo 20:30, 24 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Digby[edit]

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

Based on a google search and the info so far in the article, this person does not seem notable enough for an entry in this encyclopedia. Beltz 12:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of coverage by independent sources. Eludium-q36 19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I couldn't find any references using google including news archive or books variants... Addhoc 16:23, 24 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 List of cocktails. Chill doubt, Uncle G is right regarding Wikibooks and how an independant entry would be better suited on that Wiki. As per Mangojuice's bold merge, I've merely completed the redirecting part. Daniel.Bryant 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madras (beverage)[edit]

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

NN drink, apparently served at a single bar, complete with recipe. Finding references is impossible because of Madras the city. Failed Prod. Mangojuicetalk 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Googling "Madras cocktail" finds loads of sites detailing the same recipie. I would say that the reference to the Opel bar is absolutely irrelevant though if the claim that the cocktail is widespread is true, and should therefore be removed•CHILLDOUBT• 13:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bartending wikibook with cocktail recipes is over there. To warrant an encyclopaedia article there has to be more to write about the cocktail than a list of ingredients. You've just told us that the only other text in this article apart from the recipe is "absolutely irrelevant". Uncle G 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of cocktails. Otto4711 14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of cocktails. Existed there before User:Anerij removed it and created this article. This article offers nothing else. Nuttah68 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per Nuttah68. Ganfon 21:26, 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. ST47Talk 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Raiders[edit]

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

This article has no sources, and much of the article seems to contain POV as well "These snacks hold nostalgic notions for many British adults today along with other consumables from the 80's such as 'Top Deck' and 'Marathons'" → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 13:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Note that this is my 1st AfD nom If I've done something wrong, tell me on my talk page. Thanks.[reply]

Keep but rewrite Articles exist on Wikipedia for other branded crisps (eg Monster Munch Lots of google references. The article needs rewriting though to correct non encyclopedic style / content •CHILLDOUBT• 13:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Keep- There's no doubting its notibility and I can't see what reason there is to delete. Cleanup tag needed, afd not. J.J.Sagnella 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the same reasons as User:Chill doubt -- Ratarsed 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, POV. Recreate if a good article can be written. EdJohnston 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Snack. Herostratus 17:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep Snack food, Needs sourcing... Shouldn't be difficult ShakespeareFan00 17:20, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eximius Sports[edit]

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

We are working on providing more links to link for the rest of Wikipedia. It will be done within the next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradDick (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 January 2007

  • You nominated an article you wrote for deletion? Anyway, speedy delete per WP:BIO. yandman 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As above. •CHILLDOUBT• 15:00, 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 WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Masse[edit]

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

The article reads like a personal political manifesto, not an encylopaedia article about Jamie Masse. Wikipedia does not provide personal web space for anyone to post what they believe. This entry would be more appropriate for MySpace. Ground Zero | t 13:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly WP:OR, reads like a WP:SOAPBOX 'letter to the editor'. SkierRMH 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speedy if possible. Bearcat 23:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd propose it for speedy if I hadn't already nominated it for AfD. I should have thought of that myself. Ground Zero | t 04:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alf photoman 19:56, 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 to Apache HTTP Server until someone is willing to put in the effort to clean this up and make it policy-compliable. ~ trialsanderrors 06:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.htaccess[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Delete, if not merge to
Apache HTTP Server

  • Trim, Merge, and Redirect per nom. yandman 14:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim, merge, and redirect according to yandman. It's true that Wikipedia is not not a how-to guide, so the way that the article is currently written is not appropriate. Moreover, upon trimming it to contain only encyclopedic content, it will surely be a stub, so then adding it into the Apache article and redirecting this page makes the most sense. --LoganK 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The topic is quite notable, but the article needs to be de-crufted. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, or Merge - It's a vaguely likely search term, so the article should point to something, if only a redirect to a section of Apache HTTP Server that details the term. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check)
  • Merge to Apache HTTP Server. This reads like a man page, which anyone with the software should have already; and the software could change, meaning our page would be an outdated copy. Although a stub explaining the different uses could be formed let's just put that stub in the larger article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if can a useful article, wikipedia is not a manual by Snowolf (talk) on 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THIS ARTICLE, AS IS What you don't realize, is that this is one of the BEST, most complete pages on this topic on the web. If you delete, it merge it or trim it, you will be doing a great disservice to the entire internet. A great many people use this page as a reference. Let's not get hung up on rules...Yes they are there for a purpose, but when a page is THIS useful, let it be. Keep it. As is. by LunaticBeatnik on 13:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) This user timestamp is forged. Actual timestamp was 21:50 17 January 2007[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --- RockMFR 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs cleanup. Very important subject, necessary for internet businesses. Rockstar915 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This article is not notable outside apache. Only apache server uses .htaccess 121.6.121.33 06:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Apache HTTP Server per Wikipedia is not an instruction manual --Pak21 10:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J.smith. Given the number of apache servers out there, I'd say the article is sufficiently notable. Perhaps some of it could be copied to WikiHow. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep promote to WP:FA status. Jerry lavoie 01:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable file that exists to configure many, many websites. The article can be cleaned up to not be a guide, instead detailing the different functionality with perhaps some examples. Pomte 03:34, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of international euphemisms for traveller's gastrointestinal disorders[edit]

List of international euphemisms for traveller's gastrointestinal disorders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article subject is not notable and it would be difficult or impossible to establish verifiability. It is a list of neologisms. Lastly, WP is not an indiscriminate list of information. Should I mention that this is nothing but toilet humor and is not encyclopedic? (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no sources, and little chance of finding any, but suggest the author publishes this somewhere. I particularly like "Montezuma's Revenge". yandman 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Montezuma's Revenge is a very well established term, but the whole article is fairly pointless.--Wehwalt 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Not that notable, or particularly helpful. A category of pages for articles on each of these terms maybe should be considered at a later date. --John24601 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not urban dictionary Lurker oi! 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified, and rather arbitrary list.-- danntm T C 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.--Rudjek 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theres really no point to it. Maniac 04:02, 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. Cbrown1023 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by first name[edit]

List of United States Presidents by first name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete as rather useless trivia, similar to the list by birthday. Otto4711 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't see any value in having this list •CHILLDOUBT• 14:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial to the point of vacuousness. Isn't the main list a sortable table so that those who demand this functionality can have it anyway? Eluchil404 15:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we are going to have listings by middle initial, mother's maiden name, star sign and social security number -Docg 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone put alot of work into this, but this is ultimately an arbitrary list with little encyclopedic value.-- danntm T C 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' why not? There are also list by middle name, surname, nickname and much more. Why not this? I think that can be useful to somebody, and American Presidents are an important subject, so I think that a list like this deserve his place in wikipedia. At least, it can be merged with the other lists, if you think it doesn't deserve a whole article. But I think that I would create caos. by Snowolf (talk) on 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above that presidential first names is trivial at best, as are middle names and last names. There might be an argument for nicknames having some minor value, since nicknames aren't obvious or well known to most readers and are names given to the person by other people in recognition of some trait or achievement (eg Knowing why Reagan was called "The Teflon President" gives some insight into his personality and presidency).
That being said, I could be pursuaded to change my mind if someone somehow expanded the first-name or middle-name articles to explain why the president's name was significant. If there are interesting stories behind why, for example, President Clinton's parents named him "William Jefferson", then I might be persuaded to think the list has some non-trivial value, maybe. Dugwiki 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no point in this list at all. Any basic presidents list on Wikipedia has this information already. 23skidoo 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic trivial trivia as indiscriminate. Ohconfucius 10:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged with List of United States Presidential nicknames. The nickname section was not effected, but I did some minor changes to the other names lists, stuff that went beyond trivia. I didn't redirect this article to the nickname page yet, because I wanted to find out what others thought of this first. Jjmillerhistorian 17:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I still say, "delete, don't redirect, and remove the merged content" but that's primarily a content dispue which isn't AfD's problem. Eluchil404 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I combined all three names pages with the Nickname page and modified it. I also deleted the very unnecessary "how many started with each letter" stuff that isn't even trivia. The merged content could be condensed more instead of totally deleted. Jjmillerhistorian 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reviewed the content that you merged and still regard it as unencyclopedic and sub-trivial. Anything that can de derived from looking at a list of presidential names and sorting it alphaetically is unnecesary. Eluchil404 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your point. I wasn't as conserned with that being as unnecessary as the other stuff I cut out. I took out the alphabetical lists and left the basic facts. It's interresting than what letter or how many letters a name starts with. I thought it might be a way to expand the nickname article a little more. It isn't alot, but it's better than three separate articles of blah. Jjmillerhistorian 12:01, 24 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cubefield[edit]

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

Non-notable Flash game. Deprodded by anon. Weregerbil 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteFails Notability •CHILLDOUBT• 15:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, no apparent reliable sources. Note that "cubefield" is also the name of some sort of MS Excel feature, so those looking for references should consider that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.--Rudjek 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Entertaining, but no real notability. Over a hundred thousand results on Google, but most of them are merely entertainment portals with no real information. The only reliable source is from the author himself. [49] Metrackle 23:51, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chittoor Subramaniam Pillai[edit]

Chittoor Subramaniam Pillai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Procedural listing for AfD in place of a second prod by User:The Kinslayer, who says "Non-verifiable (WP:V)". I deprodded it in Oct 2006 when I found The Hindu mentioning his name in a list of "legendary figures" [50], and a CD of his called "Legends". On this occasion, I'll say I'm neutral. Mereda 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment When googling, look also for Chittoor Subramania Pillai (without the 'm'). Tintin 15:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 15:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, the numerous tags. and the fact that no-ones touched this article in months. The Kinslayer 15:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a newspaper source to the article that verifies his Sangeetha Kalanidhi award in 1954. --Mereda 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a notable Carnatic music singer. The article needs to be cleanedup and wikified though. Parthi talk/contribs 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mainly on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence about his notability. My knowledge of Carnatic music is minimal and I am not familiar with him. But articles online repeatedly mention his name in the same breath as some of the giants in the field ([51], [52], [53]). "No-ones touched this article in months" does not bother me in this case because this is not exactly an orphaned article and there are many active editors in Carnatic music. Tintin 14:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He was most definitely one of the greatest vocalists in Carnatic Music. So there is no doubt about notability. I'll try developing this article. Please dont delete. ­ Kris (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The low quality of the article should not reflect badly on the musician. This article has existed for three months and is still very weak. It has five tags on it to describe its many problems. Evidently there is no one who has the time or the expertise to improve it at the moment. Suggest that it be deleted, and re-created later if someone can get around to creating a reasonable article. EdJohnston 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A known artist for those know this kind of music, but hopefully srkris or someone else can cleanup and make this article better. [Molo5]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blaise Nagy[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable for any reason other than being a professor. Icemuon 15:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless properly referenced and expanded by end of this AfD Alf photoman 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all reasons noted above and more. House of Scandal 11:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its only a stub, give it some time. Also its possibly notable writing books and such. Killroy4 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fairly close call, but I could not find any sources suggesting he meets WP:BIO or the proposed WP:PROF. He has written a textbook and a number of articles, but my (admittedly brief) google search didn't turn up coverage of these either.--Kubigula (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very little web presence. I cannot find a CV or any notable award. Nagy recieved 1 award for being a faculty member for 25 years. He has one new book but how notable it is I don't know. Anyways he's been a professor for 25 years yet I can't find anything suggesting he is truly notable or has been given a real award. --Quirex 21:16, 23 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. Cbrown1023 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boxx[edit]

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

NN-programing language, PROD removed by article creator delete Cornell Rockey 15:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and cleanup tags removed from article by article creator Cornell Rockey 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Argyriou (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listed references don't cover the article subject. Still no evidence of notability. Eluchil404 09:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article might be worth keeping if it could explain its importance better. Agree with the comments above about lack of WP:RS and WP:V. Is the language (a) already great, just not widely known, or (b) the germ of something better? After reading the article, I have no idea. EdJohnston 20:10, 23 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. While the professor may be notable in the regional context of his works (all arguments that they are in Norwegian aside), it is accepted amongst the academic community that they are to publish research and work. As such, his publications and the article do not altogether match WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Teke (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnfinn Kjelland[edit]

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

Prod expired. Prod rationale was "Not notable, his publications are in norwegian only, and are local history books for 4 Norwegian muncipalities". Prod contested on article talk page. Contested, even if not removed, is enough reason to bump to AFD. My opinion is that the language of publication is totally irrelevant. Some local historians are notable, some aren't. I lean to a weak keep myself. I'd like to see more sources to demonstrate meeting WP:BIO or WP:BOOK; so count this as a technical nomination, and I reserve the right to opine later. GRBerry 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—This article was added during my Wiki-youth, and now that I’ve spent some time amongst the AfD pages and reviewing new articles, I probably would not add it again until a couple more years have gone by and standards have evolved; I’d have realized it was open to discussion as GRBerry notes. None-the-less, “all my children are good-looking” so here is the case for keeping:
  • I (the original author) believe that Arnfinn Kjelland, although a relatively minor figure, as a regional historian does meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline: “the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included.”
  • I first encountered Kjelland’s work while trying to develop material for the article on Odelsrett, an article in which he is quoted. Since I’d quoted him and liked his insight, a link seemed appropriate.
  • I live halfway around the world from Mr. Kjelland and do not know Mr. Kjelland. I’ve have only exchanged one email with him asking if he would mind if I added this article; he cautiously agreed based on reservations that he had whether local historians were sufficiently noteworthy. I did not write it or intend it as a “puff piece” and try to avoid writing promotional material. Whatever it is, I do not believe it is a vanity article.
  • This Arnfinn Kjelland article was one of my early contributions and I concede that the article will never have the merit that the article on Vidkun Quisling or Winston Churchill will. And it is hardly an exceptional bit of prose.
  • I have included the "regional history phenomena" in Scandinavia on my To Do List for later research since it turns out there are quite a number of publications along those lines. But that addition to Wikipedia is for later.
  • I do believe that the {{prod}}er/nominator is acting in good faith in proposing deletion of this article on his countryman. Even though I abused him mightily, he responded civilly and intelligently. I rather liked his insights and regret having not been gentler.
  • And if you’ll allow me to indulge in an argument which borders on casuistry, I do believe that Wikipedia has rather variable standards of notability. Arnfinn Kjelland has certainly made a more notable contribution to the world than much of the pop culture that Wikipedia has captured (if you don’t want to pick on musical groups then consider porn stars, who are rather well represented).
  • I did not remove the {{prod}} tags and probably could have without contest (but I don’t from articles I originate), so I leave it in your able collective hands and intellect to adjudicate this AfD.
Let the discussion begin - Williamborg (Bill) 02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The standards for college professors are not entirely arbitrary, but do take account of what the is work. A set of descriptive books of local history--or any similar region in any country in any language--is not a major academic contribution. If he should come to work on a broader scale, or make insights recognized as significant even on a small region, add it again. DGG 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article makes no claim of notability, and no apparent grounds for making one. Pete.Hurd 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I tried to find a CV which would list awards. Found no mention of awards. I enlisted 2 of my swedish buddies to help me and they found nothing. There is no way the subject comes close to WP:BIO or WP:PROF if he hasn't recieved recognition. --Quirex 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the sources confirm that he an associate professor. I don't in any way dispute that he holds the rank of major in the reserve army. What I don't really understand is why this suggests notability. His books have been published, but aren't very widely known. Accordingly, I would suggest this doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF... Addhoc 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, No claim to notability. worldcat shows his list of books is only the six listed on the article, and google scholar lists 0. I dont doubt for a moment that there are scholarly articles in journals not listed by google scholar, but I cant see evidence of notability. John Vandenberg 06:30, 25 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 by ChrisO (advertising). --- RockMFR 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARTEH® – Hotels and Resorts[edit]

ARTEH® – Hotels and Resorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

advert for NN-hotel chain; PROD removed by article creator delete Cornell Rockey 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete quite clearly spam, I think {{db-spam}} is appropriate. Rich257 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam of the highest order. CiaranG 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - this can be speedied as spam, or a as a copyvio as the text is copied straight from http://www.arteh-hotels.com/ -- Whpq 21:59, 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 keep. - Bobet 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denise LeClair Cobb[edit]

Denise LeClair Cobb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Prod expired, bumping because article is on a person who probably is notable. Prod rationale was "Notability concerns, but CV/resume-toe does not help, nor does it being unsourced." It does look like the only source was a resume or CV; however I think a rewrite could salvage it. Does anyone want to source and rewrite? If not, delete at the end of the AFD, as WP:BIO notability is not definitively established in this unsourced article. GRBerry 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, former CNN anchor should be notable. Needs sources, some of the claims may be difficult to verify at this point. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, should be notable but without references the article is worthless Alf photoman 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced (no WP:V, no WP:RS), unnotable (fails WP:BIO). Valrith 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being a CNN anchor makes her notable. A quick G-search under her pre-married name "Denise LeClair" came up with many sources confirming this [54] (just inserted a refercne into the article). --Oakshade 05:49, 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 Speedied as A7 group, text dump, WP:NOT a free webhost, etc. --Fang Aili talk 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHI[edit]

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

disputed speedy delete for NN-sports event Cornell Rockey 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-notable group per admission on talk page. Wikipedia is not the place to keep track of your golf handicap - or that of your buddies. Flyingtoaster1337 16:12, 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 Redirect to SONICFLOOd. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto price[edit]

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

Although this article appears to make significant claims of notability, no references are given to substantiate these claims. A bit of web research fails to find any supporting evidence: unless evidence of the notability claims can be provided, suggest deletion as per the verifiability policy -- The Anome 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to SONICFLOOd as Otto was a member and songwriter for that group. Does not appear to be separately notable verifiable. Otto4711 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per above --T-rex 06:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maffitt Ledge[edit]

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

PROD bump. Rationale was non-notable. This is a real place, but is it important enough to have an article? Article says it is an island. This NOAA source says it is underwater at least part of the time, which fits the ledge name better. AFD Precedent is that major features are worth keeping. This has been named, and it wouldn't be hard to add geo-coordinate data to the article, but I'm not sure what to do. GRBerry 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there are few sources and those only side mentions. It's probably only significant as a navigation hazard. --Dhartung | Talk 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of historical interest, notability as a hazard to navigation, etc., etc. If there's some sort of omnibus article on submerged rocks in Boston Harbor, it can be redirected there. Choess 09:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per aboveOo7565 17:11, 21 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 (nomination withdrawn). --Metropolitan90 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kibo[edit]

This article reads like a personal ad. I suspect that this is just a vanity page.--Azer Red Si? 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom - I think I jumped the gun. This article is probably notable enough, but just needs cleanup.--Azer Red Si? 16:58, 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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gordon[edit]

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

De-prodded, but I don't think he passes WP:MUSIC. Scanning the few Google hits [55][56][57] I see nothing nothing non-trivial, reliable, and independent of him and his affiliations. http://www.christiantoday.com looks independent and reliable but this is all we'd have to work with from that source. Also fails the 2-albums-on-a-major-label test. I'd say delete unless it can be shown he's the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. Pan Dan 17:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are more sources. Let me know if you want me to stub them. I guess he's not got a record out yet? Some of the info is incorrect so I updated.

[58] Also indy sources: [59] [60] [61] Rambler04 19:27, 17 January 2007

    • Thanks for providing those sources. But the kind of sources we'd need to write a good encyclopedia article about him are in-depth profiles from reliable sources independent of him. Please see WP:RS and WP:N. We can't use announcements of events he was/will be involved in, or blogs. Pan Dan 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources prove he exists, but don't prove notability. His musical career on its own doesn't appear to be sufficient. Overall, suggest we wait until he becomes a bishop... Addhoc 16:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources besides directory entries, fails WP:MUSIC per the article. - Bobet 13:59, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Goblinstone[edit]

Lord of the Goblinstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No indication this is notable, zero google hits for article title, unreferenced, problems with WP:V and no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. See also WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Oh, and reads like a complete advert and in places patent nonsense. And as for the firm that is allegedly developing this game...well, Phoenix Technologies certainly exists, but their website is at http://www.phoenix.com. The website linked to from this article has nothing in development apart from this and seemingly nothing whatsoever to sell, and no way of selling it, with no link to what I suspect to be the genuine Phoenix Technologies. Probable hoax. Moreschi Deletion! 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is not a joke one, this serious and real. It may share a resemblence in title but that is all. I'm shocked about this and upset. I'd hate to see this hard work go to waste. Email the guy in chrage via the website if you don't beleieve me. Please don't delete this article, it is real I promise and I do not lie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmeman (talk • contribs) 17 January 2007.

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

  • Delete, wholeheartedly agree with everything said by nominator. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Decidedly suspicious. The article's talk page is made up of comments by recent accounts with few edits too. --Folantin 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - outright WP:NFT ~Matticus TC 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 13:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a hoax, perhaps not; it's not really relevant either way. My shoe size and the name of next door's dog are, in the words of Gmeman, "not a joke, they are serious and real". They are, however, utterly non-notable. Delete per nominator's points about crystal ball, also the severe lack of verifiability of this (which is leading to the allegations of hoaxiness) mean that this fails the verifiability criteria rather spectacularly.And Gmeman, please stop taking the AfD tag off the article, and ask your friends to stop doing so. It doesn't help your case in the least (quite the reverse). Tonywalton  | Talk 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tonywalton. This project may in fact be something that the creators fully intend to follow through with -- they may fully intend to write five books and produce five games in this series. The fact is that they haven't done so yet, and even if they had, there's no guarantee that it would be notable. Also, the article creators must stop removing the deletion notice from the article and must stop vandalizing user pages in the name of retaliation for supposed "bullying". Asking you to follow the same rules as everyone else is not "bullying". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 23 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. Cbrown1023 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tree-nation[edit]

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

NN-website; speedy deletion tag removed by article creator delete Cornell Rockey 17:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline skew theories for The West Wing[edit]

Timeline skew theories for The West Wing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Mildly interesting to a fan (perhaps!), but it consists by definition, of uncyclopaedic, irrelevant speculation, with no hope of ever evolving John24601 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First AFD, Second AFD
  • Delete per the policy against original research, WP:NOR. Three months after the second AFD, no new sources have been added to the article. That was itself 11 months after the first AFD, and the only sources added in the interim were citations to particular episodes, not to discussion about timeline theories. All of the timeline theories constitute a synthesis of original material. GRBerry 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This really is original research and serves to highlight the difference between verifiability and not being original research. There are numerous sources in the article, however, these only verify the simple facts. These facts, however, are woven into a more complex tapestry of conjecture and synthesis, which is exactly what original research. There seem to be a couple parts which may be useful in the West Wing article, however, there's really not enough for its own article. Wickethewok 19:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to The West Wing. Even if verifiable, not notable enough to deserve its own article. Argyriou (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but Merge. The West Wing is a featured article. This information was broken out in the course of its candidacy because it's not really encyclopedic but, at the time, it seemed to merit inclusion somewhere. Do anything but put it back in the article! — Scm83x hook 'em 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Bwithh 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial information. GassyGuy 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Nichols[edit]

Stephen J. Nichols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Was de-prod'd without comment. Hoax and false autobiography created by User:Stephenjnichols. Non-notable person; wildly asserts that, at age 23 or younger, he was a guest conductor of the Beijing Ballet and Opera Orchestras and the the Harbin Opera Orchestra (I'm not sure if "Harbin Opera Orchestra" even exists [62]); 14 unique G hits for "Stephen J. Nichols" composer [63], various Google searches including "guest conductor" yield no sources. --Fang Aili talk 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless referenced to show notability Alf photoman 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Harbin Opera exists and so therefore does their orchestra. Don't know about the claims of the conductor, though. In any event, I don't know how to judge the significance of what's probably a provincial company. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. The subject is basically a music student (per the article), and his achievements are unverifiable. Compositions with the names listed exist for the most part, but none of the hits (except Wikipedia) are attributable to him. Ohconfucius 09:14, 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 Keep Eluchil404 09:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Rene Arce[edit]

Cesar Rene Arce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

reason non noteabel person non noteabel evant no reason why this should be on here Oo7565 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomOo7565 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-referenced article, including a reference from the New York Times. See Special:Contributions/Oo7565 for the nominator's other contributions. --Eastmain 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to something like Grafitti Shooting, the incident is notable, the question is if the people in it are Alf photoman 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Close call, but I believe the subject barely meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Specifically, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." -- Satori Son 04:36, 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 Result: Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no delete opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act[edit]

Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is a summary of what seems to be a pretty minor piece of US legislation. To my mind, it is bordering on falling foul of Wikipedia is not a directory / indiscriminate collection of information. But...

Let me say that this is a very tentative AfD! I have no idea if there is any form of precedent on this sort of article, or indeed whether the article is acceptable or not. I've tried to work it out, but can't really find a definitive answer. The closest I've come is the partial list of notable United States federal legislation, and I don't believe that this act is notable. Anyhow, I will gladly withdraw this nomination if I'm in the wrong.

If anyone can point me to a better way of establishing whether articles like this are generally OK or not, please do let me know! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Close Category:United States federal communications legislation --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is referenced to the AP story about Bush signing it. As a newly enacted law (signed Jan 13, 2007) to criminalize pretexting, passed 409 to 0 in the US House of Representatives, it addresses a common practice of fraudulently obtaining the phone records of others. Technically, wouldn't publication in the Congressional Record and the Federal Register furnish the additional "independent, verifiable, reliable" sources? Sorry for the crystal ball, but let's give prosecutors a chance to prosecute pretexters rather than deleting the article as soon as the law is passed. Edison 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it should be furnished with sources (which are plentiful). (No, government publication of its own laws isn't really independent, Edison.) It's a significant privacy-related bill, connected with last year's acquisition of Gen. Wesley Clark's phone records by a blog (with his permission, and to his surprise).[64] --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination and recommend speedy keep. It's now clear to me that there are plenty of these on Wikipedia. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 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. Cbrown1023 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Devon Sea Wall Rail Incidents[edit]

South Devon Sea Wall Rail Incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Orphaned, unreferenced article dealing with a topic that seems very unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a railway incident log! -- ChrisO 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, severely unnotable (and by appearances, original research). --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These incidents could have become disasters with many deaths. I think they are encyclopedic. --Eastmain 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on account that they are not really disasters, they're little more than incidents. For what it's worth, Eastmain, "could have become disasters" is nowhere near equivalent to "actually did become disasters" - by that rationale, many near-impacts on the highways should be getting documented here on WP. --Dennisthe2 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup - Seems notable enough, long enough to be an article. Just missing a few refernces. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it notable? -- ChrisO 01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it's not notable unless if there were many casulties and $$ lost. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 13:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not particularly notable as rail incidents go. Choess 09:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Acts of nature that only affect a tiny area or don't cause casualties are not encyclopedic. If there is anything worth keeping merge it into the article for the line. Vegaswikian 06:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. There are many incidents of this kind, we can't possibly list all of them. Signaturebrendel 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Notability on the basis that there was no significant monetary cost and not even any injuries. Looks like a list of major rail delays? If we did that for every line in Britain we could fill the WP servers to capacity fairly quickly... Also fails WP:Verifiability through lack of sources. --DeLarge 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple power outages? Track maintenance? This is laughable. --Sable232 21:56, 24 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Heathens[edit]

Persecution of Heathens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - Redundant material, Original Research, etc. The material in this entry is over-lapping so many articles that some of them need to be removed. Most of the content at Persecution of Heathens is at Persecution of Germanic Pagans and Christianization of Scandinavia and could be merged into Witch-hunt. Furthermore, someone seems to have confused Neopaganism with Paganism. - WeniWidiWiki 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not to mention, I don't know of too many people who self-identify as "heathens." Whose definition are we using? Medieval Christianity occassionally said that "Muslim=heathen", and likewise in the opposite direction. And all non-monotheistic religion (Taoism, Buddhism, Native American, Hindu, etc) was called "heathen" by adherents of monotheistic religions. So ... persecution of whom ... and also by whom? Pastordavid 23:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the stated reasons are arguments for a cleanup, not deletion. // Liftarn 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, although the article is stubby it can quite readily be extended. A working definition of "heathen" for the purposes of the article can be agreed.Itsmejudith 16:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. redundant, inherently biased and disingenious. lumps together things that are entirely unconnected. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep rewrite and extend rather than delete outright. The topic is proper, article content can be improved. Killroy4 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) — Killroy4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • delete as per redundancy and rambling incoherency. --Isolani 14:09, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buttrock (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

This is an ill-defined neologism. In the months since the intial AfD, a clear definition has not been established. More often than not, the article has become a dumping ground for POV assessments of groups or genres. GentlemanGhost 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment numerous sources were brought out in the last AFD but haven't been added to the article. If rewritten to sources it would be less susceptible to the winds of POV. I also found this[65]. --Dhartung | Talk 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see how this term in any different than Mallcore which was deleted a month ago. Basically a derogatory comment about metal bands you don't like trying to pass itself off as a genre. Static Universe 08:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Derogatory term that is only found in the loosest of dics and is not really even a dicdef William Avery 01:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 08:55, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian Downstrodder[edit]

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

This is very likely a hoax as there is absolutely no information on this topic anywhere on the net (outside of this article). So, delete as hoax. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Zero google hits for the bird. No evidence for the existence of the book cited as a reference. -- Whpq 22:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If reputable sources later show this to be real, the article can be created again. Fg2 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Latin name (a slightly misspelled Catholic prayer) makes clear that it is a joke, I think. —David Eppstein 08:03, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Quin[edit]

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

Non-notable, and there is no third-party support for claims made within the article. Moreover, the article itself is written by a descendant of Quin's, as evidenced here, and is wholly anecdotal. MSJapan 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claims to notability aside from saving a Freemasons' Lodge from going under. Fails WP:BIO. Caknuck 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnotable. Fnord. --Dhartung | Talk 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fair enough! Your arguements win me over! Have we reached a rough consensus? Enton 17:52, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in the French Wine Industry[edit]

Problems in the French Wine Industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Despite my inclusionist tendencies, after much consideration I think submitting this article for AfD is the best route. This article is a clear essay in violation of WP:NOT. The uses of it sources amount to synthesis and (like most essays) is original research. Furthermore, the topic matter itself (and its POV issues) can be better addressed within the respective French Wine, Bordeaux Wine and Globalization of wine articles. After reviewing the article with other members of the Wikipedia Wine Project, we have found little value worth salvaging and merging from this article that wouldn't already be tainted with POV or original research. Agne 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. There's a fair bit of pure error and faulty logic, too. Admittedly, there is some potentially useful stuff in it. I don't think "chipping" in the sense used here is mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia. Andrew Dalby 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are articles that do mention aging wine with Oak chips. They don't call it 'chipping' though. To be honest, other than this article, I don't know if I've ever heard the process called that before. --- The Bethling(Talk) 05:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The so-called sources seem to be just a lazy Google search. Nunquam Dormio 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with regrets). Move to new sub-page Talk:French wine/Problems in the French wine industry for future reference, because parts are still useful. I found the lead section rather interesting, but the rest of it seemed like an essay written as a school assignment, with far too many irrelevant details. Definitely synthesis. The article does contain some useful and interesting information, which is why I'm not altogether happy about recommending deletion. -Amatulic 23:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essay-riffic. Could potentially form the basis of a new article e.g. History of wine-making in France which might be very interesting, but would require a lot of work. --Dhartung | Talk 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Amatulic, to a sub page, as in Talk:Bordeaux or Talk:French wine. While this is a nicely researched opinion piece, it is an essay. Its contents still ought to be kept as potentially useful to other editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with creating a sub page is that I don't think there is precedent for attaching essays to articles. Think of the sub page POV essays that could be written for the George W. Bush or Marriage articles? An ideal situation would be to userfy the text, since it is an essay. But the user who created this page, didn't create the essay. Editors on the Bordeaux Wine page had concerns over the POV and Original Research issues and so it was removed as a splinter article. The original author seems to be User:AshleyHouston who has not edited since April 2006. I agree that there is some interesting tidbits but after looking at the sources and the POV overtones, I personally don't feel comfortable with using any of it in an encyclopedia article. I think the editors on the Wine Project can do a better job introduce the subject matter into the respective articles starting from scratch rather then starting from a POV essay. Agne 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is "no precedent for attaching essays to articles" (There is no precedent for anything until it is done for the first time. — A. P. Herbert), then I would have to change my opinion to keep and merge, then. The mere presence of POV claims or original research in otherwise useful text is something to handle by editing, not by deleting. If I understand you correctly, this was broken out of an article on Bordeaux Wine, then perhaps it ought to re-merge back into the article, where any original research or essayish wording could be edited out. Or, if the only concern is attaching a POV essay in article space, and the Wine Project has a page of its own, perhaps it could be moved out of article space and to a subpage of the project page. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought long and hard about this article, trying to see if there was anything worth salvaging. Unfortunately, to edit out the original research or essayish wording would leave you with nearly a blank page. Agne 09:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agne, there is precedent for attaching essays to the talk pages of articles. I've seen it done. It would become a talk page archive. As a talk page archive, it's out of the main space, and anyone can still use the good bits. I doubt anyone would vote to keep the article where it is.
If you agree, then you as the nominator can withdraw this nomination, then go to the article and click on the "Move" tab to move it to a sub-page of a talk page; I suggest moving it under Talk:French wine per the comment of Smerdis of Tlön above (the new article name would be Talk:French wine/Problems in the French wine industry). To withdraw the nom, just strike out the nomination (Using <s> and </s>) and write "withdrawn" below it. I understand you can technically also close it yourself but I'm not sure how that's done. -Amatulic 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan on withdrawing. Looking at the history of this patch of information, it has remained virtually unchanged since AshleyHouston left it. It is a personal essay-one person's opinion and synthesis. Its presence is simply "Wiki-publishing" of original research. If it has a place in Wikipedia, it is on a user's subpage. Agne 09:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that there is no appropriate user subpage - unless someone volunteers. To the extent that some information in the article is useful, it belongs as a subpage archive to a related talk page. -Amatulic 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. This is an essay filled with OR. It doesn't really strike me as encyclopedic. -- The Bethling(Talk) 05:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is a non-encyclopedic essay entry. Aside from the poor sourcing, the synthesis is questionable at best. Simonus 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created this page by moving the text out of 'Bordeaux wine'. Perhaps I should have just deleted it then. The text came from the 'French wine bashing' school of editors (French wine is rubbish, in terminal decline, we all want to drink Gallo...) whose influence has now mostly been removed from Wikipedia. The page breaks many of the wikipedia guidelines (especially OR, POV). Perhaps one or two bits of it could be extracted for use elsewhere. Poujeaux 14:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While the content is interesting (though the presentation cumbersome) I don't believe essays belong in an encyclopedia. Steve.Moulding 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: find another wiki to put it in, it is a nice essay, but does not meet WP:NOT. Jerry lavoie 01:28, 26 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 G4, although there are a lot of keeps, they are mostly by SPAs. Cbrown1023 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ExtraLife[edit]

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

Already deleted once for being non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife). Article recreated again with no outside sources given to prove notability. #224 on WebComic list. Article should be moved to Webcomic Wiki. Also note that the author's entry [66] was deleted for not being notable along with his other podcast "The Instance." [67] Ocatecir 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreated content. Consider salting also. Otto4711 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the comic most certainly rests as notable now. At it's previous deletion, the comic was much smaller (holding an Alexa rating of around 470,000), but has since grown to enjoy an extremely large reader base (they're current Alexa rank sits at around 35,000), and is pointed to often by other gaming sites, such as Joystiq. It certainly ranks as more notable than 90% of the things on the Wiki's list of webcomics. However, the article does need to be cleaned up and expanded. There is almost no info pertaining to the comic itself in the article. --Nmaster64 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing an article to other articles that exist is not a valid argument against deletion per WP:ILIKEIT#What_about_article_x. If those articles are non-notable they will be deleted in time as well. Traffic is not a test for notability. Outside independent sources need to write about the subject in order to prove notability. - Ocatecir 21:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. Nothing that makes sense is a valid argument on Wikipedia for notability. Because userbase is totally negligible when talking about "notability"...I'd like to know where these outside independent sources are supposed to come from in the case of webcomics too, not exactly plentiful...Extra Life hits around gaming circles about as much as it can...[68] [69] [70] [71] Also, the site certainly passes the Search Engine Test, returning first on all major search engines for the terms "extra"+"life" and "extra life", which is a somewhat common phrase, especially in gaming circles. --Nmaster64 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt as recreated content. Nothing substantial has changed since the first AfD; there are still no sources. Trebor 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- recreated content. bogdan 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hmmm... When I looked at this article the first thing I thought to myself was "haven't I seen this somewhere before ?"... And sure enough, there are those comments about re-created content in the AfD debate. But let's focus on the facts: is the subject of the article notable, and is the article adequately referenced ? Notability is not, in my view, proven: it's hard to see how a listenership of just 15,000 can be regarded as significant - there are hospital radio stations with larger weekly audiences - and although it's claimed that the podcast is highly rated by Yahoo no evidence is presented to support this. On balance I feel this is a Delete. WMMartin 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently ExtraLife Radio is Yahoo Podcast's 32nd highest rated podcast [72][73], which most certainly is notable. This and other arguments here have me decided. Keep. --Twigge 08:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that it is the 32 most highly rated, which is entirely subjective and offers no indication of notability, not in the top 100 most highly popular podcasts, which would indicate listenership. Besides that, listing on a directory does not establish notability, per WP:WEB. - Ocatecir 09:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently the total number of podcast listeners is very small. The number of people who have even downloaded a single podcast is less than 6,000,000. The number of regular podcast listeners is probably a fourth of that. This means that with 15,000 listeners ExtraLife Radio captures approximately 1% of the total number of people listening to podcasts, a significant portion of the market. Considering the amount of growth the podcast has seen since this article was last deleted, I think it should be kept for the time being, assuming the show will maintain it's current rate of growth. I also feel that it satisfies the notability requirement based on Nmaster64 above links. The article needs a lot of cleanup, but it should not be deleted. 67.88.66.41 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should keep Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Podcasts in mind, particularly comments by Nifboy. - Ocatecir 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should also be noted that the basis for most of the delete suggestions here is solely on the fact that this is recreated content. As this podcast and web comic have increased in popularity by a factor of ten since the original article was deleted, I think this is not a valid reason to delete the article. If it is decided that ExtraLife is still not notable enough to have an article about it, then so be it, but to suggest this article needs to be deleted simply because it is recreated content is not a valid reason. 67.88.66.41 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is, because popularity is not a criterion for inclusion. Had substantial sources been found in this time, then it could be reconsidered, but merely an expanded audience is insufficient. Trebor 17:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that because the audience has expanded it should stay. I am saying that because the audience has expanded, deleting this article simply because it is recreated content would be a mistake. What might not have been notable could very well be considered notable now. If everything else were equal, and this article was recreated, I would say delete it strait away, but the podcast has grown dramatically since the article was originally deleted. To simply suggest this article should be deleted because it is recreated content is irresponsible. I am not sure what you mean by lack of substantial sources though, Nmaster64 listed multiple external references above. Those references combined with Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Podcasts Ocatecir linked to, in my mind establishes notability. 67.88.66.41 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ocatecir 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough I read the article wrong. I still feel that the references cited establish notability though. If you disagree so be it, you are entitled to your opinion. My original statement stands though, to say that the article should be deleted simple because it has been recreated is poor logic. And the opinion that ExtraLife is not notable is obviously not unanimous. 67.88.66.41 20:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be deleted as recreated content, as nothing very applicable to deletion has changed. But if you want to start from scratch, fine. There is still no evidence of notability; the links provided all give a trivial mention to the topic (in my eyes). Trebor 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comic was ranked 9th in an article about the top web comics [74]. This is an opinion piece, not based on votes or subscriptions or the likes. This comic is also regularly featured on Joystiq.com's Weekly Comic Roundup[75]. It also redistributed via mmorpg.com[76]. This redistribution alone satisfies the requirement for notability. See point three of Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria. Also pay attention to footnote 7. If you still don't feel like these sources provide proof of notability, please explain why. MajorSpoiler.com may be trivial but joystiq.com and mmorpg.com definitely are not. 67.88.66.41 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double speedy delete recreated article on web content with no claim of notability. -- Dragonfiend 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As demonstrated above this article satisfies the requirements for notability set forth in WP:N. If you disagree with the arguements please explain your reasoning. As has been demonstrated the web comic has been reviewed referenced and redistributed by several reputable sources. Fforde 20:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of bias issues (have to have plug-in installed, internet explorer etc.) Alexa is not regarded as a measure of notability. - Ocatecir 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ExtraLife Radio was also recently independently reviewed here. Just pointing out further sources that have found ExtraLife notable enough to write about. Fforde 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogs do not meet the criteria as they are self-published. See WP:V- Ocatecir 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm no. Self published means published by the person responsible for the content. If this were a review of ExtraLife, published by the guys at ExtraLife, that would qualify as self-published. This does not, it is published by an independent source. Fforde 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-read WP:V#SELF. Basically, self published sources (even independent ones) are largely not acceptable as sources. Wikipedia is not meant to catalog ideas posted on blogs. We have better standards of sourcing, accuracy, and neutrality than that -- we use sources with reputations for fact-checking an accuracy. -- Dragonfiend 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, my mistake, however I was not trying to use this a proof of notability, I feel that is already covered by the redistribution mentioned above. I was just pointing out further references to the site to emphasis the growth ExtraLife has experienced since the article was deleted the first time. And I know audience size is not criteria for notability. It was just a comment. Fforde 18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read through the above, and I don't see anything thta meets Wikipedia:Notability's "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. " --Dragonfiend 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point three of Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria states that an article meets criteria for notability if "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." The ExtraLife comic is redistributed via mmorpg.com, a well known and independent news source for massively multiplayer online games. Not only does this website aggregate external news but they also conduct interviews with individuals from well-known game development studios[77] [78] [79]. Based on this redistribution, this article about ExtraLife meets the requirements for Notability. EDIT: My point is that the requirement you quoted is one of three that web based media may satisfy to qualify as notable. The requirment is that the media meet any one of the three possible criteria. --Fforde 19:47, 23 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 The Magic Faraway Tree series, which someone could've done in 20 seconds a week ago without bringing it to afd. - Bobet 13:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toffee Shock[edit]

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

Stub orphaned article of unclear importance within the source material. Either delete or if desired merge and redirect to The Magic Faraway Tree series. Otto4711 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also nominating Google bun for the same reasons. Otto4711 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want an article merged, merge it! AFD is Articles for deletion, not Requested Mergers. (The place to request a merger is the talk page of the relevant article.) Remember this principle: If you had wanted the content deleted, you wouldn't be suggesting a merger, which involves retaining the content. Uncle G 00:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, but I don't need you to lecture me on where we are, nor do I need you to impart to me the principle of merger vs deletion. Otto4711 04:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly you do need this explained to you, since you still haven't chosen one or the other. Uncle G 10:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spelling it out: Delete. However, if someone who knows more about the subject feels that a merge and redirect is the better choice I have no objection. Hope that clears up any ridiculous misunderstandings. Otto4711 13:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Trees[edit]

Between the Trees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable band, fail WP:MUSIC with one record (on an indie label with as far as I can tell only two releases until now, the other by Monochromatic) and no other claims to fame. Fram 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as article author - although they do have only one album they have been invited to play at this years bamboozle fest, and have a fairly sizable following. This article[80] (The Miami New Times) also indicates that the bands album has done fairly well on some of the smaller charts, including number 3 on billboard's south atlantic heatseakers chart. They arn't U2 but I believe they clearly meet WP:MUSIC --T-rex 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one album on a minor independent label does not meet WP:MUSIC. A few local press articles would suffice to revise my position. Eludium-q36 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the article linked to above they also got a 600+ word article in the Orlando Sentinel, a very positive review by this alternative rock site, and a mention (though small) by absolutepunk.net --T-rex 17:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Driven Far Off is a site I'd never heard of until this discussion, but their about page suggests there's a well-defined editorial process. Absolute Punk is a show-listing. Orlando Times, though not well-accessible, clearly meets WP:RS. Based on this, I revise my position to weak keep, as there is evidence of multiple (three) non-trivial reports. Eludium-q36 18:14, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thalian chocolate mousse[edit]

Thalian chocolate mousse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - non-notable fictional food item that played a momentary role in a single next Gen episode. I suppose someone could create a List of Star Trek foods and merge this article there but I would not be in favor of it. Otto4711 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One shot food appearing in a single Star Trek episode. Will forever be a stub unless more information is provided by reliable, canon sources, which is unlikely, or by original research, which is not a good thing. Spoo this ain't. -- saberwyn 22:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia. -- Whpq 22:10, 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Hank[edit]

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

Came across this page while reading somebody's talk page, although apparently he is related (in that they are both wrestling promoters) to Mosh Pit Mike who I have also nominated. Much of the information in this bio is similar to the info in that bio. This person doesn't seem to be inherently notability althuogh if notability can be established then cheers, but right now the only "sources" are Hobo Hank's own web site. Orstroeebski 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no sources. Chick Bowen 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Comment: Again, I don't feel it would be right for me to chime in with an opinion here, as I created both of the articles in question. The source given is AmarilloPWF.com, which is a webpage that is only editable by the webmaster, who is employed by the WTWL. I feel the nominator was misleading in identifying the only source as "Hobo Hank's own web site". Also, as I stated with Mosh Pit Mike, Hobo Hank is listed on the West Texas Wrestling Legends (WTWL) page. This is the only reason I created an article for him, I figured if he was mentioned in a wikipedia article, he deserved to have an article of his own. Burquelo 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Oh man! Here I go again, continuing with the long windedness. I also feel that user Orstrobeeski has a personal grudge against me. If he were to be putting deletion notices in all wrestler pages, I would accept it as a substantial challenge. But look at CJ Summers. This page cites no sources whatsoever, except for the wrestler's personal website. There are no federation websites which suggest he even exists, yet Orstrobeeski simply removed links instead of nominating the article for deletion. Personal attacks are fine, I'm a big boy, but I think it's unfair when it impacts a wiki.[reply]
    • I figured if he was mentioned in a wikipedia article, he deserved to have an article of his own. — That is not the case. The criteria that we employ for who warrants articles of their own are our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Please cite sources to demonstrate that this person satisfies one or more of those criteria. Uncle G 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete: The nomination for deletion on this wiki page is an outrage. "Hobo" Hank is a professional wrestler that I have seen with my own eyes perform for West Texas Wrestling Legends in Amarillo, TX. The AmarilloPWF.com website is not ran by anyone other than WTWL Management and The WTWL Webmaster. While "Hobo" Hank is on The WTWL roster, he is not the promoter and has no access to editing AmarilloPWF.com in anyway. Being apart of The WTWL, I know that the information on Hanks' wikipedia page is 100% accurate and I can say that "Hobo" Hank has performed at every WTWL show since I've been associated with it in June of 2006. This page belongs on wiki just as much as any other wrestlers page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brett420x (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • None of which is relevant. Wikipedia does not operate upon the personal testimony of editors that things are "100% accurate". Our goal is Verifiability, which does not involve taking editors' words for things at all. Please cite sources to demonstrate that our criteria for inclusion of biographies are satisfied by this person. Uncle G 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment again I would just like to point out the HUGE list of wrestlers on wikipedia who do not cite sources. If you delete this entry, we will need to get started on the rest. This is just the A's. Notice the well known people.. Tank Abbott, Yokozuna, Arn & Ole Anderson, Road Warrior Animal.. come on. David L. Abbott Trent Acid Donna Adamo Toni Adams Brian Adias Adrian Adonis Akebono Taro Brent Albright Gary Albright Bryan Alvarez The Amazing Darkstone Amazing Red Arn Anderson!! Gene Anderson Melissa Anderson Ole Anderson!! Davey Andrews Eric Angle Road Warrior Animal Rodney Anoa'i(Yokozuna)Kimberly Anthony Tony Anthony Scott Anthony Ray Apollo Ted Arcidi Jason Arhndt Alex Arion Brad Armstrong Scott Armstrong Steve Armstrong David Arquette Tim Arson Christopher Ashford-Smith Tony Atlas (oops, forgot to sign)Burquelo 23:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, unless some sources are found. As for the list you have recopied here, I think if someone began to do cursory research, sources would be quickly found for the people who are truly notable, thus making it a non-issue. As for the others, if sources really can't be found, then delete them.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreeing with above. Some of the aforementioned may be notable enough to warrant their own entry per WP:BIO but most probably do not and should be expunged forthwith. Eusebeus 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment those currently opposed to deletion might become more understanding of the delete votes if they read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Lyrl Talk C 00:46, 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, —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, as the relisting admin, the only reason I am relisting is that the nominator for this AFD removed the tag off of the article, as the AFD has already attracted opinions, I thought it is best to go ahead and re-list this, so that people viewing the article have a chance to have their say. Cheers —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a wrestler with no varifiably notibility from respectable sources given.--Dacium 07:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO DELETE: Not every wrestler's Wiki page has their sources listed for all of the page's content. This Wiki page has the source of the official website of the promotion the wrestler wrestles for. This page should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.29.15 (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This IP has been removing the afd template on several occasions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orstroeebski (talk • contribs) 21:22, January 18, 2007
  • DO NOT DELETE: Agree with statement above. Other wrestler's Wikipedia pages do not site all sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.15 (talk • contribs) 01:01, January 19, 2007
  • Keep I see no harm in keeping this wrestler's article, closing admin should discount both the IP repeating himself and propably the angry delete votes too reacting to his spam. Killroy4 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no problem in letting this wrestler's page stand.
Comment This IP has voted three different times in this debate.Orstroeebski 12:59, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Castagnero[edit]

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

Failed independent gubernatorial candidate. Election is over, she is now just a retired teacher. Contributions to this article come from a single purpose account and an anon who is almost certainly Piotr Blass, prolific and now banned purveyor of vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No other assertion of notability besides running as a fringe candidate for her party's nomination. She never even made it as far as the election ballot. Caknuck 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Presumption of non-notability of failed election candidates per consensus. Does not appear to pass any criteria within WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 09:50, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet[edit]

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

Article's only claim to fame is that it's the first Finnish web comic. Even if this were verified, it wouldn't meet any of the three criteria of WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable sources showing notability are produced.Keep - Willing to give the benefit of the doubt; looks like it's been print-published in notable publications (though I can't really research Finnish-language stuff), also don't want to contribute to systematic bias. Props to Kizor for working on this. --Fang Aili talk 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Finnish version of the article claims it has been published in ITviikko and Ilta-Sanomat, though I don't know if that refers to their websites or print, latter of which might mean it's at least somewhat notable. Still, getting the comics on such major publications, even to their online editions, is quite an achievement. However, right at the moment, some more sourcing to get claims of fame established would be mighty great. I'm not coffeed enough to do that myself. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as the largest and most popular webcomic of a nontrivial country. Verifiable by being featured in significant media of the same. Being featured in either ITviikko and Ilta-Sanomat, the latter of which is the largest Finnish tabloid, meets criteria #3 of WP:WEB regardless of whether this featuring was in print or online. --Kizor 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article has no third-party sources for anything, let alone any suggesting importance. -- Dragonfiend 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Keep per Kizor's introduction of multiple references to reliable third-party sources which presumably discuss topic's importance (I don't read Finnish myself). -- Dragonfiend 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I contacted a writer and received the times and newspapers when and where the comic has been featured in print. These constitute distribution in a well-known medium independent of the creators. I received an article about the strip itself as well. I've added these to the references as well as I could. Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet was also featured in a notable online publication, but a subscription-only one, and a good while ago, so how would we prove that? --Kizor 11:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks notable, albeit in need of cleaning up. Apparently meets WP:WEB 3. —xyzzyn 16:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kizor. --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a great feeling, folks. --Kizor 20:01, 22 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 and redirect to Teletubbies. Cbrown1023 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tubby toast[edit]

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

Delete unsourced stub article with no assertion of notability. Otto4711 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as trivia -- Whpq 22:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced trivia - and I loved that ingredient list :) SkierRMH 05:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Teletubbies as it's a part of the teletubbies show and is a realistic search term. MLA 11:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Integral part of the show, but not enough to make it on its own. Keresaspa 14:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lopado...pterygon[edit]

Lopado...pterygon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - dictdef which has little or no potential of expanding beyond dictcef. Already in Wiktionary. Otto4711 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My point is that it is able to pass WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:V policies, and in my opinion it doesnt fall short of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as it contains more than a dictionary definition or usage guide. WP:RS/WP:OR may be a problem, but I doubt it. IMO it is borderline, but it is much more pleasant to view than the wikt page because it isnt littered with greek. i.e. the wikipedia article is a simplified version of the wiktionary article, and as such there would be occasions where it is preferable to link to the wiki article. If the consensus is that it fails the inclusion policy, I think it should become a hard or soft redirect to wiktionary, if that is possible. John Vandenberg 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - can easily be expanded with information on how it is significant in the play, makiing it more than a dictdef —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, expand if possible - this could make for a very interesting article. Robin Chen 03:58, 23 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. Cbrown1023 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Source-rated albums[edit]

List of The Source-rated albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
The Source Magazine's Five Mic Albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a list repository or an indiscriminate collection of information. These just list how a particular magazine has rated albums, a potentially never-ending project of little to no actual informative value as this expands to other publications and media outlets. The proper place for this is of course in sections on critical response in individual album articles; I don't see the point in trying to collect in one place all albums for which All Music Guide gave four stars or all films for which Roger Ebert gave thumbs up. See also recent, similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XXL Magazine's XXL Albums. BTW, the Five Mic Albums list at least has some content beyond just a list of the albums, but this section on criticism of the magazine's ratings could be easily merged into the article on the magazine (if it can be sourced, which it isn't at present). Postdlf 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom --T-rex 02:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DeleteAND PLEASE REINSTATE THE DELETED XXL LIST!Having this information collected in one place is very valuable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.229.163 (talk • contribs)
    • Please explain why it is encyclopedic. That it may be of value, to someone, somewhere, for something, is not sufficient for inclusion. Read WP:NOT. BTW, if you would like to challenge a prior, closed deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. Postdlf 23:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We already have The Source Magazine's 100 Best Rap Albums, and I think that's sufficient coverage on one magazine's ratings.--Kubigula (talk) 23:09, 24 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. Cbrown1023 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firm science fiction[edit]

Firm science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This term, to the best of my knowledge, has been proposed on one website to give a name to works of science fiction living between the hard and soft subdivisions of that genre. Perhaps this is laudable, but it's not notable. I get 88 Google hits for the phrase, the list being topped off by Wikipedia and WP mirrors. Many hits are irrelevant ("the firm's science fiction imprint") or use the phrase in a different meaning ("Final Fantasy manages to still be a fantasy but works towards a wide-audience appeal by placing a firm science-fiction spin on it"). For comparison, "hard science fiction" gets over 300,000 ghits, and "soft science fiction" gets over 16,000. In a word, it's cruft. Anville 21:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete
I hate deleting stuff and it is a really good reference link. But I have to agree that this particular term doesn't seem to be in wide use. Sometimes academics make up jargon within a paper to refer to a point without having to use the long-name version of that point. I buy the Google test on this. Avt tor 23:11, 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. Proto::► 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoHo[edit]

LoHo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Delete WP:N/WP:NEO - Deals with a proposed name for a neighborhood that has not become widely used except as novelty or in reference to its namesake realty firm. None of the sources given has verified that LoHo is anything more than a marketing effort by a realty firm or that the name has taken hold as the name of a neighborhood. Mosmof 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations[edit]

(You only get to give one vote make one recommendation with keep, delete, or comment in bold. Do not spam this section.)
  • Keep This attempt is unfounded, and there are references to prove its worthiness. Clearly from the exhaustive attempts by User:MosMof, this is a contentious topic, but I'd ask what for, and why? There are enough people who do call it LoHo ever since the real estate brokers renewed the name in 1996, that LoHo Studios had been using all along. The references do not even mention a realtor and in fact, refer to it as a location in NY. Juda S. Engelmayer 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Juda Engelmayer's sister works at Loho Realty
  • Comment - Quoting from the article itself: LoHo is one proposed name of a neighborhood in the New York City... It does not matter what this article is called. The key question is if LoHo is different from the Lower East Side. Does it have a different area or does it include all of LES? Does it have a different ethnic mix as its population?
  • keep These designations keep coming, and they almost always stay. I suppose it indicates something about NYC that the inhabitants are always trying to re-create it as a series of more and more little villages each characterized a little differently. (cf.Jane Jacobs) If it's already being used, it will be used more. And there are sources. Qy are real estate ads RS? (smile)DGG 07:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please don't break AFD discussions into sections and include tricky sections like references. THey're hard enough to keep in order as it is. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect to Lower East Side, Manhattan. As this is at best just an alternate name for the LES that has indisputably less currency and usage than "Lower East Side", it's a subordinate and largely duplicative topic. At most, mention it in the LES article. Postdlf 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like the article says, it's only a proposed name. It's a new term that's not widely acknowledged by reputable sources. I live on the LES and I've yet to see or hear it except in relation to the eponymous real estate brokers, and it basically is the present day Lower East Side. We can always start an article when it's more notable - there's no rush. Ytny 12:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Loho is a neologism coined by a real estate company of the same name. They have a single propietary interest in the formerly limited equity co-ops south of Delancey, east of Essex. I live in one of them. I've never heard the neighborhood called "Loho" by anyone, not a soul, not even the agents who work for the company. Residents of the neighborhood uniformly refer to it as the Lower East Side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.62.161 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 January 2007
  • Delete (merge/redirect) It's just another name for a section that is generally accepted by even many of its residents to be the Lower East Side. This page should only exist as a redirect, with any unique information merged into the LES article. -- Lampbane 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge/Redirect There is insufficient distinction of LoHo from the entirety of Lower East Side, as it is defined today. This moniker should, at most, be mentioned briefly in the Lower East Side article. --Jco7 18:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (merge/redirect) The "LoHo" term is not in widespread use outside of mentions by LoHo Realty and its PR and publishing associates involved in discussion here. There is a place for a passing reference to "LoHo" in the LES entry as an attempted rebranding but not as a standalone entry. Rlwebb 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant astroturfing. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not inherently averse to having godawful broker-bestowed renamings of neighborhoods in Wikipedia -- we have Nolita, after all -- but they should be used by more than one broker, and they should have at least some public recognition. This fits neither premise. I don't even think it deserves a redirect. --Polonius 16:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term "LoHo" is in the culture, and as such should be noted here. The very discussion on this page suggests there is much political opposition to the use of the term and that, in itself, already justifies not censoring it. The novelty or longevity in this instance is immaterial, but it has been shown that "LoHo" is used in the name of more than one area business for more than a decade. -- [[[User:Yyanover|Yyanover]] 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)YYanover]]
  • Delete This article would do more towards legitimizing a promotional neighborhood renaming than any of the quoted references. Let unfortunate real estate promotional efforts fizzle. Maybe, mention it as a sidenote on the LES page. DarwinPeacock 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Clarification

In a NY Times article, the person who claims to have coined the name admits that it's branding for his firm, the name is intended to be synonymous with the Lower East Side, Manhattan, and he does not expect the term to replace LES. Meanwhile, a NY Daily News article indicates the name is

The sources cited does not show that the term is a widely accepted neologism.

* The The New York Observer article places the name in quotes, indicating that it is not an accepted name.
* LoHo10002 appears to be sponsored or owned by the namesake realty firm.
* The Miami Herald article and the KC Star article are the same article, and only mentions the name in passing. (That is all it will ever be, in passing, as a casual reference to an accepted norm)Juda S. Engelmayer 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Drug Chain News article also only mentions the name in passing (But by Duane Reade's intenral RE divisionm which we can presume knows their neighborhoods for new store possibilitiesJuda S. Engelmayer 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)), and it is unclear how reliable it is when it comes to neighborhood designations.[reply]
* A Forward article Mentions one landlord (who happens to own one of the trendiest buildings downtown Juda S. Engelmayer 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)), who calls the neighborhood Loho.[reply]

While the term might become more accepted in the future, it seems that reputable, local media outlets have not accepted it as such. The way the article reads almost like a real estate brochure, and the way the article starter has included a link to "LoHo" in every possible article, sometimes hiding the link under "Lower East Side", it seems at best, premature neologism, and at worst, spam. Mosmof 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The point is not whether it has a different ethic mix (but it does, as it is a younger, more affluent population than that of the whole Lower East Side which spans Alphabet City all the way down and includes parts of China Town and Loisaida. LoHo is within LES, don't lose site of that) or that you can point to the person who began using it; Loho studios did years ago, than Loho Realty. It is the the demographic and affluence shift that has occurred as a result of the high-yield home prices, especially when compared to that of the Lower East Side as a whole, which consists mostly of City projects and low income housing facilities, has taken the name LoHo to mean the newer, trendier neighborhood, and not the old-style pushcart/peddler Lower East Side. Please understand the difference. Lower East Side is a much bigger picture, LoHo is smaller and more defined by its people, trends, lifestyle, nightlife, expensive homes, condos and hotels, and expensive boutiques. Juda S. Engelmayer 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the NYT article linked above:
"..But I'm not looking to rename the Lower East Side; I want it to be an 'also known as.'"
This suggests that Mr. Goldman means for LoHo to be interchangeable with Lower East Side.
Modern day boundaries of LES are often debated, but major media outlets generally limit it to the area between Houston and Canal, and exclude EV and Loisaida/Alphabet City from LES. And by that definition, LoHo is essentially LES.
But even if we do decide it's a separate neighborhood, I believe the article fails on WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms. Mosmof 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "but major media outlets generally limit.." Why not do a news search for gunshots, violence, crime in various Alphabet City/Loisaida areas, and see that Lower East Side applies to everything below 14th Street and above the financial/City Hall region. Without fail, the Lower East Side is a broad area in Manhattan that is often painted just as broadly.Juda S. Engelmayer 03:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The entire point here is that it not an issue of what Goldman wants or not, it's out there. Goldman at this point is irrelevant to the issue - he was once, but not anymore. This sounds like a personal issue, leave that part alone. On the merits, LoHo is commonly used by the newcomers and the younger long-timers, and it will become even more within a short time.Juda S. Engelmayer 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response First off, WP:AGF. Second, you're misunderstanding my point. I have nothing against Goldman. The reason I cite that article is because it's one of the few reliable media articles that deal with, and actually define LoHo, and it seems to say that it falls short of being an actual neighborhood name. All the other articles fail to meet WP:RS and/or WP:NEO guidelines. We don't have any reliable media source that defines LoHo as anything more than an occasionally used neologism. Mosmof 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can quote for you 1000 articles that refer to the neighborhood as LoHo; what you are doing is trying to back Wiki into a corner by saying that if one or more are not full features on the name LoHo, you won't buy it. The fact is that people, people from all over, near and far alike, are using the name LoHo. The fact that media refer to it, trendy nightspots and shops refer to it, etc,. says that it is beyond a whim or a novelty - and 1000 articles like this will be unable to satisfy anyone bent against the new moniker. The fact that you care so much about Wikipedia's integrity that you want this article to reflect a comfortable tone is commendable; that you chose Loho as your first and only target as the reason Wikipedia is not there yet, is, perhaps, a bit of a tell (as we say in poker). I just hope that the judges see rationale above all, and I appreciate the debateJuda S. Engelmayer 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - In short, yes, I'd take one NYT feature trumps 1000 articles. I've linked to WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms several times already, but here's the relevant part:
Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.
An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).
Please stop worrying about my motivations (again, WP:AGF) and just find a reliable source that verifies its notability. Mosmof 08:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki asks for reliable non-self originated sources. It also tends to not like blogs. Yet, many of the pieces are bona-fide news reports from established media, and the blogs are either popular media-like spots, as is the New York Observer Real Estate blog, written by real reporters, and others using the name LoHo in various references to the area in question have been written years prior to this debate, prior to the Wiki LoHo entry being created. These are all pickups from what has become a popularized name over the past 10 years, not recent plants to support my or anyone else's theory.Juda S. Engelmayer 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on the one hand, this is but one of many part-marketing, part-humorous neighborhood names that spring up, often as a result of gentrification. Will it pass the 100 year test? Hard to tell. SoHo took about 20 years to get established. On the other hand, I've heard this term and I haven't lived in NYC for 20 years. NoHo seems to have become accepted, without supplanting the larger Greenwich Village of which it's a part, not the least through the official designation of a "NoHo Historic District". Loisaida was still a pretty new, jocular term when I lived out there, again, without supplanting or being a renaming of Lower East Side. I'm willing to consider it a "sub-neighborhood" if that's clear. My take on sources is that it's just barely there. There was a whole NYT article about the neighborhood and its designation. In any case, I don't think there's any case for labeling it as something limited to the one real estate firm. In the 90s, there may have been. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nicely put.Juda S. Engelmayer 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many citations that demonstrate that, if nothing else, the moniker is well beyond a single person, and used by people and parties of all sorts, even if it is not loved or used by all - yet. See the LoHo site and its references Juda S. Engelmayer 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that while neighborhood designations may stay and might even get a few mass media mentions, they don't always reach the level of "true" (for the lack of a better word) neighborhood names a la Alphabet City. Many often stay the way of SoHell ("South of Hell's Kitchen" for the lower Midtown West area below Port Authority), which has been around for a while and even got a NY magazine profile, but has mostly stayed at the word of mouth level, like so many microhoods that pop up on sites like Curbed.com ever so often. So I'm not sure "it'll stick around" is enough to make a case, which is why I think WP:NEO is a good test - widely used isn't necessarily notable. Mosmof 08:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Names are a personal and sensitive thing, which is why anyone with half a brain would stay away from the topic. So let me say this...

The Lower East Side stretched 100 years ago from 14th Street all the way to the water and included Chinatown, too. But within that area there were always neighborhoods (Chinatown & Corlear’s Hook come to mind). Those neighborhoods were named by their residents to determine a more precise location than a 2 by 3 mile area, and, believe it or not, for commercial reasons. Like the Orchard Street area.

SoHo, East Village (a total fabrication) and NoHo (likewise) have been there before. I believe LoHo is catching flack mostly for being latest to get rich off of real estate values in the city. It smacks of old money scorning the new, even if the person attacking it is a pauper.

Also, the East Village tag has been the flag of uninhibited gentrification, which utilized frontal violence to protect property values – is that a valued name for you? Think the Koch troops doing the Gestapo thing in Tompkins Park – that's what East Village brings to my mind. In comparison, what's the crime of LoHo? A pun on real estate history? An attempt to imbue an immigrants' neighborhood with some of the shine of the arts and hipness of SoHo? User:Yyanover 03:34, 18 January 2007

As a young person who spends a lot of time in the Lower East Side, I have not once heard anyone use the name LoHo in reference to the neighborhood. Call it an urban myth, I call it a real estate plan to attach a neighborhood name to its company. It's no secret that the man arguing to keep the name is a PR person.--Josef

Funny how Josef's only other entry is the inclusion of a reference to an organization that has been vocal critics of a name change; and yes, my living comes from PR, but A) I don't hide that, it's in my bio, and more importantly, b)I am a Lower East Sider with a tad more experience in the neighborhood that some of of the other writers here. My family business, by the way, is known for being a "Lower East Side" tourist spot and part of its rich history, and not LoHo, so this argument can even be construed as counter productive - as far a self interest is concerned.Juda S. Engelmayer 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this on the Observer. Its seems that while Mr. Engelmayer is open about his working in PR, he isn't being open about LoHo Realty being a client at hi PR company ( http://www.5wpr.com/Our_Clients/Index.cfm ). (He's neither a 5W Client or a personal one Juda S. Engelmayer 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC))With that in mind, it seems a bit disengenous to represent the entry as fact when the fact is it's part of a marketing campaign. I don't fault people for wanting to build up areas. But the Lower East Side- which is finally seeing its day again - is one of NYC's last remaining true-neighborhoods. NYC is at enough risk of erasing its past due to real estate development; Creating (or trying to brand ) a neighborhood from one that already possesses a rich identity is simply self-serving (to say the least) and pays no mind to the people who have spend years building it. I say delete the entry.Jilk96 19:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: AfD is not a vote. Why does this discussion have a "Votes" section? --Pak21 10:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the name of the section to "Recommendations". -- Petri Krohn 11:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, what happens if I stumble upon the term "LoHo" as a synonym for LES and wonder how the moniker came to be? My first instinct is to turn to Wikipedia. Imagine my dismay upon discovering that once again, some Wikipedia administrator decided this information (reliably sourced though it is) wasn't worth knowing, obstructing--for the n millionth time in this site's existence--learning, knowledge, and the spread of information. I won't be surprised, though. Most of you administrators are petty hypocrites. 66.150.69.10 22:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this should be one short paragraph in the Lower East Side entry, not its own separate entry.

  • Redirect to Lower East Side, add something there about the parasites at LoHo realty, etc. and their efforts to gentrify the LES --Tothebarricades 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Delete it as its own article. I second the redirect suggestion. A name doesn't deserve its own article. Michaelfs 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This should be deleted. The term LoHo is a marketing ploy. Even DUMBO can make a better claim than LoHo. It would be as if someone asked their friend to put a Wikipedia entry in referring to them by some sort of nickname. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.141.152 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: The East Village was a 1970's invention by real estate brokers who were thugs to boot. Everything you know about cruel gentrification, complete with sending riot police after squatters, happened on the sacred East Village. But no one challenges this made up name because it's been there almost 40 years. To sanctify the evil EV while calling LoHo "parasites" is to be entirely devoid of a notion of history. A name is out there as part of the culture. You want to censor the culture? Who gave you the right? [User Yyanover]

I think both sides of the debate are missing the issue - whether LoHo is "real" or not is inconsequential. The real question is whether it passes Wikipedia's tests for notability (I've already mentioned WP:NEO here and in the talk page). You're right, no one challenges "East Village" because it's been around for 40 years (since the mid-60s, actually). And because it's been around for 40 years, there are reliable sources that verify its existence and its boundaries, and define it as a proper neighborhood. More to the point, East Village managed to gain notability without the benefit of a Wikipedia article - we can only see if LoHo can do the same. Mosmof 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Captain Kirk Are you sure we want to apply the Federation's Prime Directive in covering sociological phenomena? Anything that is being discussed here has been altered by the mere process of its discussion. Countless humanoids with pointy ears have tried in vain to follow in the footsteps of your purist approach, only to realize too late that applying the Prime Directive is just one more way of violating it. Wikipedia can afford to record the culture as it's being forged around us, including the changes induced by Wikipedia. If you want to know things 40 years after the fact, buy a Britanica. [YYanover]

The ad hominem aside, you're missing my point - I'm not saying wait 40 years. In fact, if Wikipedia were around 40 years ago, East Village would have had its own article then because the neighborhood had already received substantial mass media coverage. NoLIta, which we are led to believe isn't that much older than the LoHo name, has managed to gain traction that LoHo hasn't come close to. So no, you don't have to worry about Wikipedia falling into irrelevance because of it silly little rules.
That aside, wouldn't it be ethical for you to at least disclose that you are the editor of LoHo10002.com and publisher of Grand Street News, and have a business relationship with Jacob Goldberg and LoHo Realty? Mosmof 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your allegation is 100% untrue. But, as you represent the Lower East Side BID that has been opposed to any renaming for so long... Oh, but we can't know for sure, because some of us are open, while others lurk in anonymity. The joke of your tone and conspiracy theories, whether Wikipedia deletes it or not, has everything to do with whether the administrators feel LoHo is an established term, and nothing to do with its origins and the neighborhood politics.
Sad to say, most of the posts against LoHo, indicate more of a position against the proprietor and how his actions vis à vi gentrification and promotion over the years have affected the neighborhood. The fact that the name LoHo is used, primarily the new people and the younger people, is what will count in the end, and not the nastiness that just about all of those neighborhood people who have had their say here have spewed.
Whether the neighborhood is now more expensive, less Jewish, more gentrified and all, has nothing to do with whether the term is in play, and frankly, has little to do with the proprietor in question – he was in the right place at the right time 10 years ago – anyone else who might have stepped in instead of him would have sold millions worth of apartments too, and we’d be in the same argument – just maybe a different name/term. Get real people – separate your emotions from facts and try to have a civil conversation – that is what is lacking, and that is the traditional Lower East Side. Move on. Juda S. Engelmayer 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which allegation is untrue? That Yori Yanover is the editor of LoHo Realty's LoHo10002.com? Or that East Village received media coverage in the 60s? Or that the name NoLIta has firmly established itself? If any of that is true, I'll retract the "allegation".
Pointing out an apparent conflict of interest is not a conspiracy theory - it's more than relevant to the argument if you or Yori have, or at one point had, a professional relationship with Goldman and LoHo Realty, since one of the questions here is whether the real estate company is engaging in astroturfing. It doesn't discount your argument, but it's at least worth considering, and it actually would help your argument if you were completely transparent about your relationship with the realtors.
(FWIW, I am a 20-something resident of the Lower East Side who is not affiliated with the Lower East Side BID, so I unfortunately have no sexy details to disclose)
I also don't need a lecture on civility from someone who has refused to assume good faith from the very start. Like I said before, stop worrying about me or my motivations, and for once, address whether the article meets Wikipedia's standards. Mosmof 14:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Telling me to Assume Good faith while you make and have been making blatant remarks about astroturfing from the start is the pot calling the kettle black. Don't you think?
I have lived on the Lower East considerably longer than Jacob, have been on the Community Board, local Coop Board , Synagogue Board, and have been actively involved in local and neighborhood politics for more than 20 years. I have a business there, raise my kids there and have been actively involved in trying to build the community up. So, to assume that I have a professional relationship with Jacob and use that assumption as your basis for my activism is as much a load of garbage as is your seeking to make Wikipedia the perfect place for you and the world - but I guess it sounds good to write it and see if it sticks.
I have loads of neighborhood credentials that go deeper and further than any broker here can claim, but my feeling that LoHo is more commonly used that you'd care to admit has nothing to do with any of it. My experience tells me and shows me that. Thanks again, for trying to infuse your self righteous indignation on your minimalist’s Wikipedia.Juda S. Engelmayer 15:05, 23 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 prejudice to recreation with the correct information. Teke (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Großes Höllental[edit]

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

Article was created as result of a confusion, contains no factual information. There is no "Großes Höllental" near the Zugspitze or anywhere in Bavaria. It is in reality a small side valley on the Rax, which has no entry in de.wikipedia.org. Unless someone finds enough material to create a new page and wants to do it, this stub should be deleted. The creator of that page did not reply to my comments on the talk pages and his user page, although he was active inbetween. This lemma has also three redirects to it. Hurax 21:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed with Hurax, I will scan some pages for you relating to this in List's book (its in German) so you would be better at getting the correct information from this. Hope this will help. I would like ot improve this article with this material. Robert C Prenic 09:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hurax, here are the pages. 19 (highlighted with a red box, I also think this mentinos the Rax?) (German wikipedia article) - this is page 19 of the book Der Wiederentdecker Uralter Arischer Weisheit and this page 523 is page 523 of the book Deutsch-Mythologische Landschaftsbilder. Please can you translate these for me please? I GREATLY appreciate your help on this. Also, in the second book, their is a chapter called 'Das Höllental' which is referred to I think in the second link above (523)? (Siehe Seite 469 ?) A few weeks ago you kindly "found the solution to your riddle here: [81] Ask if you need a translation. To put it short, the Großes Höllental is a small valley leading to the Rax, in Lower Austria in the easternmost end of the Alps, and has nothing to do with the Höllental which leads up to the Zugspitze. - so, if the second link does mention the Rax then this is what it is? I would like to get this perfect. If this is correct then it should be added to the list on the German article section called Einige Wanderungen und Steige Robert C Prenic 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll translate it soon and leave it up to you if you can make an article out of it. --Hurax 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The present article seems to be just wrong. As others have commented above, the Grosses Höllental is near the Rax, which is southwest of Vienna, part of the water-supply area for the capital, and nowhere near the Zugspitze, which is on the border of Austria and Germany. It is hard to see why a small valley in Austria with a non-unique name that is not mentioned in the German Wikipedia is notable enough for us to include. EdJohnston 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All - I now have all of the information on thje correct spot for my article and I can only apologise for myself making a mistake with this place. Please delete th article and I will make one in the correct place. Once this areticle is deleted I will make a proper one. Robert C Prenic 21:55, 23 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. Wikibofh 15:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad[edit]

Appears to be spam promoting a (possibly nonexistent) company/person. Created by User:211.30.179.139, then marked by User:Robchurch as needing "cleanup-importance", but that flag was then removed by User:211.30.179.139 (and at the same time adding some seemingly irrelevant text). I could find nothing about this person/company on Google, so I suspect that it doesn't exist. We don't seem to have any content to keep, or sources from which to create such content. Erik Demaine 02:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Kewp (t) 06:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any information on him on the internet. The name of the article isn't even the name mentioned in the text. As to Mawassi, I guess it would be more notable to put up pages on Al Mawassi in tha Gaza strip or on a certain successfull scientist from Isreal. Karol 06:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is legitimate information. Ziad Mawassi is a real person and a local hero who lends his valuable time to many people in the community. He has helped many troubled teenagers by giving them a knowledge and experience in the automotive industry. Ziad Mawassi improved the quality of my life when he transformed my classic Ford into a show winner, as he has to many others.

  • Has he appeared in any newspaper articles or anything of that sort which would prove what you've told us? --Last Malthusian 11:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Last Malthusian 11:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can also attest to Ziads quality of work. Previously having bad experiences with another restorator, i had a meeting with Ziad to discuss my options with my vehicle. Noting his professional behaviour and vast knowledge of the industry, i decided to trust him with my pride and joy. The final results were unimaginable. Even i couldnt envision such a quality job!

I would also like to state how much Ziad has contributed to our community. Realising that his success has been hugely a result of our community, he now strives to give back what he can. Quite often he has been a part of charity fundraising. From simple ordeals, to larger-scale projects, such as restoring cars to be sold off to raise funds.

I can not stress enough the faith i have in Ziad Mawassi, and his level of character.

I can and will definately hold my flag up high and show support that Ziad Mawassi as a genuine person. I can surely solemly swear that he singlehandedly "tricked up" my show winning Datsun Fairlady roadster. 2 Cheers for ziad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hooray!!

  • Delete per nom. FYI, the two unindented postings above are by User:138.25.2.22 (see her/his talk page). This IP resolves to a different Australian ISP than the creator of Ziad, User:211.30.179.139. However, the wording suggests that they are the same person or closely aligned. --Erik Demaine 13:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Kgf0 20:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; doing good auto restoration work and local charity work is not inherently notable. MCB 01:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Flyerz[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BAND. I came across this article by seeing it vandalized. I reverted the vandalism and noted that the band didn't have any third-party coverage. A myspace account does not a notable band make. -- Ben (talk) 21:27, 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. Cbrown1023 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scubbo[edit]

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

Delete - non-notable fictional food item. If it's more significant to the plot of the source book than is made apparent by the article, then merge the relevant bits and redirect, otherwise get rid of it. Otto4711 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Despite the utter awesomeness of Prachett's works, scubo only has a minor impact on the story, and at this point in time, the fictional foodstuf has not been the subject of any externally verifiable, third-party writings. -- saberwyn 22:06, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mikey Show[edit]

The Mikey Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is about a morning radio show in San Diego. As far as I can tell, it is utterly non-notable. I originally prod'd it, and the prod was removed with an edit summary of, "The Mikey Show is a very popular show in a large market. How is this not notable?" by someone who has been around long enough that they should know what is and isn't notable. I was hesitant to take this to AFD, especially since I tend to err on the side of wanting to keep marginally notable articles; but really, what makes The Mikey Show different from any other popular large-market morning show? A google search for The Mikey Show KIOZ garners 362 Google hits. By comparison, a google search for Wank & O'Brien Hank (an Indianapolis market morning show) garners 9,820; but I wouldn't think they should have a Wikipedia article either. Looking at The Mikey Show's google results indicate that Mikey replaced Howard Stern on that station. While Howard Stern is certianly notable, I don't see how that would make The Mikey Show notable, and that assertion isn't in the article anyhow. The article cites no sources, and has been tagged as such since July. No one has cited sources to demonstrate notability in that time. Basically, I really hate to do this; but I have to ask... how is this show notable? How is it any more notable than its competiors on the other San Diego radio stations? How is it more notable than similar shows in other major markets? And why are there no sources in the article? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why is this a valid reason to consider deleting the article? It's not notible by WHOSE definition? First of all, the show is the top rated show in the San Diego area, and if you don't believe that, get your hands on a copy of the Arbitron book. Second, most of the notes in this article are from audio sources, and where the audio is not archived, how is it possible to post a link to the source? Why don't I just make up a webpage to put as a source? Third of all, this article is hardly non-notable. This very page has actually been referenced numerous times on the air on the Mikey Show. And fourth, I have saved a copy of the article, and I'm going to circulate it among every listener of the Mikey Show I know, meaning that if it gets deleted, it will be posted back up just as quickly, because neither I, nor the rest of the P1 listeners, believe that "it's not notable" is a valid reason to "mark it for deletion". You're missing the entire point of what Wikipedia is about. It's not only supposed to have "major events, people, places and things" like the Encyclopaedia Britannica - it's supposed to be a source for almost anything. SIGNED: a Mikey Show fan and Wikipedia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.248.76 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2007
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, as evidenced by 4 primary sources and a myspace link. Discounting content sourced from this Wikipedia article, Google reveals the same. CiaranG 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the problem with Google searches, because I was able to find over 20 news articles on the Mikey show and its woes with the FCC and its firing, some of which I added to the page. The FCC controversy definitely makes it notable. - Ocatecir 08:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arbitron rankings show this program as a top show in san diego [82] and is syndicated [83]. It is also notable for the controvery it raises by those seeking to censor radio [84] [85].
  • The article has been overhauled and sources have been added regarding the controversy it causes and subsequent notability have been added. Please visit and check. - Ocatecir 08:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination The article has been significantly cleaned up and notability is now clearly established by the citing of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. There are some facts that still need citations, and some missing info that I'd like to see added to the article in order to make it complete (such as when did he return to the air after his 2004 firing, when did he "get religion", etc.), but that's all clean-up issues; not deletion issues. Good job Ocatecir! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:00, 23 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallbrook in Lincoln Nebraska[edit]

Fallbrook in Lincoln Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

disputed PROD for NN-housing development delete Cornell Rockey 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For the record, this is the first story referenced in the article. CiaranG 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not noteable. Thousands of 1500 home sized developments all over the world.--155.144.251.120 04:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a bunch of houses? not even a village? perhaps I should write an article about the tree in my back yard --T-rex 06:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, along with Fallbrook in Lincoln, Nebraska, which was created by the same editor. – Swid (talk | edits) 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because its the same stuff:

Fallbrook in Lincoln, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Cornell Rockey 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN housing development. --Czj 03:03, 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. For what it is worth, this appears to be an attempt to advertise for the unpublished "The Warhammer 40,000 Lost Artifacts Omnibus".--Isotope23 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanicus Void Driver[edit]

Mechanicus Void Driver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Non-notable part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Also, advertising: the source cited as a reference had, before its speedy deletion earlier today, a statement to the effect that "This book will be advertised by posting parts of it to Wikipedia.org". Delete Pak21 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted the deletion in the first place. The things this and the others in the family talk about are highly un-canon, the book referenced does not to my knowledge exist. I'm an active forum member and I've never seen any such thing posted, nor does google yield anything. DeleteSojourner001 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not canon. --Falcorian (talk) 16:49, 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 and redirect to San Juan Capistrano, California. Cbrown1023 01:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Forster Middle School[edit]

Marco Forster Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be notable: no assertion of notability in the article itself, and a Google search turns up primarily websites associated with the school or its district, plus a few local mentions, most of which refer to students, rather than the school itself. Note also that the creator appears to have made this page as an attack page (see page's history); since there was a clean version in the history, I've reverted to this and felt it would be better to AfD rather than CSD G10. Heimstern Läufer 21:58, 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. I'm deleting this per the debate below and a WP:OTRS complaint. The article history is full of vandalism and slander, and nothing in the article is referenced. If someone wishes to create a fresh fully-referenced article later, and is willing to watch it, fair enough (but please don't) -Docg 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castlehead High School[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Keeps being added nonsense, right from the very beginning. Húsönd 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Looks much like the article I just nominated: about a non-notable school and being used primarily as a playground for vandalism. Heimstern Läufer 22:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is slandering particular individuals of authority. Is there any way for the school to post an official entry that can be locked?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Workbot17 (talk • contribs). — Workbot17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • No there isn't. Official information from the school rightfully belongs on its website.--Húsönd 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. How long before this page can be deleted? - Workbot17
        • For proceedual reasons, the discussion must remain open for five days from the point of nomination, at which point an administrator will choose to keep or delete the article based on the arguments provided during that time. -- saberwyn 23:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notibility asserted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 (talk • contribs).
  • Redirect to Paisley (Scotland) and merge any relevant content there, as WP:LOCAL suggests. RFerreira 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect - school attracted some press comment last year (eg Scotland on Sunday) over a deal to sell chips (or fries...) The school has also received recognition from the Diana Award; this appears to be from nominating many pupils and not for any particular achievement of the school. I don't think that these claims to minor notability quite suffice. Eludium-q36 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by middle name[edit]

List of United States Presidents by middle name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete as hopeless trivia. Tagged earlier for importance but it's so clearly unimportant why wait? Otto4711 22:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as for first name) why not? There are also list by middle name, surname, nickname and much more. Why not this? I think that can be useful to somebody, and American Presidents are an important subject, so I think that a list like this deserve his place in wikipedia. At least, it can be merged with the other lists, if you think it doesn't deserve a whole article. But I think that I would create caos. by Snowolf (talk) on 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • American Presidents are important subjects, but that doesn't mean that every single aspect of everything related to American Presidents is notable. Otto4711 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notableForrestLane42 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

Are you sure that's the reason you think this should be deleted, and/or that you clicked the right afd? Presidents certainly are notable; they just don't need these lists about them. No amount of notability can affect that. Picaroon 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon, right of course presidents notable lists on their middle name, not so notableForrestLane42 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

  • Delete as indiscriminate. Ohconfucius 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged with List of United States Presidential nicknames. The nickname section was not effected, but I did some minor changes to the other names lists, stuff that went beyond trivia. I didn't redirect this article to the nickname page yet, because I wanted to find out what others thought of this first. Jjmillerhistorian 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia mikmt 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, I can think of how a list by last name might be useful and encyclopedic, but not for first name and definitely not for middle name.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by last name[edit]

List of United States Presidents by last name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Weak delete - I can kinda see this might have some marginal encyclopedic value but it seems so much less important than listing the presidents by order of service or even order of birth that it seems more like trivia than encyclopedia material. Otto4711 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If someone really wanted this list, Category:Presidents of the United States already lists them in alphabetical order by last name. The trivia is mildly interesting, but not enough to save the article. BryanG(talk) 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excellent example of indiscriminate, trivial, and what Wikipedia is not. As noted by BryanG, clicking on the category link will provide an alphabetical list. 'Nuff said. Agent 86 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no point in this list at all. Any basic presidents list on Wikipedia has this information already. 23skidoo 06:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged with List of United States Presidential nicknames. The nickname section was not effected, but I did some minor changes to the other names lists, stuff that went beyond trivia. I didn't redirect this article to the nickname page yet, because I wanted to find out what others thought of this first. Jjmillerhistorian 17:27, 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. Cbrown1023 01:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diddley Poo[edit]

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

This page can't get any bigger than it is. It's about a semi-famous speech, but all the information is already on Jim E. Mora's page. Plus, I can think of other meanings for this term...do you really expect someone to type this phrase into the search engine and expect to find this? UsaSatsui 23:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Diddley-Poo refers to an infamous tirade" no it doesn't. Is neoligism and should be deleted.--155.144.251.120 04:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content is already present in (or has been merged with) the main article about Jim E. Mora. Railwayman 12:41, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fooqiman[edit]

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

An article making unverifiable claims added to by User:Fooqiman. This was apparently on this guys user page before being moved into an article space. MegX 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as obvious rubbish. Heimstern Läufer 00:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Obvious hoax 'he received international acclaim for his ability to lift a two ton Mack truck with the the tip of his pinky finger. Nothing cited. '--155.144.251.120 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User:Fooqiman has removed the AfD tag as well as shifting the article around using multiple redirects. MegX 06:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antipope John VIII[edit]

Antipope John VIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The article is 13 words long and the only information provided that is not in the title is a date. This is provided in Antipope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddstone (talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 January 2007

  • Keep. The article is a stub because some disputed material was removed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antipope_John_VIII&oldid=22136717 A verifiable reference might be found in Annuario Pontificio, but I don't have access to a copy of the book. Stubs should be kept so that they can eventually be expanded. --Eastmain 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all articles have to start somewhere, and we obviously want an expanded article on him (seeing as he was the Antipope and all ;-). Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as for Eastmain by Snowolf (talk) on 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable and we should have a better article on him. --Banana04131 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep; obviously notable. Length of article has nothing to do with the decision whether we want an article on this topic or not. Owen× ☎ 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What information is available on him? Google Books [86] and Google Scholar come up empty. [87]. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? I'm not sure really, but the references provided within the article do not work. If reliable sources are added prior to the close of this discussion, then keep, but otherwise abort and try again later. RFerreira 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The eLibrary links provided appear to be a subscriber-only service. I would prefer a free resource, but at least they're references. eLibrary is operated by ProQuest, a reliable aggregator of information, rather like Thomson Gale, which powers findarticles.com --Eastmain 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added the source and will try and find another one. The only thing it references is that he is sometimes called simply Pope John. --Banana04131 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Antipopes are historic figures in the Catholic Church. --Oakshade 06:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I can't see any sources either, as apitalistroadster notes. Antipopes are notable, but thios particular antipope? Guy (Help!) 23:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pope Sergius II where the matter is mentioned; there appears to be nothing more to say than is already said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 23 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. Yuser31415 05:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Gelvan[edit]

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

Recreation of an article deleted for being non-notable. Still isn't notable. Descendall 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as G4. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - not sure what part of that is supposed to be notable --T-rex 06:35, 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.
  1. ^ "Marrion-Webster". Retrieved 2007-01-18.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_17&oldid=1116878143"