Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 5

< January 4	January 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Nonsense. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lose a Shoe[edit]

Deleted WP:PROD tag. Protologism with no recorded sources. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Chrisd87 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline A1? Tevildo 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT Guy (Help!) 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete reads like nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. South Wales 00:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as per nom. Ronbo76 00:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy entry FN 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)fnazeeri[reply]
Speedy delete, clearly nonsense. --Ezeu 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete seeing as the tag has now been placed and is unquestionably patent nonsense.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Should be a G1, but the A7 tag already present will suffice, I guess. --Dennisthe2 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tacit Software[edit]

spammy article but noability asserted. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy? Ok - I pared that down (to almost nothing). Tell me about 'no ability asserted' - how do I fix that? --Cbyeh 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable. Note to user:Cbyeh, I think JzG means "no notability asserted" - see that link for what constitutes notability. --Dennisthe2 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Change vote to Keep, the article now asserts notability. Good show, Cbyeh. Transfer the links in Notes to the External Links section and you're good. --Dennisthe2 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still an advert-like article made up of mostly external links.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this is slightly more keepable now. Its new issues are now more along the lines of content disputes.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I'd still like to fight to hold onto this entry. In its current form, it is a factual description of a venture-backed company in Silicon Valley. The company has 13 patents issued and 12 pending. From the Wikipedia notability requirements for companies: "The company or corporation (is notable if it) has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Please see the 'notes' section of this entry. Thanks for your consideration. --Cbyeh 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the company is notable but the Wikipedia article does not sufficiently bring that out. Its not enough that the company be notable, the Wikipedia article has to establish it. You indicated that the company has 13 patents, but that is not in the article so it cannot be considered in determining whether to delete the article. If you want to improve the article (or at least have the article survive this Article for Deletion), look at other Wikipedia articles on companies and use those as a guide. (see, for example, Microsoft). Basically, Wikipedia articles on corporations usually include a lead section, an Infobox_Company template, a history section, and other sections that may go into particularly notable events listed in the history section. Articles usually contain more than that. Please review creating new articles. To give you a time frame, this Article for Deletion (AfD) may close after five days (e.g., after 00:19, 10 January 2007). -- Jreferee 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Wikipedia article does not sufficiently bring out notability. (The article also lacks footnotes.) I reviewed the 'notes' section of this entry and the articles provided in the link do not seem to provide enough history about the company to bring out notability. They more or less relate to marketing events. A bigger problem is that the company itself does not see its history important enough to include on its own web page (see About Tacit). Since the article should be deleted as it presently exists and the company itself does not see its own history as important enough to include on its web page, the appropriate course of action appears to be Delete. Note to user:Cbyeh - If there are significant changes to the article in the next few days, please post a note on my talk page so that I may review my reasoning and vote in light of the new information. Thanks. -- Jreferee 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since the article still appears as an advertisement masquerading as an article, the article still is spammy as indicated in the nomination. It's no secret that Tacit Software's information gathering software is funded by the CIA and that Tacit Software gives away its information gathering software free to individuals. There are several third party articles that connect these two facts and conclude that the CIA can spy on individuals all over the world who use Tacit Software's freely issued, patented products. Despite my prodding, this information -- which would make the company noteworthy -- has not been added to the article. With a little help, the article could be rewritten from a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy and thus I added the advert tag and have changed my vote to Keep. -- Jreferee 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much as I do not like spam articles, there is enough hint of notability to keep this article. --- Skapur 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough independent sources presented to satisfy WP:N, WP:CORP Criteria 1. Article definitely needs a rewrite for WP:NPOV, but that's a separate issue. Whther this company deserved to have its press releases picked up and printed in major media outlets or not, it did, and hence notability is established. --Shirahadasha 08:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reprints of press releases are trivial and not independent, so do not fulfill the criteria for multiple non-trivial coverage in relibale sources independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments. Articles about a company that are not written by the company itself cannot be considered to be press releases. You may perceive some articles to be favorable to the company, but that is not because the company wrote them. Especially in the case of major news organizations, articles about companies are written from the unbiased, individual perspective of each reporter as formed by interviews with the company, its customers and independent analysts. Not all of these points of view are necessarily favorable to the company. As for WP:NPOV, I hope my latest edits are helpful. --Cbyeh 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen much worse. Xanucia 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Cbyeh - Here is what the article reads so far: The company was founded. The company’s first product was released. Tacit released its second product. Tacit released its third product. Please note that every company has a founding date and just about all of them release some product. The article essentially is saying that there is nothing notable enough about Tacit to include in the Wikipedia article but if you are interested in learning more, here an a lot of external links. The Wikipedia:Notability requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. The source material linked in the article does not provide enough source material to write a Wikipedia:Verifiability, encyclopedic article about the topic. The article still violates the policy Wikipedia:Notability (note - WP:CORP is only guideline and AfD is based on policies. You could avoid the issue of whether the external links provide enough source material by actually including the source material in the body of the article.) Also, except for the lead section, each sentence should have a footnote to permit other editors to verify the statements in the article. I posted a footnote in the article as an example (the lead section should be a summary of the rest of the article, which it is not). The information in the article is not verifiable. The article violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm glad to see you add more to the article, but I haven't changed my opinion and still think the article should be deleted. You haven't made many posts on Wikipedia. What is your interest in creating an article on Tacit Software? -- Jreferee 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Might need cleanup, but there are some good mentions in large publications that don't appear to be press releases (the Business 2.0 and PC Magazine pieces, for example). Looks to meet the requirements, from that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears well sourced. Edit it accordingly if you think the tone is spammy. Tarinth 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence - It doesn't state the notabillity/the notability isn't obvious, true; I don't know what the article looked like when it was nominated, but it certainly has been improved from its lousy stubbiness when it was first created. I could swing either way on this, but past the notability issue, all it requires is some cleanup. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it needs a cleanup, but it is notable now. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Jreferee - thanks for your help and for your comments. I have modified the content of the page significantly so that it better states (and supports) the notability requirements (and hopefully the neutrality requirements) the community has cited in this dialog. Let me address your more personal questions. This is indeed my first posting in Wikipedia. Tacit Software is a company that has recently come under much more public scrutiny because of a new product it just launched. My goal for posting in Wikipedia is to provide a fact-based description of the company and its technologies so users can learn more in a neutral environment. If the article violates Wikipedia notability and neutrality rules, I think that's due to the fact that I'm a Wikipedia novice and not that the company itself is not notable. As always, your comments are welcome. I am particularly interested in community feedback on cleanup - what specifically should be worked on? --Cbyeh 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cbyeh - The cleaned up article looks even more like an advertisement for the company's products, which makes it even a stronger deletion candidate (see WP:AFDP#Companies). Didn't anything notable happen to the company or was caused by the company between 1997 and 2007? Review this google search for notable items to include in the article. Did the company receive any legitimate awards for notable merit? Did Tacit best other companies to win any awards? A company having products or patents is not notable. Did the ActiveNet or illumio products make a notable difference in the companies that purchased the product? Was there some notable event in the development of these products? Were any of the Tacit patents subject to a notable legal fight? Did Tacit buy any of the patents for a huge amount of money? As for further clean up, you should review the cited external links for facts to include in the article and add the link as a footnote and remove it from the external links. - Jreferee 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jreferee - thanks again for your comments. Thanks for pushing me to make this article better. I have made additional changes to the article per your thoughts. --Cbyeh 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is more of a fact based environment rather than a neutral environment. You might want to include in the article information about the public scrutiny of Tacit Software that you mention above. I'm sure it will eventually be added and, if you don't do it yourself, you might not like the results. Also, I think it's great that you would like to contribute to Wikipedia beyond this one article. If you are interested in developing articles on other CIA backed companies, there is list at CIA investments. -- Jreferee 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Nice to see real imrovement as a result of the discussion. DGG 04:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11, A7. Naconkantari 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avangate[edit]

Not only a partial copyvio, but does not meet the corresponding notability criteria. TRKtv t c e 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As a non-notable company = spam. Enuja 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Tainter 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nowhere in that crap do I see an assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 05:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vagrant Downfall and David Beeler[edit]

hoax. Nothing about this band at artist direct, despite claims of great sales on their first album (and apparently on their second album which has been out for less than three days?), and no hits for '"Van's Warped Tour" "Vagrant Downfall"'. Also include their 16-year-old member, whose MySpace page name is the same name as the creator of the two articles. User:Zoe

Delete complete bollocks form beginning to end. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shame hoaxes like this don't qualify for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. Resolute 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete More of a schoolkid fantasy than a "hoax" per se, as I doubt a Nazi album selling five billion copies in a single week is even remotely plausible to anyone. I don't see a whole lot of reason to keep this around even for four more days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all true I swear. Cmon guys

- Not from what I saw on google. Turn up more data, please. --Dennisthe2 01:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ::mikm t 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. I thought the fake footnote tags were amusing though... MrBeast 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent BJAODN candidate, especially the second. Dancing with George W. Bush? theProject 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is an upstart band, and the only correct notation was by doing some research: they were indeed in Golden Skate, but it's not clear as to whether they won, only that they were finalists. --Dennisthe2 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I removed the potentially defamatory material from the articles. The footnotes have nothing to do with the topics. There are no legitimate sources that refer to the topics. The Vagrant Downfall image looks photoshopped and lacks a license. The text of the articles spell hoax. If this AfD lasts more than twp days, then the hoax will have been a success. -- Jreferee 03:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as quickly as possible. A hoax with unpleasant material --Slp1 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, a CSD A7 is in order on both of them. I'd throw in G1 as well for good measure, but the A7 will work. --Dennisthe2 04:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete. No usable refs, possible hoax. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skapur (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bro (second nomination)[edit]

Regional slang without any sign of reliable sources for a definition. The other definition of "bro" that I've seen flatly contradicts this one. Original VFD supported deletion, but the article was redirected instead. Content is substantially different, so no speedy-repost. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless reliable sources emerge. I see none in the article or the first AfD. --W.marsh 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, this article has nothing in common with the one previously redirected to Brother. Needs independent sources for notability. Edison 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable local slang. I thought it meant "brother". JIP | Talk 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to notability problems, there is also a WP:NOT#DICT problem. The word "Bro" has a long history and means many different things through use in a large number of different subcultures. There's no reason to give this particular one precedence over others just because an editor got there first. On the other hand, an WP:NPOV list of the usages of Bro would be an unweldy violation of WP#NOT#DICT. If notability can be established, suggest using an article name that more clearly identifies this subculture and distinguishes it from others. --Shirahadasha 08:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Brother. Danny Lilithborne 08:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't have sources that meet WP:NEO's requirements, so it's unverified dicdef. TheronJ 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Haemo 02:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also Flatbiller, a redirect to the article. Fg2 02:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the nomination. The Mob Rules 10:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trying the terms "bro" and "flatbiller" together on Google seems to corroborate the article. Hey if guido and goombah have their own Wikipedia pages, why not bro/flatbiller?section8pidgeon 14:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say its because there's a much broader consensus on what those terms mean that can be verified through sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was wondering, could you cite another source other than the "bro rape" clip on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zvTRQr7ns8 that shows "bro" defined this way? I've found using Google far more hits of webpages alluding to "bro" defined similarly to the current Wikipedia article than the way on the "bro rape" clip. UrbanDictionary.com, while not a citeable source, is a pretty good consensus of the use of slang and the majority of the definitions corroborate the Wikipedia article (a couple of the definitions date back as far as 2003). I would more call the guys on the "bro rape" clip "frat boys". section8pidgeon 10:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Heaven on Earth I'm also doing the same to Portland Walk Shopping Centre--Robdurbar 18:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Road[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Similar sized towns don't have lists for each of their shopping streets. MrBeast 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also a little concerned about the top picture - Image:Daltonroad1912.jpg. It's licensed as GFDL by the author, but is apparently taken in 1912 (meaning they would have to be at least 96). Anyone know what to do about this? MrBeast 01:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the editor is the owner of the photo, inherited from a relative. From 1912, it's likely public-domain anyway. --Oakshade 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. This wasn't taken in the US, so the pre-1923 clause is irrelevant. If the copyright statute in the UK (and I don't know what it is) is 50 or 70 years after the death of the author, it's possible it could still be copyright. If the author was 18 when the picture was taken, he or she could easily have died in the 1960s or 1970s. --Charlene 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK law is 70 years after the death of the artist. [1]. Tevildo 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if the author died less than 24 years after that was taken, it's still under copyright. --Charlene 11:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the photographer is "unknown", in which case the copyright expired on January 1st, 1983. I don't pretend to know what the legal definition of "unknown" is in this context - let's just say that there's a more-than-trivial chance that the picture is still in copyright. Tevildo 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Barrow-in-Furness. Eliminate the directory-ness and just say something like "this street has been the area's commercial centre for 100+ years." --Wafulz 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Barrow-in-Furness already has a mention of this road, and Multimap reveals at least 14 other Dalton Roads in the UK ([2]). I'm not sure a redirect would be helpful. MrBeast 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Wafulz. The time-elapse photos are awful nice, but the list is striking in its uselessness. Exactly what WP:NOT is for. --Jackhorkheimer 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Wafulz. Suggest renaming redirect to indicate a more specific location as many towns in the world have a Dalton Road. --Shirahadasha 08:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although merge and redirect is acceptable to me. But at least get rid of the long list of shops which is either utterly pointless (major UK chains will all have a shop in a town the size of Barrow) or advertising (for local businesses). Sam Blacketer 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely per nom. WMMartin 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge the little bit of salvageable content. That, of course, doesn't include the Yellow Pages for Dalton Road. Pascal.Tesson 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+Redirect. Roads are almost always non-notable, this is not an exception. It can certainly be mentioned in the main article if the content's there.--Wizardman 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barrow-in-Furness. It's highly probable that other cities have their own Dalton Road, which may or may not be more notable than the subject. A redirect here may be confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caknuck (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete what BS! - crz crztalk 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh avni[edit]

This page is nonsense Ccmolik 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the page was created with the hangon tag - pretty common these days! It was removed and re-nominated for speedy as a nonsense page. SkierRMH 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1 per nom. Tevildo 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1, burn this garbage. Danny Lilithborne 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - crz crztalk 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Key[edit]

an unnotable software Gravity^Talk 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "an unnotable software"

Because you personally do not use it? That is hardly a reason. This program is widely used, and is the most popular Open Source application in its class. This type of application is designed for people who use multiple languages, and has a target audience that probably doesn't include you. Nathanaeljones 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Xe didn't express xyr personal opinion. That's simply a guess on your part. Our notability criteria for software can be found at WP:SOFTWARE. Uncle G 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and few more thoughts. Quick Key has been translated into two languages already (Turkish is still pending), and Portuguese is on the way. It has been included in computer magazines, recognized by the Unicode Consortium, and has been discussed on countless blogs. Nathanaeljones 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create this article, but I find it a better use of kilobytes than many other articles I have come across. Nathanaeljones 12:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Vegaswikian 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useful information Nathanaeljones 12:11, 3 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, Agent 86 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. --⁪froth^{T C} 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Scepia 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nathanael Jones is the creator of the software, even if he didn't write the article. There are very few independent mentions of the software, and I rather suspect that the Unicode list is very inclusionist, possibly completist. However, it seems useful enough, and I suspect it won't be too long before someone important does review it, provided it works. Argyriou (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable through non-trivial independent sources. --Wafulz 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any non-trivial sources after a few searches. --Sopoforic 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Ronbo76 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but without prejudice if notability can be established in the future. As of now, however, it seems it cannot be. Seraphimblade 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree current article lacks independent sources establishing notability per WP:SOFT. --Shirahadasha 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why the rush to delete? It's a page for software and just needs making npov Xanucia 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki to Commons. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of illuminated manuscript images[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Wikipedia is not Commons, and some equivalent galleries already exist at: Commons:Category:Illuminated manuscripts, Commons:Book of Kells, Commons:Vienna Dioscurides. --Ezeu 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move/merge to commons. We don't want to lose that resource but yes it belongs on commons. If nobody wants to take it on then just delete, we have to get this out of the mainspace --⁪froth^{T C} 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldnt be that many images to move to commons. Most of them already exist there. --Ezeu 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move/merge to commons. MediaWiki categories can work for this now. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Commons. So tagged. MER-C 06:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TransWiki. Definitely Commons material, not Wikipedia. --Shirahadasha 08:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, these comments make sense to me. TransWiki. WMMartin 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 18:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishoujo Janshi Pretty Sailor 18-kin[edit]

Porny mahjong game released only in Japan. Along with this one I am bundling the game's sequel:

Neither game seems notable for any reason. --Masamage 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, not notable --⁪froth^{T C} 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep released arcade game. Being released only in Japan is hardly a case for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't mean it as a major reason, just as evidence that no one cared much about it. I may be wrong, but if so, the article sure doesn't inform me of my mistake. --Masamage 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to this website it's made a bit of a splash because of obscurity- maybe there are sources in Japanese? Also the trivia is a carbon copy from this website. --Wafulz 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest we follow the result of the Japanese-language AfD as they will almost certainly have more expertise and ability to identify sources (if any) than we do. If they identify sources, should be included here, otherwise Delete for failure to establish verifiability (no sources). --Shirahadasha 08:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is not a Japanese language AFD. That link above is just a page for people interested in topics about Japan to easily monitor related AFDs. There are other deletion sorting projects, although, I think that very few are active. Neier 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Ja: wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on this game, and even more compelling is the fact it is not mentioned in an article about the entire "strip majong" genre: ja:脱衣麻雀. And given the sheer length of an article about "Idol Janshi Sweety Pie": ja:アイドル雀士スーチーパイ, I think that the missing ja: article is not due to a lack of interest in the topic... For anyone wanting to look any further, keep in mind that the Japanese characters for "Pretty Sailor" are not firmly established, and care must be taken wrt Google's parsing mechanism. 美少女雀士プリティーセーラー, 美少女雀士プリティセーラ, and 美少女雀士プリティーセイラー are a few different ways I saw it represented. The most G-hits were for the first one (12,500), while the Sweety Pie game linked above got 49,500 G-hits (for a relative comparison). Neier 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn H-game. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 01:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any reason why this is notable. WMMartin 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crappling[edit]

deleteMade up word of no real notablility or importance Peter Rehse 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete although maybe it could be mentioned at Bullshido. I'm proposing merge of mcdojo and bullshido. --⁪froth^{T C} 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with bullshido not enough info, or notable enough, to be worth it's own article. --Nate1481 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR and WP:NEO. No reliable sources to demonstrate this neologism is in notable usage. --Muchness 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Term is not notable, has not reached main stream media, and there is not enough information about the term to support a Wikipedia article (see WP:NOT). Merging with bullshido would not fix these problems since term appears to suffer from similar problems. Wiktionary may be a better place for the term if some references supported the topic. -- Jreferee 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best source I could find was urbandictionary, which says a lot about the term. Not verifiable. --Wafulz 04:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. POV is off and negative on another institution. Ronbo76 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 07:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified neologism. JIP | Talk 07:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article and Bullshido should be added on as sections of McDojo. (edit)...or McDojo could be merged into Bullshido either way's fine with me. I've just heard the term McDojo used much more often.
Delete unverified neologism. Even with verification, delete because WP:NOT. Doczilla 08:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified. Good joke, though. Possible WP:DUMB material. --Shirahadasha 08:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Urban dictionary doesn't lend support to non-notable neologism. Budgiekiller 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly-specified neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:NEO --Haemo 02:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMB Finishes[edit]

A small company that has only really made one movie, non-notable. Scepia 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company thatv fails WP:CORP. Tarret 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe sometime in the future (ie after the movie is released, provided that it meets verifiability). --Wafulz 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Suggest trying again if movie turns out to be notable. Currently no source, delete per WP:V, failure to meet WP:CORP. --Shirahadasha 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Not notable "fan-made film it is not completely accurate on the details and story-line of each charecter" - sounds fishy. Ronbo76 10:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How exactly are you defining non-notable? It's a company. It's real. They've done something of noteworthy even if they're not the size of Fox or Universal. Xanucia 13:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since their one and only "film", an unreleased videogame fan film is now deleted and protected. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Nottingham Students' Union[edit]

nn student group — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it's not entirely non-notable, it is generic. This is a directory entry. We can have an article when we have some evidence that it's considered significant by anyone independent. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)--Doc^g 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep nominator doesn't understand UK universities. This is not a 'student group' but the statutory organisation that includes every student in this very large university. UK university student unions an their politics are inherently notable.--Doc^g 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Doc says, student unions are important institutions within the universities; under the Education Act 1994 they are responsible for the representation of the interests of all students within the University, without prejudice to their affiliation (so in the case of the University of Nottingham we're talking about a statutory organisation providing representation to in excess of 30,000 people). I agree that the article at present is poor and includes a lot of vanity material, and the List of Executive Officers of the University of Nottingham Students' Union is excessive, but the student union is a very important part of UK student life. Robotforaday 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps this is notable within the school, but if Doc Glasgow there can demonstrate why it's notable beyond the walls of the school and/or what otherwise comprises the "softer" parts of the school (i.e., off-campus housing and such), then the article probably has a fighting chance. --Dennisthe2 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the usual reasons. IT has an athletics union that has been mentioned in the times [3] and probably various other papers. If they are like most student unions they have been invovled in every left wing cause for the last X years. The various arguments over money[4] Recently there have been ah issues with radical islam. On the other hand they have been clearing up litter which is a little odd for a student union[5].Geni 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please also see WP:NOTABILITY for notability standards. This will give a guide as to what constitutes "notable" around here. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in by my judgment, informative, and verifiable. And on further reading of the article, seems well done. I can't conceive of a reason to remove information of this caliber. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for sources, otherwise Delete. The criteria for notability are not about how well the article is written, or about how large or useful the subject is, but whether it's gotten enough independent coverage that information about it can be verified. This organization is local and so WP:ORG Criterion 2 applies, and multiple independent reliable sources are required. The article in its current state simply doesn't demonstrate that. Folks who are interested in having the article kept would be wise to spend their time trying to dig up sources where the Union is mentioned, or preferably featured, in independent media articles and the like that meet the WP:RS policy. If they can't be produced, Delete. --Shirahadasha 08:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shirahadasha. Notability MUST be established by references to non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Mere existence is not good enough for inclusion, this organisation must have done something newsworthy in order to merit an article. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Jcuk 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because my brain just can't comprehend how a "organisation that includes every student" is somehow fundamentally different from a "student group". At best this would be a merge with the school's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A University student group may have as few as a dozen members. A 'Student union' has 30,000 and is the regulatory and umbrella organisation for all student groups and activities (and this is not a single 'school' - but the entire university)--Doc^g 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete; merge with the article regarding the school. Case-in-point, there are no articles for each and every student government body for each and every college in either the US or the UK (and there shouldn't be!). --Mhking 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?--Doc^g 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because those bodies are rarely notable outside the confines of their respective schools - and it has yet to be established how this particular student body is notable independently from the school itself. — Swpb ^talkcontribs 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For very solid historical legal reasons. Universities do not want to be held acountable for the activities of their student's union (some of the rag week stuff did in the past go a little far).Geni 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doc Glasgow. A statutory organisation recognised by the Government, a member body of the National Union of Students and recognised by the university who's students it represents. NUS and the University of Nottingham should represent reliable sources. Like almost every other students union it's mentioned in the various university guides describing facilities and giving reviews. Also referenced by British University Sports Association with regards to sports results. All this most surely represent multiple reliable sources. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can demonstrate these points (read: provide linkage), you'll change my mind, for one. As such, please change my mind. --Dennisthe2 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linkage? please we are talking about a body that predates the internet. Still at random[6].if you want further references ask the university for thier prospectus.Geni 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Various British Wikipedians are testifying that University Student Unions in the UK are inherently notable. Will those who are obviously ignorant of UK Educational arrangements please at least consider that we might know what we are talking about. Anyone who insists in talking about a UK University as just a 'school' obviously knows nothing about the subject matter and probably should no more comment than I would on articles on astrophysics.--Doc^g 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I use school in the American sense of the word, which includes all institutions of learning. Semantics aside - this group is not notable outside the University. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that proves notability, with reliable sources needed. As regards Doc glasgow's points, university and school are completely different terms. --SunStar Net^talk 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing vote per Doc glasgow's argument. --SunStar Net^talk 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Student Union at the University I attended in the U.S. was composed exactly how Doc describes Student Unions in the UK - every student was automatically a member, it exerted significant policy influence over the institution, the whole shebang. I am still not impressed that such organizations are exempt from the requirements of multiple non-trivial (note the documentation Heligoland and Geni describe is certainly reliable, but is trivial) sources documenting notability. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um those were from 30 seconds of searching and I don't have newspaper or court records to hand. solid refences are going to be paper based.Geni 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main representative body of the students at a notable educational institution is inherently notable, providing it has more than a shadowy existence. I suggest that some people don't understand how UK student bodies work. We have several such entries, see e.g. Glasgow University Union, which are accepted as notable. I am certainly not suggesting we treat every student club as notable, I was involved in getting one at Glasgow University deleted myself. PatGallacher 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Guy. I'm not averse to keeping if coverage in non-trivial sources are established. - Aagtbdfoua 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep student's unions are inherently notable.Geni 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - For those who are insisting that, as per Geni's note immediately above, "student's unions are inherently notable", please refer to this link, which explains what is considered notable here on Wikipedia. If I am reading this correctly, a student union is actually not inherently notable - it is simply a student union. If a student union is notable at all, notability needs to be demonstrated here as per the standards - and in this case we're not seeing notability being demonstrated. Please also note that, per my replacement of the removed afdanons template, this is not a tally vote, this is a concensus, and this requires a good argument. My !vote as such remains "delete". --Dennisthe2 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so extremely patronising. The people that are arguing UK Student Unions are inherently notable include experienced Wikipedians and administrators. You are simply wrong about policy. WP:N is a guideline - and a contravention one. My argument that this is inherently notable may not satisfy you, but there is no MUST about what I need to do to hold or express this opinion in the debate. You are entitled to your opinion, I to mine. You may think my argument is weak - I actually think your is lousy - but that's by and by. I've also removed the anon's template, since I see no anons or single purpose accounts present. You seem to be assuming that because people don't share your view of notability they must be clueless newbies. Wrong. --Doc^g 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Don't do copy and paste moves like this. If you want to turn James McFadden into a dab page, do it by using the move function. W.marsh 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James McFadden (Scottish Hockey player)[edit]

Pointless copy of James McFadden, with a name which doesn't seem to relate to the article. ArtVandelay13 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy no sense edit. Matthew_hk t c 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete a copy page--Tainter 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Royalguard11. Tevildo 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraze Gang[edit]

Prod tag removed - fails WP:BIO. Delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Fraser. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (db-band), non notable band. So tagged. Link to Johnny Rodgers is for a Heisman Trophy winner, he's notable by default. I'll take care of the other members and the older band likewise via A7. --Dennisthe2 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Fraser[edit]

Prod tag removed - fails WP:BIO. Delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraze Gang. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best source begins with "Hello and welcome to The Cellar, I'm Jordan a British media student hoping for a career in journalism and by writing for the site I'm hoping that will help me gain experience and exposure". Doesn't meet WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC (take your pick) and information isn't verifiable by non-trivial independent sources. --Wafulz 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Borderline speedy. MER-C 07:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable student with an non-notable band (whose page has already been deleted). Budgiekiller 08:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Non-notable. Ronbo76 16:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the paragraph cited by Wafulz is removed, as well as some other information, there isn't a hint of notability in the article; fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND as a member thereof. SkierRMH 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, with what's left in the article. JRHorse 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prank[edit]

This contested CSD candidate proves just what its title suggests. Speedy Delete (G1) as nom, and block its creator, SlugsRus (talk · contribs), for a week. Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom, although I think it would be better as a G3. No opinion on the disciplinary issue. Tevildo 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1. More nonsense than vandalism. --Dennisthe2 02:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1/G3. MER-C 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, don't block. The user made one nonsense page- there's nothing worth a block yet. If he/she continues, then a block is necessary. --Wafulz 04:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. The raw vote totals are 4 Delete, 3 Keep, 4 Merge (two of the Keep voters struck out their bolded "vote", for some reason, but they didn't strike out their Keep arguments, so they still count as Keep comments. So clearly there's no consensus to outright delete the article, and no real consensus at all about what to do. I found the Keep arguments to be pretty well-made and cogent, so by strength of argument we get Keep. Herostratus 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armistice and Dedication Day[edit]

Non-notable juvenilia from songwriter Robert B. Sherman. Play written when author was 16, performed at the amateur/high school level, and apparently not since. Nice that it raised money for the war effort during WWII, but the notability of the author as a songwriter does not automatically make every work notable. No sources, reliable or otherwise provided, and the <20 Ghits on title + author's surname primarily refer back to WP or mirrors. Robertissimo 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's famous for writing songs, not plays, so this early work has zero relevance to his future fame. No need to merge anything as the gist of the article is already included in Robert B. Sherman. Demiurge 14:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is a "special citation from the War Department", and can that be substantiated? —ShadowHalo 05:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. Because he's more famous for writing songs than plays/screenplays, does not make his work in this area unremarkable. See the page Robert B. Sherman to see his work in screenplays. The fact that it was written when the author was 16 is not the point of the article either: What is important is that the play and author were recognized for fiscal contribution to the war effort, raising thousands of dollars. This play along with two radio programs produced and written by the same author appear on page 109 of Walt's Time^[1] which was a published, joint autobiography, from 1998. Howard352 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What we're dealing with, however, is not the worthiness of the project, one among thousands that helped support the war effort. What we need are reliable sources demonstrating the notability of this work. A mention in the author's bio article may well be appropriate; given that it, from what Howard352 says, gets less than a page's mention in the author's own autobiography seems telling. Robertissimo 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Robertissimo Walt's Time is a joint autobiography of both Sherman Brothers so Armistice and Dedication Day's "less than one page's mention" is understandable. (I don't know how Robertissimo can consider this legitimate criteria for deletion however.) As a side note, I have reason to believe that there is more of a mention in the author's currently unpublished (but recently completed) personal autobiography. I did not site that source here, because, as I'm certain Wikipedia standards would concur, an unpublished source cannot be cited. Nevertheless, Walt's Time was cited, and it is a published source, so that really should be adequete. Regardless, and as I mentioned above, I don't think that "a page mention" is actually considered a Wikipedia dividing line. Further to Robertissmo's argument, I am not aware of the "thousands that helped support the war effort" to whom he is haphazzardly refering. Certainly Robertissmo isn't suggesting that there were thousands of plays written in support of the war effort. Simply put, Armistice and Dedication Day was performed publically, it made a profit at the time, it was covered by Newspapers at the time, it was lauded by the War Department and certified by same, it is a work by a famous person and was unique in that person's career to the point that its inclusion (as its own page) in Wikipedia may be of interest to users. Lastly, it was referenced in a recently published and available book (i.e. "Walt's Time"). For the reasons cited, the Armistice and Dedication Day page should not be deleted or merged. Howard352 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information should not be lost. I agree with Howard's reasoning, recognition by War Department and famous author makes it notable. Should be kept, especially as a unique example of his work. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Robert B. Sherman. There's about two sentences of unique content in the article -- the rest of it recapitulates Sherman's life story. If it were an article with any depth I might vote differently. --Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response to Dhartung, I have been doing on going research on this article and have to get access to some archives which I plan to do over the next few months. There will be more information, when I am able to access it, but like many articles found in Wikipedia, this is a work in progress. It is being developed. I don't believe that I have been irresponsible or premature in creating the separate page either. However, I must make a personal note on this, I find it very discouraging to find articles deleted before they have a chance to be fully developed and will wait to know the immediate status of the article prior to spending any more time doing research for it. I hope this doesn't come across as bitterness, it's not meant as such. I recognize the balance that must be attained between hard line "deletionism" and a more liberal view. I just have better things to do with my time than to do research in good faith, only to see that work fall into the abyss! Howard352 10:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Recommend author works on article in userspace (User:Horard352/development) until he can do the above. Right now, Dhartung's right - it's not referenced, and really doesn't say anything besides "he wrote it, here's the plot, here's a short summary of his life story". --W o o ty Woot? contribs 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

~~Keep, Do Not Move To Userspace~~ Wooty is correct that the article was not referenced, but that has now been corrected. Thank you for pointing out my ommision. Let me restate that this article is a work in progress. But that said, there will probably be other contributors to this page as there are a number of people who are interested in the Sherman Brothers, World War II and Disney related media. There are people who know about this play. Nothing in the article has been "guessed at", but it is sparce, admittedly. But I don't think userspace is appropriate because then it won't have the chance of properly expanding and therefore will be defeating one of the purposes of Wikipedia, to build accurate articles about meaningful data by a community of Wikipedians. (This is not a quote, I did not find this anywhere. But it seems to me to capture, in part, the spirit) I will restate, Armistice and Dedication Day was performed publicly, it made a profit at the time, it was covered by Newspapers at the time, it was lauded by the War Department and certified by same, it is a work by a famous person and was unique in that person's career to the point that its inclusion (as its own page) in Wikipedia may prove to be of value to users. Howard352 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on the person himself, where this is already covered. Doesn't seem notable enough to have a separate article - has it ever been performed again ? WMMartin 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. As WMMartin says, it doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article, even if it is verified. However, some of the information could add value to the Robert B. Sherman article. Dekimasu 04:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert B. Sherman. It's notable, but not quite article-notable.--Wizardman 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for merging. Sufficiently covered in Robert B. Sherman already. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, the history is available to users. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Chips Online (2nd Nomination)[edit]

Merge and redirect to Montgomery Blair High School. The high school newspaper is not notable outside the context of the school itself. Also, when I say "merge," I don't necessarily mean "merge the names of the staff of the paper for every year of the past five years." --Hyperbole 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Previous AfD here. Tevildo 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Hyperbole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18OO552247O (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC).— 18OO552247O (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Concur with Hyperbole's suggestion to merge and redirect to Montgomery Blair High School. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centurion100 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC).— Centurion100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Concur per nom. Merge appropriate content to the school article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school article. This needs to be trimmed extensively to a well-sourced paragraph or so- Wikipedia shouldn't have to serve as a school newspaper's history. --Wafulz 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just merge it yourself. This is articles for deletion, not merging. --Wafulz 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per arguments at previous AFD. --Alynna 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect or, failing that, just Delete. High-school newspapers are not good article subjects, and there's nothing earthshattering in the article that suggests this is some exception to the rule. To top it all off, it's not backed up with reliable independent sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete altogether. Not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.222.248.72 (talk • contribs).
Keep - If an online paper can receive an award in its first five years that indicates they are on a good track. The paper reads ~~as good~~ better than my local daily (which is in the top twenty media market. Ronbo76 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per original AFD. -Toptomcat 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete given repeated request for deletion and majority opinion on this forum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levante (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC). — User:Levante (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Neutral But please note that the vote by new user Special:Contributions/Levante is just part of an effort to censor the article's content; it is not actually a disinterested vote on the importance of the article. The same is true of the vote by Special:Contributions/205.222.248.72. I suggest that votes from new users and votes from IP addresses 205.222.248.72 and 69.255.238.227 be disregarded. Cerberus 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, because I believe I have a conflict of interest since I know several members of the news team. Anyway, I'd just like to point out that the article does assert its notability by mentioning its awards, though the rest of the article could use a major cleanup. Also, here is (what I hope is) a nontrivial publication about the paper: [7]. Axem Titanium 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Despite its awards, a high school newspaper is still just a high school newspaper. The content on the site is only an excuse for its editors to get their names on Wikipedia; the newspaper is only really notable as it applies to the school. Therefore, delete the page and let the mention on Montgomery Blair High School stand for itself.141.156.173.244 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)141.156.173.244 — 141.156.173.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Viewing Special:Contributions/141.156.173.244 it is clear that this user is another sock puppet. (Is it worth commenting on this? If not, sorry.) Cerberus 03:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Whether or not 141.156.173.244 is a sock puppet, s/he makes an excellent point. This page reads like an advertisement: "In the future, Silver Chips Online will continue to expand and increase its ability to report on all Blair events and other information of interest to the Blair community." Due to non-encyclopedic content, another vote for deletion. 68.84.135.49 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — 68.84.135.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I note that this vote is your only Wikipedia edit ever. Quite amazing how many (one??) new users are being drawn to this discussion! Cerberus 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed a lot of the fluff from the History section and tried to balance the article better, as well as noting the newspaper's involvement with Google News. Those of you who voted on an article consisting mainly of editors' names may want to reevaluate it. --Alynna 02:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, I think it's pretty clear that people aren't going to accept a nomination five days after the previous one. The nominator's edits other than this seem to be POV warring on Oral sex, so I think that can be ignored. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Nihilist Underground Society (4th Nomination)[edit]

Non notable, nominated previously for deletion but vote was commandeered by sockpuppets and affiliates of site owners. Not notable to an encyclopedia even compared to other recreational internet forums, due to lack of readership and influence. HeavyMetalManiac 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Previous AfD's - [8], [9], [10]. Tevildo 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have anyone in mind as a sockpuppet. I looked at the most recent AFD I did not see any of the users voting keep being listed as socks. The most I saw was one user blocked for different reasons and one that had a few edits. No one else appeared to have any warning calling them a sock. Some evidence will be helpful --65.95.17.176 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does someone else see reliable sources for the article, past the thing's existence? I don't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability has been established: It can be verified through WP:V, and notability is established through WP:WEB and external links in article: [11], [12],[13]. (Note: This argument taken from the 2nd AfD attempt ([14]))--GVOLTT 04:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From previous AfDs, seems to have been covered by major media, and is therefore verifiable and notable. Further, it looks like the article is being continuously relisted until the desired outcome is archived, which I disapprove of. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not delete one. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, VFD is product of purile forum users: http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=23072 (see Jesus_Wept's post) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.169.70.244 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Um... that's... random, and totally irrelevant. I support deletion, and I'm not a "purile forum user", so bad faith doesn't really matter. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Last Afd closed five days ago and according to the link above, this nomination was done for disruption purposes. Prolog 04:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, ew, five days ago? While my previous comment still stands, I endorse speedy keep. Not going to fully retract the delete, though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support a speedy keep, but, for what it's worth, this article still has the same failings it did when I spent too much time arguing about it in AfD #2, which degenerated into editors accusing others of ulterior motives for saying this article should be deleted (which it should). GassyGuy 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, considering that it took just about 3/4 of a day for someone to accuse the nominator of being a purile forum user, I'm not surprised. Still, AfDs should not happen every 5 days. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources, just had this a few days ago. LAME! --- RockMFR 05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains many sources. John Reaves 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. This is Articles for deletion. The nominator noted that the article was a duplicate article, and even noted the merger tag. But xe brought the article to AFD instead of discussing the merger on the indicated talk page or simply doing the merger xyrself. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. It does not require administrator tools. Even editors without accounts have all of the editing tools necessary to perform article mergers. Uncle G 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese suffixes[edit]

Obviously quite some work went into this, but unfortunately the article is not much more than a duplication of info already available at Japanese titles. The "Japanese titles" article is also written with much more accordance to wikipedia standards. This article has been marked with a merge tag for some time now, as well.TomorrowTime 03:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, to Japanese Titles, which as well as being better written IMO has content that is more correct. Akihabara 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Akihabara 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The writing has a pleasant, accessible tone. The author, User:Ruslan Gyovanni, might find or start a Wikibook that would benefit from the topic and add it there. The Wikipedia article "Japanese titles" already covers the same material, though, so it's surplus here. Fg2 05:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. MER-C 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal of Ultimate Vision[edit]

nn fictional item, pure fancruft, fails WP:V, WP:FICTION, WP:NOT, and possibly WP:NOR merge somewhere if there is any useful info or delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fan-fiction, or something. Anyway, violates WP:NOT and original research. --Wafulz 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one of the X-Men or Marvel Comics articles, after trimming and seriously condensing, if an appropriate one can be found - it's a Marvel Universe plot device, but it's really not important/notable enough to warrant it's own article. Delete if no suitable article exists. --Mrph 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:FICTION, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. A reason these fan pages keep getting deleted is that they appear to be written from someone's personal memory of the topic. There might be something that we are overlooking. For example, look at today's featured article, The Adventures of Tintin. It became a featured article, even though it links to the troubled article Secondary characters and settings in The Adventures of Tintin. Is there some special Wikipedia rule for fan pages? I don't know of any so I believe that delete is appropriate here. It's unfortunate that many of these fan pages have to be deleted. There probably is valid, factual information in the article that would permit the article to survive AfD if an editor did the leg work and provided footnotes. Keeping these troubled fan pages and giving featured article status to articles that link to these troubled fan pages only encourages more problem pages, results in more AfD work, and creates more disappointed editors whose hard work continues to be deleted because it is allow to exists and grow in the first place. -- Jreferee 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TWIRL- Seinfeld umbrella move[edit]

Unreferenced and unsourced neologism with no claim to notability or widespread use. A "contested" prod. Salad Days 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cover on the article for whatever episode this is from... we don't need an article for every minor gag from every TV series ever. Merge/redirect as appopriate to preserve the file history. If no one feels like doing that, either just redirect for future use or delete. --W.marsh 04:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge content, then delete. This is an unlikely search term. Merge the most relevant part of the article, then delete it. --Wafulz 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless Seincruft. Wasted Time R 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure cruft. How could a prod of this even be contested? TJ Spyke 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I would like it to be replaced with something like this. MER-C 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We could find the episode this comes from and mention the twirl there, but we don't need a new article just for this. Quack 688 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism per WP:NOT. Doczilla 08:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Danny is getting upset! Danny Lilithborne 08:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fancruft neologism. Budgiekiller 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Checks - non-notable, doesn't meet WP:NEO, and redundant with the page on the relevant Seinfeld episode, The Checks. A redirect might be helpful to readers who want to know about the episode with "The Twirl." TheronJ 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Tragic romance 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far too detailed and insignificant.-- danntm ^T _C 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fkn0wned[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable community of CS hackers, appears to serve no purpose other than advertisement. Cites no references, and barely qualifies as a stub. Google results mainly bring up distributions of a hack they have authored, which does not meet notability guidelines even remotely. Generally fails under WP:NOTE, WP:SPAM -- Haemo 03:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per being the nom. --Haemo 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-web}}. Also, it's considered bad practice to list your own !vote since AfD is technically not a vote. --Wafulz 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck's Wood B-B-Q Pit[edit]

^{[Check Google hits]} Non-notable restaurant, not a single gHit. Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per {{db-corp}}. --Wafulz 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4, A7. Naconkantari 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HARRY POTTER ONLINE[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL, no sources indicating development. The only "source" is a hypothetical "this would be a cool game" feature on Gamespot. ::mikm t 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mhking 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speculation --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a repost of a deleted article, copyvio [15] and who knows what else. --W.marsh 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fancruft. KazakhPol 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close, AfD shelved until sockpuppet issues are resolved. ~ trialsanderrors 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PGNx Media (3rd nomination)[edit]

A multiplatform videogame website. Prior deletions have been overturned at deletion review and the article is now back here for consideration of the claims and sources. This is procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Weak Keep, but it needs more WP:V. Just H 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happen to verify anything in the article that would require a source. Do you have a particular example? Infomanager 04:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In regards to the critical acclaim and well known associates (such as Rotten Tomatoes) of the site. That seemed to put it just over the border of Keep for me, more of that will send it further over the edge. Just H 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on WP:WEB - PGNx Media meets the third possibility in the WP:WEB requirement. As a reminder, it requires that "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 content is actually distributed through a number of independent online publications, but for the source of this argument, I will be using Rotten Tomatoes.
- Rotten Tomatoes is well-known
- Rotten Tomatoes is independent; It is owned by IGN whereas PGNx Media is owned by PGNx Media, Inc. There are no connections -- shared owners, editors, revenues, etc.
- This is a link to a review by Jose Liz-Moncion (credited as Jose Liz) for PGNx Media on Rotten Tomatoes' website. Here is another and yet another.
- Rotten Tomatoes does not redistribute content for all websites.
- Infomanager 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on WP:RS - The sources mentioned in the article, namely Metacritic, Game Rankings, and Rotten Tomoatoes are notable, reliable, and independent sources. As I mentioned above, PGNx Media does not share any editors, owners, etc with any of those sources. Any notable claims, such as the size of the review archives, business opportunities, etc are sources. The claims in the article are not extraordinary or self-supporting. Infomanager 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on website's content - Its review archive is currently at 1,223 reviews, making it the 23rd largest archive on Gamerankings among active websites, 25th largest archive among all websites, and 35th largest among all websites and print publications [16]. Keep in mind that while users can add links to Gamerankings, all links have to be approved by a Gamerankings editor. Infomanager 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on article's structure - The article was written to comply with Wikipedia's objective tone and I followed the structure used by other websites (namely Introduction, Coverage, Notability, Staff, Criticisms) Infomanager 04:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on passing the five-year rule - As mentioned in the article, PGNx Media will began its sixth year of operations in two weeks. As someone who follows videogame websites, this is an important milestone and one that not many are able to claim (especially those that are independent). Also, in looking at the website today, I noticed that they have published over 13,000 articles in the last five years [17]. Infomanager 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Websites primarily seem to involve WP:WEB and WP:RS. As discussed above, I fully believe that both of those requirements have been aptly met and demonstrated in the article. With 5 years, 13,000 articles, and 1,200 reviews under their belts, I don't see this website going away anytime soon. They have demonstrated to be important in their field. Infomanager 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Infomanager has, to my satisfaction, demonstrated that the article is notable and verifiable. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:WEB, WP:RS were demonstrated. I have absolutely no concerns not addressed above. Brendan Alcorn 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - WP:WEB and WP:RS, the two essential policies that matter when dealing with websites, have been met (though it is questionable whether the distribution methods truly demostrate notability). My personal notability requirements regarding websites (importance to its field and age) are definitely met. So, weak keep. --- RockMFR 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger than normal keep - Comments on WP:WEB and WP:RS demonstrate that these policies/guidelines have been met. Other comments pushed me towards a strong-ish keep. Paul D. Meehan 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More "this is gonna be renominated time and again till we get the result we want?" Jcuk 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To clarify, it's more a case of "contest deletion until we get the result we want," since consensus was to delete the first two times. --Alan Au 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but needs major work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:RS and WP:WEB have been well demonstrated. Brad Guzman 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Infomanager has aptly proved WP:WEB and WP:RS. Some of the notability section should be cleaned up a bit, although I understand why it was written that way for the purposes of a deletion review and AfD. Gisele Hsieh 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep from me as well. I cleaned up the notability section because some of it came across as boasting. Satisfies WP:WEB and WP:RS extremely well. Alan Shatte 21:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per infomanager. Website meets requirements stipulated in WP:RS and WP:WEB. Article seems to be written in an encyclopedic manner, especially after the recent string of edits. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep passes WP:V, WP:WEB, WP:RS Joel Jimenez 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gaming media sites seem under constant attack for whatever reason. Tarinth 10:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Featherstone[edit]

Unsourced biography of a seemingly unnotable person janejellyroll 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have spurred a controversy that was at least national in Australia. Mentioned in a report, and another one here. Here's an article on her. And another. --Wafulz 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I've rewritten the article and removed the unsourced/notability tags. --Wafulz 06:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after rewriting and referencing by Wafulz. --Canley 08:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after rewriting notability is clear. MaxSem 09:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, jumping aboard the bandwagon. Excellent writing, Wafulz! Lankiveil 10:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- referenced and verifiable. - Longhair\^talk 10:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 08:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~, if no additional non-trivial sources are added we will be back here in a month Alf photoman 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have four sources and I'm confident many more exist. Her case was cited in two separate studies and spurred a national controversy, as is noted by two independent newspaper articles from different countries, and she has a German documentary about her. What exactly are you looking for? --Wafulz 18:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the editor who submitted this nomination, but after seeing the rewrites, I think the notability and reference problems have been addressed. I had originally done a search to try to find info about this person and couldn't find it, but obviously the infomation was out there. janejellyroll 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn please close discussion. --Canley 06:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It can't be closed as long as others support deletion. --Wafulz 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment changed my vote from week delete to neutral so we can close this... but we will be back if the article does not improve Alf photoman 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L. A. Rotheraine[edit]

Fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. Contested prod. MER-C 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not notable. Salad Days 06:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; doubtless a dedicated professional, but not, apparently, encyclopedic. Robertissimo 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something else of substance is added by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Argentinian Film Critics Association Awards (I spell checked and googled the name). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards 2004[edit]

Unnecessary article, we don't yet even have an article on the awards themselves. Orphaned contested prod. MER-C 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable. Just because articles are created 'out of order' doesn't mean we should remove them (that's how groups of articles get started in my mind). --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards. It's a short list, and a single article could hold a number of lists. How long have they been given out? --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move/merge per Dhartung. Good call. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If move, move to Argentinian Film Critics Association Awards. We need the correct spelling. --Folantin 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - An internet search shows that these awards have been held annually since ~~1997~~ 1942 (I looked at the first page of ten hits). An article revealed a link to an article here Alejandro Agresti, an internationally awards winner, who received two awards for his 1996 film, Buenos Aires Vice Versa. Another article here, Mystic River (film) (an American movie) received a nomination for Best Film in 2003. All info just from the first nine hits of an internet search. This article should also be a stub article for the Spanish wiki. Ronbo76 17:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have just updated the article to include those facts plus a Google language translation of the association official website on the Talk:Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards 2004. Please review and pardon my edits as I am still relatively new to Wikipedia (six months with an established username since December 2006. Ronbo76 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, Ronbo76, do you object to moving this article to Argentinian Film Critics Association Awards, which could be expanded with other years' information until a split is necessary? If we don't have that information at hand I don't see the point to this one article, again since there is no main article for the awards at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Yes, I do have an objection to the move because if nothing else, I will learn enough Spanish to build more pages on this subject. As a result of my efforts to improve this page and find the right cat stub I found five other orphaned pages with one that had been tagged for delete. Two were historical non-related except that they have Spain, South America or Latin America in common. One was even an American page. To get back on-topic, I even went on the Spanish wiki to research this topic and see what they have. Most of their articles are linked to our wiki. It would be nice to have another contribution here that should be linked there. I became a Wiki Comics member supporter last night for a similar advocacy. I will do with the Spanish one at a later date as I have ten projects I want to get to first. This one is number one right now a comic project in close second place. Ronbo76 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Number three will be to build a page on the two awards that Alejandro Agresti which would be that awards' year page. I have seen three of his flicks and did not know that he was director. I am fascinated by what he has done. I am going to go off vandal patrol to accomplish projects within the next 30 days. My word is my username and ronbo76 has more than the 30 years of what it means to me as my nickname. Ronbo76 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (quasi-merge) per Dhartung (but spelled correctly per Folantin). While I respect Ronbo76's desire to increase his created-page count, I think it's better to have one article on the topic unless and until we have enough to justify a split into multiple articles. If that happens in the next few weeks, fine, but until that time, I think it's more appropriate to have just one article. Life happens, and it could end up being years before Ronbo creates the other articles he has in mind. (I know it's taken me much longer than originally planned to create several articles I have in mind.) If it takes longer than expected, then we're better off with one central article, and if it doesn't, we're no worse off, because splitting off a new sub-article is quite easy. Xtifr _tälk 09:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and perhaps contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina for help in expanding the article to something reasonable. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Move per all.--Wizardman 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Argentinian Film Critics Association Awards. Perhaps a split later, though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator is advised to seek opinion of colleagues in the future. This article certainly didn't look like spam or vanity or new cult or hoax. And there are quite a few foreign languages if you don't find much in English, and wikipedian who speak these languages. `'mikka 05:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian True Orthodox Church[edit]

Personally, I know nothing about this subject but when I came across the article, it looked a little suspect. I'm unaware of any 3rd party sources for this church but the Google test comes up with only around 80 unique hits. As such, I prodded it, but it was removed with the message "de-prod, this is a denomination, and denominations are almost always kept" (I actually have no idea where this logic comes from since most articles are de-prodded by the author and then deleted at AfD). Anyway, I looked at WP:CHURCH and WP:ORG and both mention the requirement of 3rd party sources which this article lacks. However, I am actually neutral and I'm only here to create a place for discussion about the article's inclusion. Axem Titanium 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. A very notable denomination. --Irpen 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well, if we search in Cyrillic we get [18] 17K ghits of the "True Orthodox Church", [19] 11K ghits on the Cathacom Church and many more hits on other decendants (the church had a lot of schisms and now is divided on 6 indepndent churches). Even without the googlecounting, the church is quite important historically as the only church for Orthodoxes in Russia that did not colloborate with the communist authorities (and have very bad relations with the modern Russian authorities). Thousands of their people were executed, murdered or imprisoned Alex Bakharev 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have announced the AfD on P:RUS/NEW Alex Bakharev 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles about real religions are better than articles about fictional cartoon characters, of which WP has many. Wasted Time R 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The edit summary almost certainly meant that "articles about religious denominations are almost always kept", as opposed to articles about individual churches. --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orca (supercar)[edit]

Unsourced and does not assert notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability established. MER-C 07:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be real. Article needs expansion and improvement. Wasted Time R 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources?, rejected. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's appeared at multiple major tradeshows. It needs editing, not deletion. AllGoodNamesTaken 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Independent and reliable sources per WP:RS? rejected. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any supercar is probably notable by definition; it's not clear that this company and project will succeed in going from prototype to production, but it's notable. Article needs improvement, more real sources, etc, but it's a legit notable topic. Georgewilliamherbert 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no article. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as probable attack page. Someone might want to get rid of the links to this article. Sandstein 08:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faxed Head[edit]

Non-notable, unlistenable joke "band". Their releases are on the band's vanity label and if they've ever toured (or even given actual concerts) I can't find evidence of it, thus fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. Band site doesn't load, the other site gives a bunch of bogus rambling but includes the statement "Gregg used to run Amarillo Records and Faxed Head was another excuse for him to release a bunch of singles and a couple of CDs of he and his friends shitty-fiddling around" which I guess sums it up. Herostratus 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GassyGuy 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - attack page. So tagged. MER-C 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A1. Naconkantari 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bradford Gypsy[edit]

Boyfriend's vanity? Hoax? The article doesnt make a lot of sense. Unencyclopaedic as it stands. Less than 30 Google hits, of which most are wikipedia mirrors. Not referenced, no articles link to it. MegX 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A1 (no context). Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 05:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCS (magazine)[edit]

Is this mail order catalogue (masquerading as a "magazine") notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the largest skateboarding catalogue, and where a lot of skateboarders order their stuff. (google search) --Liface 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CCS was the original skate mailorder catalog, run out of a skate shop in San Luis Ibispo. It was acquired in 2001 by [Alloy, Inc.], a large promotional media company which targets the 10-24 y.o. demographic. Static Universe 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it does not appear to meet WP:CORP which would appear to be best guideline since it is a business. Vegaswikian 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Russell Herbert[edit]

Also nominating the following related page:

Non-notable artist. Previously speedied; contested PROD. Relevant Ghits on full name = 0 (after subtracting link to deleted Wiktionary entry), on "John Herbert" +artist = none apparent in top 100 results; on employer the Lagniappe Project + surname = 0; on "MW Balance" + Wroclaw = 0. Two sources are provided. The first ("Baccalaureate Career") allows one to access a self-generated alumnus profile indicating that subject did indeed double-major as an undergraduate at a Maryland College. The second is a link to employer The Lagniappe Project that does not mention the subject. A search of the website for second employer, Maryland Institute College of Art, finds a directory listing for subject as employed in the Alumni Program Development office.[20]. In short, nothing appears to back up statement that the subject is "credited as a major figure in the turn of the twenty-first century movement" synthesizing trends of the previous century. In the absence of veriable information on exhibitions, publications, reviews, etc., fails WP:BIO. Also nominating article on subject's "movement", New Spiritual Aestheticism (oddly, not mentioned in subject's own article), of which I cannot find a trace. Robertissimo 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alf photoman 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Voice of All, G1. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field[edit]

Bump from speedy, because hoax is still not a criteria. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE Sock infested, but obvious consenus. -Doc^g 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bestian Order of Aestheteka[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Delete - non-notable organization, no verifiable sources, most likely self-promotion. Tunnels of Set 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the 22 unique Google hits (and that's including Wikipedia and mirrors) aren't exactly a good sign either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any independent references, and I could not find any in Proquest. So a worldwide religious order with claiimed number of adherents in the hundreds has not yet gained sufficient notability for an article. And nothing here to meet WP:CONG. Edison 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smacks of a hoax, lacks clear verifiability, a movement with several hundred members would have some evidence for its existence. I had a quick look at the linked "Theistic Satanism" and "Left-Hand Path" articles, they're getting into some murky waters but just about pass the test for inclusion, but there's nothing in them to clearly back up this article. PatGallacher 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aestheteka is a new and growing inluential group. I've seen their ideas independently through a few different websites and I know they have two books out. I've heard that their system is pretty unique and innovative. Either way, I know they are a legitamate group and I don't see a basis for deletion as in learning about them I've spent some time talking to various members from all over the globe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woe Unto Thee (talk • contribs) — Woe Unto Thee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KeepI am writing to enquire why the Bestian Order of Aestheteka entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheteka%2C_Bestian_Order_of - is up for deletion. We are a legitimate group. The several hundred members that have been 'questioned' would quite like to post their comments concerning whether the page should be Kept or Deleted, but thereisno option for them to do so, unlike the several other Satanic groups which youhave also decided to delete. we are registered in the Slovak Republic as a company entity. our teachings are legitmate and are published in the form of two books - both by Crystal Dreams Publishing in the United States - and by Aestheteka itself elsewhere. As for legitimate links - there were several links to discussion groups, forums and otehr internet entities, due to our globally located membership, yet these have been deleted from the reference page. As for the legitimate existence of the Bestian Order of aestheteka, just do a google on 'Aestheteka' and you will see how substantial both our membership and our coverage is. Please advise - it is hardly non-discriminatory for the refernce to be deletd if its members and adherents cannot comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka (talk • contribs) — Aestheteka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note - the article has been updated. However, a simple google on 'aestheteka' would have answered any queries you might have had.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka (talk • contribs)
Delete unsourced. To answer the author's complaint, the process here is definitely discrimintory - we're trying to discriminate subjects that should have articles from those that shouldn't. This falls into the latter group. WilyD 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Bestian Order of the Aestheteka is a legitimate group that has maintained contact, worldwide, via the internet. Open discussions on a variety of spiritual concepts is a main function of this group. It is a budding religion focused on the need for self to be recognized more intimately. This is not a religion based on strict code of moral or dogma. These are discovered and worked through by each individual, with the aid and support of the groups members. The importance of this order, is the melding of ancient wisdom (as passed down through the ages) and more modernistic concepts from the likes of Jung and Crowley. It is a religion focused on self, but not exclusive of the world at large. - Kevin W. Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.223.38 (talk • contribs) — 209.232.223.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KeepTo answer Wilyd's comments - perhaps he does not know how to google or how to look up sources himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka (talk • contribs) - second keep vote by this individual (Jefferson Anderson 23:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Source 1, as stated in the article - Sophia Bestiae, published by Crystal Dreams publishing; source 2 - Grimoire Bestiae, ditto. Both of these texts are the fundament of Aestheteka ideology - a legitimate ideology with several hundred adherents worldwide.

source 3 - the ammendment to theistioc Satanism (the original ammendment was to Satanism but was later split into two topics). This was not done by Aestheteka but by another Satanic Group after the Church of Satan's and Sinagogue of Satan's reading of the Sophia Bestiae (relevance already stated in previosu thread)- sources here:

http://churchofsatan.com/Pages/News.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rev._Michael_S._Margolin/Sinagogue_of_Satan http://www.anathemabooks.com/satan.shtml http://www.eyeofthoth.com/history.html http://www.red-ice.net/specialreports/2006/08aug/cthulhucult.html http://www.dpjs.co.uk/animal.html (where we are quoted as source material due to the reasons stated in the previous comment)

Aestheteka is recognised by many in the Left Hand Path communities and is known globally as a melting pot of Dark Art and teh dark Arts. To remove the entry would be to discriminate solely on religious terms. Should you wish us to edit the entry to make it more Wikippealing, then please state how. The sources are plentiful; as previously stated on two occasions 'just google aestheteka'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aestheteka (talk • contribs)

I know how to google - what google does not give (as far as I can see) is reliable, third party sources. It's now also glaringly evident to me the article fails WP:VAIN. WilyD 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WilyD would be good enough to explain why he is so obsessed about the removal of a page describing a religious order? Sources have been cited, yet these have been ignored. it is clear that WilyD is being objectionable on something other than purely academic grounds andhis comments such be taken into account in such light. The article may be updated to fit those sources (if they are not removed again by hands unseesn), but it is intolerable for such discriminatory behaviour to be enacted upon given suchlegislation as UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comments Article 18. Wikipedia is supposed to be about information and it is an invaluable research tool. One learns from using it. Perhaps those who had notheard of aestheteka due to theirlack of connection to LHP activities, now have access to its basic tenets (as opposed to its stated Occult Ideology here - http://www.aestheteka.com/aestheteka%20occult%20ideology.htm ). As the Aestheteka Forum is currently ranked c.60,000 out of all internet sites, it is clearthatmore than a handful of people know of Aestheteka and its activities. but again a simple google would have shown that.

Happy to oblige. I really don't like spam, except maybe fried with ketchup. In any event, it doesn't taste good in an encyclopaedia. WilyD 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to advertise your lack of taste either gastronomically or philosophically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aestheteka (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You asked, so I obliged. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia's policy is that spam has no place in an encyclopaedia. WilyD 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bestian Order of Aestheteka equates to a post-modern intelligent construct with creativity at warp-drive. Deleting the entry pertaining to this, will, in my opinion, rock the boat on Wikipedia offering pertinent, useful and up-to-date information on getting outside the box that we came in. In deep respect, Su Leybourn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.13.60 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC). — 144.138.13.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The Bestian Order of Aestheteka is an innovative and active system of LHP initiation. The Order currently has three published texts outlining It's initiation ceremonies, core ideology, and practices. The The Bestian Order of Aestheteka Has an international hub on the Internet as well as local groups in Slovakia, Germany, and the US. I, along with the hundreds of other members, were shocked to hear that the entry on our order is being considered for deletion on the supposition that we don't exist. We find this humorous, but disturbing. The The Bestian Order of Aestheteka is endorsed by the Magickal Paradigms Occult group and myself it's moderator. Thank you. 68.206.197.128 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Jay Krodel. — 68.206.197.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep While not everyone may find Aesthetheka politically correct, there are many individuals who find it relevant, and having access to this information for both research and networking, on Wikipedia, is necessary. If Wikipedia wants to maintain any credibility as an impartial tool for information, and not an instrument of arbitrary censorship, Aesthetheka should not be deleted. Mr. O'Toole has several books published, an E-zine, and a worldwide internet following. This is all easily verified.… Based on those facts alone, Aesthetheka should not be deleted. Chaosmom 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Chaosmom — Chaosmom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - That "coverage" is illusory. Yes, there are over 9000 hits for the word, but if you exclude Wikipedia and its mirrors, aestheteka -wikipedia, there are less than 1000. Most of the "coverage" is generated by an active campaign of Google-bombing Wikipedia and other sites where a "listing" can be posted by anybody. Jefferson Anderson 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Listings' generally 'are' posted by somebody... So the fact that we exist now works against us? One factual entry on Wikipedia is hardly google-bombing. Perhaps those calling for deletion should also state their name, age, location, occupation and religious beliefs - otherwise they could be just 'anybody' and as has been claimed in the previous post, an 'anybody' has no worth to their post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aestheteka (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep- As a member of the Bestian Order of Aestheteka, I can state here and now that this organization is far from insubstantial. We have scripture, we have philosophy and we have creed. While we are a widely ranged group of individuals, Aestheteka is our anchor in that it gives us common grounding for our own pursuits in the occult paths.

To remove such a tiny entry purely due to a few religious bigots who are basing their argument on lack of source material and at the same time ignoring the fact that the leader of our group, Edward O'Toole, is an author whose work (our founding tenets - the Sophia Bestiae and the Grimoire Bestiae) is registered and easily accessible to anyone who either understands ISBN numbers or the internet, or Amazon, etc, and that the Aestheteka symbol is a copyrighted symbol with an extremely indepth meaning (originally copyrighted by the English and US magazine Phenomena - countless sources concerning O'Toole's writings, including Coast-to-Coast may be accessed using online search engines).

Maybe you would be kind enough to explain how the article may be improved rather than deleted? After all - we are real, you just haven't taken the time to establish that fact. LJ, Liverpool, England — Preceding unsigned comment added by LolaJane (talk • contribs) — LolaJane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I have dealt with the Bestian Order of Aestheteka and they are a real group. as Wiki suggests, a head count does not determine the validity of anything. even if there are a dozen members of this organization, it should be recorded and available on Wikipedia. signed 24.177.130.98 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Venger Satanis, Cult of Cthulhu High Priest[reply]
- Unforetunately, our polcies and guidelines WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:V and WP:VAIN andWP:KITCHEN SINK all disagree with the assertion that it should be recorded and available here, but insist that it be deleted. If you're looking for free web hosting, you can find lots of such services, but this isn't one. WilyD 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry does not violate any of the following Wikipedia Policy as is claimed by WillyD: 1)WP:RS Reliable Published Sources. The material given here is based on reliable published sources: Sophia Bestiae is published by Crystal Dreams Publishing, ISBN 1-59146-075-1, as is Grimoire Bestiae, 1-59146-666-0) 2)WP:OR Is also used to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source or is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." This is negated by the above explanation and also by the fact that Aestheteka exists as an international occult group with hundreds of members and therefore should be listed for the same reasons that Wikipedia lists Christianity. 3)WP:SPAM Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. This article is not selling or promoting anyone or anything and does not meet the criteria for being spam. This article is designed to provide information on a rapidly growing religious-philosophical movement. 4)WP:V Verifiability, not truth. That The Bestian Order of Aestheteka is an fast growing International Occult Order with local groups in three countries, with three texts published by a well-known publishing company and available on Amazon.com and is endorsed by several external organizations (linked to above in this article) is easily verifiable by anyone capable of a web search. 5) WP:VAIN or WP:COI The only Conflict of interest in the move to have this article deleted is on the part of the editor who is obviously prejudiced by the inclusion of the terms Luciferian and Satanist. The comments made by WillyD constitute mere intolerance, but the deleting of this article would constitute an illegal act of religious discrimination and censorship. 6) WP:KITCHEN SINK States that: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. IF Wikipedia wishes to remain true to it's commitment to providing a high quality encyclopedia it is important that it not delete relevant articles relating to important religious movements just because some prejudiced editor has a personal problem with the articles ideology. Wikipedia is incomplete without reference to the one of the occult community's fastest growing sub-cultures; Aestheteka. Unless one of the certain things that Wikipedia is not happens to be - unbiased. 7) It appears that this article has been attacked by an unscrupulous character calling himself WillyD who is determined to convince Wikipedia that this article violates Wikipedia policy, which it does not, due to his personal dislike of the content of this page. Aestheteka is an innovative and rapidly growing international quasi-religious organization. Any Online Encyclopedia not including it would be incomplete. 68.206.197.128 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Jay Krodel.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Nine Angles[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Delete, non-notable organization's website is hosted on tripod??? Tunnels of Set 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tripod?!? Also, at least some of the sources seem to be fake. "094664604X" for example turns up nothing on the ISBNdb. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reserving judgment pending discussion of the sources cited. This article at least claims to have some sources, but it is difficult to evaluate whether they are reliable, verifiable, and independent. "Thormynd Press" is the main publisher cited and only gets 236 google hits and apparently is primarily a publisher of books on Nazi Satanism. Is Thormynd independent of the subject of the article? Are the other sources cited reliable, verifiable and independent? Edison 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization is mentioned in several published books - such as the one by Goodrick-Clark which mention is several pages long - and has been detailed in academic articles such as the Anthropoetics, and in various published magazines such as Searchlight. The Tripod site is a mirror site - not the actual site of the group. The assertion that some sources are "fake" is incorrect - did the writer of that comment bother to check the British Library catalogue, for instance? It does seem that there is or could be some partionship involved by some users associated maybe with ToS who want the article deleted - as the group under discussion s not liked by some adherents of other "satanic" paths or cults. The article clearly meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability given the range of published non-partisan sources listed. 65.57.106.27 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) — 65.57.106.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Since the group has been mentioned many times in various publications, both books and journals, it is notable, and its works are for sale by publishers such as Ixaxaar. There is also other non-Tripod like sites which contain the majority of ONA material such as www.openinquiry.org and www.sodl.moonfruit.com/onabooks. Anyways, what is wrong with a tripod site? Coolmoon 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable organization, which has received attention in a variety of published literature, from books to articles. Some of its own publications are listed in the British Library online cataloge. The sources as given in the current revision of the Wikipedia article are verifiable and broad, and perhaps some more sources could be included - they are "out there". Cloud-dreamer 06:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Cloud-dreamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This organization has been around forever and is generally a very respected group. Of all the groups on Wiki it's kind of ridiculous this is up for deletion. They have a number of published books and a small but dedicated and inluential following. This is a very important group actually who's members are usually somehat secretive but usually quite open when you meet them. Again, most defientily a keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woe Unto Thee (talk • contribs). — Woe Unto Thee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

— Nearly Headless Nick 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Black Venus[edit]

Delete, article of non-notable organization appears to rely completely on self-published sources. Tunnels of Set 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG and WP:V, 6 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 07:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:ORG, and lacks any reliable sources to show notability. Jayden54 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and virtually nothing on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I completely fail to understand the reference to WP:V. The organization has petitioned the Estonian Government for official recognition as a religious community, a matter clearly on the record, and inherently verifieable. In addition, has published a book with broad national distribution, another strike against WP:V applicability. As to WP:ORG the society clearly has international scope, so that one is missed by a mile too. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarded, From WP:ORG – Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic artists[edit]

Delete, article appear to be opinion and original research and may have WP:LIVING issues as well. Tunnels of Set 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. I agree with the BLP issue too; we can't call people Satanic without a pretty good reference - this article has none. - Eron ^Talk 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the article is based on purely original research and lacks sources. TSO1D 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete, unless backed up by sources before tagging ... there are problems with sources, citations, original research and WP:LIVING. A good eaxample of how not to do it (hey maybe we could keep it as a don't-do-this example) Alf photoman 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you can call me Satanic if you want, and it's no skin off my nose, but there are certainly people who might object, and I suspect that Bosch would be one if he were still around. Yes, his images of hell are fairly iconic, but that doesn't make it appropriate to call him a "Satanic artist". The article is pure OR, and seems to mix up artists-who-happen-to-be-Satanists (or claim to be) with artists-who-depict-Satan (or hell--not sure Bosch ever actually painted Satan himself). There might possibly be an article to be written on the topic, but this certainly isn't it! (And Satanic Art would probably be a better topic to start with in any case.) What's there is unsalvageable in my opinion. Xtifr _tälk 09:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 04:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiscalism[edit]

I've never heard the term used in this way, nor have I seen the theory described here being advocated by anyone. A Google search for "contained fiscalism" produces only this article and mirrors. JQ 06:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a little confusing and unsourced, but fiscalism is the structuring of public policy on private capital to maximize public revenue collection. The term Supply-side economics was originally called "supply-side fiscalism." Static Universe 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Supply-side economics and leave as a redirect would be more appropriate, no? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiscalism isn't the same as supply-side economics, which is a specific type of fiscalism. Usually is it contrasted with Monetarism, so Fiscalism is to Fiscal policy what Monetarism is to Monetary policy. Static Universe 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That explicitly fails WP:NEO. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to fiscal policy (was ~~keep~~), fiscalism gets plenty of hits on a Google books search and is apparently an economics term in wide use. TheronJ 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little more than 300 is not plenty. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it's pretty good for Google books, as opposed to Google web. I'll see if I can find some sources and clean up, but I don't think this is a WP:NEO issue - fiscalism isn't a neologism, it's an economic term of long standing, the opposite in some ways to monetarism. (I suppose we could redirect to Keynesian economics, but "Keynesianism" is a subset of fiscalism). TheronJ 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. However, this phrase has not been used even as a part of legal jargon popularly, I suggest redirecting to fiscal policy. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I've changed my vote. From what I can tell, (1) JQ is right that the current version of the article is unsourced and probably pretty close to completely wrong; (2) although "fiscalism" was in relatively frequent use in the 1970's economic literature as the converse of monatarism and it is probably possible to write a good article about fiscalism, it will take more research than I have time to do. At least until someone commits to writing a worthwhile article, a redirect is much better than unsourced and probably incorrect information. TheronJ 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Theron. Although the jargon may be obscure to laymen, it appears that the term is used in economics. TSO1D 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have verifiable sources to back your claim? I see none, whatsoever. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using public policy to maximise revenue and supporting exclusive use of fiscal policy as a macro instrument are totally different things. And, as a professor of economics I can assure you that neither is common. If this article is kept it will need a complete rewrite, relating it back to the policy debates of the 1970s.JQ 01:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. This fails WP:NEO, as I have asserted in my opinion statement. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, fails ~~WP:NEO~~, WP:V and WP:RS. The term is a neologism and is not used in a manner to denote fiscal policy, either contemporarily or in archaic terminology. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (withdrawn, page moved). Patstuart^talk|edits 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Tourist Board[edit]

~~Not possible to verify the existence of such a body. The article appears to be a front for a commercial website.~~ Mais oui! 06:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the organisation was renamed in 1999 to "English Tourism Council", which has itself been defunct since 2003. As it hasn't been around for 8 years it does not Google! Support a page move, as proposed below. Withdraw nomination. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Mais oui! 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. Major UK quango - difficult to imagine anything more notable in the UK tourist industry. Possible bad-faith nom? Tevildo 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What may seem obvious to you or someone else is not obvious to people from other backgrounds. I would not suggest bad faith here. GassyGuy 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A glance at Mais oui!'s userpage might possibly suggest that they are not entirely unfamiliar with the UK tourism industry. But this is not the place for such accusations - it's merely an issue that should be borne in mind for this AfD. Tevildo 06:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err... hold on just a minute with the "bad faith" accusations!!! There most certainly does exist an organisation called VisitBritain, but I can find no evidence whatsoever of the existence of an "English Tourist Board" (sic). Just try to find a verifiable external source please. --Mais oui! 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My sincerest apologies. I think this may just be a confusion over official and colloquial nomenclature. The site http://www.enjoyengland.com , linked to from the article, is also linked as the official site for England on the VisitBritain index page ([21]). It's also the first site that comes up on a Google search for "English Tourist Board", and was the historical name of the organization until 1999 (See this BBC article). I would support a Move to EnjoyEngland, with a redirect from this page, if it's just the name that's the issue. Tevildo 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. This whole area is very confusing due to devolution and mergers of bodies. The VisitBritain article says that it was a merger of the BTA and something called the "English Tourism Council", but that BBC article clarifies that. In view of the links you provide I would be happy with a page move, leaving this as a redirect. I really did not think that the enjoyengland website looked like anything other than a commercial enterprise, certainly not very "official" looking, but there you go... --Mais oui! 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge/redirect to VisitBritain as that is the successor organization. EnjoyEngland is the "domestic marketing arm" of VisitBritain, a not overwhelmingly extensive article in which a note of this could be accomodated. --Dhartung | Talk 09:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd probably need to merge VisitScotland and Visit Wales as well, if we did that. VisitBritain is the sucessor to the old BTA, responsible for all of Britain (not Northern Ireland - that's still controlled by the NITB) - EnjoyEngland is the arm of it specifically responsible for England. And this really should be on the article talk page, as it's now (at best) a merge proposal. Tevildo 11:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for NI being excluded from VisitBritain? Tourism is a devolved matter, and VisitScotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive; snap with Visit Wales and the WAG. --Mais oui! 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly a matter of negative evidence. :) Unlike the English, Scottish, and Welsh sites, the Northern Ireland site ( http://www.nitb.com/ ) does _not_ contain any reference to VisitBritain, and the VisitBritian page giving details of its management ([22]), contains the statement "As chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Tom McGrath attends VisitBritain Board meetings as an observer", strongly implying (but not, I agree, stating explicitly) that the NITB isn't in any way a subsidiary of VB. Tevildo 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:VisitBritain for further discussion. Tevildo 12:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Successor. Notable quango of its time - plenty of references in the news, etc. WMMartin 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Deltabeignet (CSD A7 (non-notable group)). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Moose Party II[edit]

Non notable fringe "political party" that claims to have been founded a couple weeks ago. Absolutely no reliable sources that would allow this to meet verifiability rules. Speedy and prod tags removed by an anon that is likely also the creator. Resolute 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't imagine a month-old party would be notable. JIP | Talk 07:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MER-C. Budgiekiller 08:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable; no reliable sources to show notability, and even Google show's only 2 hits. Jayden54 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - moreover, neither of those 2 Google hits refers to this supposed party. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 13:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a month-old political party is unlikely to be notable.-- danntm ^T _C 03:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adenosine monophosphate. Kesh 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ergadenylic acid[edit]

This article seems to be pseudoscience. "Ergadenylic acid" is an obscure term for adenosine monophosphate (AMP) [23], and cannot even be found at PubMed [24].

The entire text is meant to support the notion that AMP is a vitamin by disguising it as "ergadenylic acid". Not only is there a lack of citations to back this claim up, but AMP can be endogenously generated by a number of different mechanisms, as discussed in the article on adenosine monophosphate. This contradicts the notion that it is a vitamin.

For these reasons, I recommend ~~deleting~~ redirecting Ergadenylic acid. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 11:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If this is a _genuine_ term for AMP, then I think turning it into a redirect would be better than deleting it. The issue of whether or not it's a vitamin is probably best decided on the main B Vitamins page. (Incidentally, the majority of Ghits for "vitamin B8" come up with Biotin, which is listed here as B7. Some sort of definitive reference for both (all three?) is undeniably needed). Tevildo 11:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect. The Biological Magnetic Resonance Data Bank link above gives the name as a synonym, so a redirect to adenosine monophosphate seems best. The author can go and argue that it's a vitamin there, if they want. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge surgely to Inositol. The article itself describes it alternatively known as Inositol, not adenosine monophosphate. So suggest merge there if can verify any of uncited claims. David Ruben ^Talk 12:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the status quo is that "Vitamin B8" is really AMP/Ergadenylic acid, but Inositol was formerly/erroneously labelled as B8. There are two separate issues to resolve elsewhere - (a) is AMP a vitamin? and (b) which compound is/was labelled "vitamin B8"? (Again, Google overwhelmingly suggests Biotin, with folic acid a distant second). But neither are at issue in this AfD. Tevildo 13:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adenosine monophosphate - Appears to be another term for AMP per link 1 in nom. -- Kesh 18:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adenosine monophosphate See Link TimVickers 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the PubChem entry. This looks like a good place to invoke WP:SNOW, so I'm going to spedy redirect to adenosine monophosphate. – ClockworkSoul 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the discussion, I change my vote to support redirect to adenosine monophosphate. Perhaps, vitamin B8 should be turned into a disambiguation page or redirected to B vitamins. --Uthbrian (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Suvanto[edit]

Fourteen year old kid who drives kart. Finnish youth champion. Participated at few international junior events, best result was winning a Scandinavian race. Not really "highest level" achievements. Let's delete this page. Time will tell whether there is reason to recreate it. Julius Sahara 08:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 08:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Let's wait until he actually wins some international racing events (and not junior one's). Jayden54 13:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C & Jayden54. He's no Michael Schumacher, yet. Budgiekiller 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks to me as if he has won more than Scandinavian race, he is Finnish Junior Champion and if you follow the link against International Open Masters you can see that the races will be televised this year on RAI and Eurosport, and that the Championship is the virtual equivalent of the World Championship's. Following some research I also note that other sporting individuals who have achieved less than this guy have their Wikipedia entries allowed without question. I don't see how something interesting, factual and that is televised internationally should be removed at this stage. If he is the 'reigning' Finnish Junior Champion then there is probably interest in his career from important sources. If he doesnt deliver for a year then I agree it should be removed at that time but why be harsh on a young guy trying to achieve something and so far doing a good job? Mikedonlough 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was the first edit by this user. Julius Sahara 07:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Open masters is in fact Italian championships. Furthermore, he drives KF3 (aka ICA Junior) class, which is clearly a third class category at Open Masters series [25]. Julius Sahara 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not paper, notability can be open to interpretation, but this guy does seem to have some significant achievements, there are probably several articles on other people with equivalent achievements in other areas of human activity. PatGallacher 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is flawed and is often used by article creators to justify notability of their article. There has to be sensible ways to determine importance (or lack of it) of each subject. When it comes to sports biographies, it is clear that the sportsperson in question has to compete at senior level. This racing driver has still years to reach it. He attends the KF3 class (for under-15's), which is, frankly, a children's class! More creditable karting classes, like KF1 (aka Formula A) and ICA (Intercontinental A) are also effectively junior classes since most drivers move to bigger vehicles (like Formula Ford or Formula BMW) immediately when they are allowed to do so. Furthermore, nothing implies this driver has outstanding achievements. In Europe alone, there are likely tenfolds of equally talented drivers of his age group. What if all of them would post autobiographies at Wikipedia? If Petri Suvanto matures into a famous driver, he will certainly have a page at Wikipedia. But this is not a crystal ball, he might fail as well. Julius Sahara 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Julius, with the greatest respect my specialist subject's are motor cycling and motor sport and particularly the junior levels which are often underrated by many people as being insignificant - having followed Junior levels of two and four wheels for over 30 years I have seen many stars (Including Schumacher, Raikkonen) rise from Junior categories which are extremely competitive and fought out at international level. Many of the 'children' you refer too are paid as professional's before reaching the higher level's. If I were the original poster Julius then I don't think I would have been as polite to you as I have, particularly when you use a put you down comment by saying that all this driver has done is won a few Scandinavian races when quite clearly he has and is in the continual process of achieving so much more than that. I am not here to argue the rights or wrongs for Wikipedia or this article because I am new and have never seen Petri Suvanto race but sometimes a fresh perspective can be worth a look at, if I am wrong then it will have been served as a lesson but at the same time I am very grateful to Wikipedia for allowing me the opportunity to cast my view and own opinion (after all that is one of the beauties of this site and on-line encyclopaedia). I would argue that the age of an athlete is not relevant to the level of professionalism or competitiveness or credibility of what he or she does with their profession OR to which Championship they compete in. In fact if they are children, then in a way they deserve more credit and encouragement for at least trying to achieve something at a young age. To finalise my message I would like to note the following reasons why in my opinion it seems appropriate for this particular article to remain:

1)Karting is most certainly not a Junior racing category, it has several drivers still racing (such as David Fore and Marco Ardigo) who raced against the likes of Schumacher, Trulli and Fisichella and they took the decision to remain in karting as professionally paid sportsmen which serves as a far better career than many hundreds of drivers in series Julius mentions such as Formula BMW and Formula Ford

2)I see that Petri Suvanto will race in Maranello team in 2007 and that his team-mate will be none other than 5 time Karting World Champion Davide Fore

3) He is Finnish Junior Champion; Finland is acknowledged as a nation which produces many stars. A couple of drivers who competed in this Championship and did NOT win it include Kimi Raikkonen and Heikki Kovalainen

4) Petri Suvanto's 2007 races will be shown on RAI Live Italian television with Live broadcasts simultaneously shown on Eurosport

5) Petri Suvanto is one of the favourites to win the KF3 title in 2007. Even if he wins just one of the races which is shown live on TV then there is a very good chance at least one Wikipedia user would like to refer to see if he can find out more on him

6) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and one of the beauties of this is that the inclusion of this page is that it is not taking up unavailable space or preventing someone elses page appearing

7) For 2007 Suvanto's 'no longer' Italian Championship was awarded International status by the FIA (governing body to the Formula One World Championship) who have given permission for the series to be called the INTERNATIONAL Open Championship due to its mass international credibility throughout the world of motor sport. It was called the Italian Championship when Raikkonen, Schumacher, Montoya, Fisichella and Trulli competed in it but due to the overall success, interest and commercial viability of karting, the series has moved up a gear

8) Karting is recognised as one of the most exciting categories of motor sport that can be watched hence the high ratings and continued live coverage by RAI and the Eurosport TV channel

9) Despite being three years younger than the reigning Formula A European Champion (Michael Christensen), Petri Suvanto beat this driver as a twelve year old

10) Suvanto is a driver who has achieved great things as a youngster and is already moving on to the international platform that karting is recognised as. Why not be proud of representing a great achiever at such a tender age.

11) Anyone who understands motor sport knows that the Championship's hosted by the International Open Masters in 2007 are the equivalent of the World Championship's. There are many other Wikipedia entries that hold other Junior champions and achievers from all walks of life and sports in general. - Mikedonlough 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dear Wikipedia, as the original poster of this article I am not sure whether I am allowed a say in this area or not, but if I may reply then I would like too purely with facts and without biase: There are several reasons as to why I thought the inclusion of Petri Suvanto in Wikipedia was appropriate but without going into huge detail as someone has done above, I'd like to also mention in addition that this driver is coached by the same driver coach for Raikkonen, McLaren and RedBull. He is also legally represented by Macfarlanes who are the law firm to Sir Jackie Stewart and Red Bull F1 team and he is managed by Allstar International who have represented Nelson Piquet Junior and Antonio Pizzonia amongst others. He is also competing in an International series which is aired live on Eurosport, the leading Pan-European Sports channel reaching over 100 million households, 240 million viewers in 54 different countries plus RAI, the Italian channel. In 2007 he is also team mates with Davide Fore the five time karting World Champion. I will slightly update the entry to demonstrate these facts. In terms of article notability I hope I have satisfied this request by putting in over 20 links - if this is still not appropriate then please let me know and I will act accordingly to your request.

Delete. I couldn't find any news sources that mention Petri Suvanto. -- Alan McBeth 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO -- Wikipedical 05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found several news articles on this driver, has good/promising track record and prominent exposure coming in 2007 Granger Tovets

User account created today. Petri Suvanto may be fairly promising driver, but Wikipedia is not a prediction league. Let alone a place to comment his tyre selections. Julius Sahara 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Red Card to Julius Sahara - not only with another put you down (without good reason) comment but by now criticising a new Wikipedian who has already offered more than one useful opinion in sports categories. At least the new users I have seen in this thread seem to be dealing with the facts instead of trying to paint the black tarnished picture that Sahara is intent on doing without any validity whatsoever. Please don't let this go unnoticed Wikipedia. For me, the facts of this driver speak for themselves. Mikedonlough 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Lectonar. Tevildo 12:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John deyto[edit]

Autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 08:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per db-bio--RWR8189 08:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per rwr8189 Nareklm 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. MER-C 08:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communologue[edit]

This appears to be mostly original research, or at best an essay about a new idea (of which there are many at any given time). This really fails to be any sort of encyclopaedia article, and appears to be a neologism. Google doesn't find much on this term or concept to indicate it's very widely used. NMChico24 09:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN term. The author and his Imago Relationship Therapy gained exposure through Oprah Winfrey, but apparently this part of the program has not. --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn neologism, 129 ghits. MER-C 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Jayden54 13:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate what you guys are doing to maintain standards for Wikipedia and to also give us so much thought. Thanks. As I am out of the country for three weeks, I will pass this on to the team. --Alturtle 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be original research or someone's marketing concept. WMMartin 19:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as admitted and obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careless Whisper Break[edit]

Blatant hoax, based on this forum thread in which the article creator encourages people to add more misinformation into the article. (They also created a fake Discogs entry to back this article up: [26]) I have tagged it for vandalism but it appears that someone disagrees that a deliberate hoax constitutes vandalism, thus bringing here for consensus to delete. Deleting admin please consider protecting the page as the thread also mentions they will try to re-create the page. Flyingtoaster1337 09:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and most likely a hoax entry. The Mob Rules 09:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:V. MER-C 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 10:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
too funny not to Delete--Tainter 12:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hoax Jayden54 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb hoax, not funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's Speedy Delete this, per open admission of this being bullshit, and per nom. -- Ekjon Lok 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you're right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formulism[edit]

Seems non-notable, website is dead. No ghits. Seems like something we made up in school one day. Megapixie 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The word itself turns up in scientific, critical, and some older political texts, but is not in many dictionaries nor in wide use today, so we can probably do without it. --Dhartung | Talk 09:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1+1=Deleted! Danny Lilithborne 11:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OR at best. Tevildo 12:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB / lacks reliable sources / fails WP:V Jayden54 13:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is simply obscure non-sense. It definitely fails WP:V TSO1D 21:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy FANTiM Frazier[edit]

Non-notable photographer; only external references are either his own websites or trivial directory entries. Also probably a WP:COI given the username of the author. Demiurge 09:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a stub. It has more notability than many of the other photographer stubs.138.243.195.38 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 10:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Jayden54 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen scars[edit]

Generic band vanity, albums appear to be self-produced. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fails WP:MUSIC. No evidence of media coverage on Google. Added an image of the band and an "article" about one of the albums to the nomination. MER-C 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - not notable per WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them per above. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of independent and non-trivial sources mentioning the band, it fails WP:MUSIC and consequently so does everything else. TSO1D 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgewood High School (Florida)[edit]

The article doesn't follow WP:SCHOOL in asserting notability and is biased as of this revision. I can't find the district's page, but if it is created then the article can be merged with that. Also, see the edit history and talk page to see the problems with the article since its creation. It seems like the images might not be free too. EvaGears 11:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable about this school as far as I can see. Jayden54 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability per WP:SCHOOL, especially regarding multiple sports championships. This is a thorough article that more than adequately covers the school and its activities. This is yet another pathetic case of an article that should have been tagged for sources, tone or image issues. There are dozens of tags that could have -- and should have -- been applied. There is no reason that an AfD needed to be initiated to address these issues. A few minutes at the keyboard was more than enough to address POV concerns and add several sources. Alansohn 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SCHOOL is not even a guideline, but a proposed and much-contested proposed guideline which, despite the bad faith of certain people who push for its adoption, has been rejected repeatedly. Speedy keep is an invalid and bad faith !vote, and I request you withdraw it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He might be sentimental because he created the original article --EvaGears 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's start taking apart the statements made above from the beginning, with the creation of this article. I did it. I admit it. I created this article. I created it after someone had edited the original article "Ridgewood High School", which was about a school in New Jersey, and overlaid the text with the description of a school somewhere in Florida. After some back and forth, I restored the New Jersey school article, took the Florida text and pasted it in to create the Ridgewood High School (Florida) article. You can take a gander at this link for some of the details. A disambiguation page was created shortly thereafter at Ridgewood High School. My only connection in creating the article was to resolve a nascent edit war by creating a new article. I don't attend the school. I'm not an alumnus. I don't know where New Port Richey is, nor do have any idea of where the original Port Richey is located. I do know school articles. And I also know that if the AfD nominator states that "[t]he article doesn't follow WP:SCHOOL in asserting notability", then indicating why it does indeed meet the notability criteria specified by WP:SCHOOL would be an appropriate refutation of the claim that it should be deleted. As the WP:SCHOOL argument fails, and the concerns about "bias" and images can be or already have been easily addressed, my argument for a Speedy Keep seem rather well justified. Alansohn 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some fairly good results in sports do not grant notability to the institution.--Hús ö nd 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It satisfies my personal criteria for High School notability. I couldn't find the bias mentioned above. The article seems sufficiently neutral. The images are irrelevant to the AfD since they can be removed. — RJH (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SCHOOL per Alansohn, which is at any rate only proposed. Bias also appears to be gone. BryanG^(talk) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is much better than the vast majority of those on similar topics. TSO1D 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails my personal criteria for high school notability (i.e., the school needs to do more than exist). GassyGuy 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The school is a very important piece of a community numbering nearly 200,000 people. I see no reason why this article can't exist in its current form. — Dchauncey

You are a student of the school which can lead to bias. Please give a reason on how the school is notable other then that it serves a large community. If that is the reason why there should be an article, then many schools can have their own articles, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. I can see how you feel because I went to the school for two years myself and lived in Pasco, but the school is nothing special. I also believe you written the history of the school but please keep it in the school's website. Thank you. --EvaGears 19:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, now we see the bias of the nominator in creating this AfD. WP:NOT is the poor man's excuse for deleting an article, resorted to by those who can't appeal to a relevant Wikipedia policy or guideline. A reading of the clearly worded WP:NOT#DIR states that the definition of "Wikipedia is not a directory" as "1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." No, "2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries." Not Close, or "3) Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business." Not a Prayer. I understand that you have a bias, after all familiarity breeds contempt, but please recognize that the article is a complete and thorough description of the school, and that the article makes explicit claims of notability in compliance with WP:SCHOOL, contrary to your assertion in the AfD nomination. Alansohn 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High schools are article worthy. Honbicot 14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jimbo Wales and for reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. Meets WP:SCHOOLS as proposed as well. Silensor 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More notable than the average high school. Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOL and comment by Alansohn above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the third-party sources. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, which actually is a guideline. —Centrx→talk • 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources that had previously been provided were from reliable verifiable sources that meet any and all qualifications specified in WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:SCHOOL. Several additional sources were added from the St. Petersburg Times, which is the largest newspaper in the State of Florida and 23rd largest in the United States. from among several hundred articles about the school available over the past two decades. I would hope that these additional sources meet your own personal standards for notability -- they certainly meet mine and those of the overwhelming majority of other participants of this AfD -- but if you have any further issues, please raise them so that they can be addressed to your satisfaction. Alansohn 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no such sources currently in the article. All the references for the first part are the school's website, and the text there is directly derived from it; and all the references for the athletics are the Florida High School Athletic Association. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy, it looks like this article has some copyright and conflict of interest issues, with the original text being a POV text dump from the same user who recently copied [27] directly from [28]. The article that remains is still not substantiated by reliable third-party sources, and still has POV problems. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst the article is full of information there's no evidence that the school is actually notable in any way. Existence is not a guarantee of notability. WMMartin 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — WMMartin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. seems to be single-purpose account used for AfD participation, may be WP:SOCK. Alansohn 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Martin Smith (songwriter), Merge the rest. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Jupp[edit]

Five articles on members of the Christian band Delirious?. The band gets external coverage so is notable, but I can find no evidence that the individual members have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, and the only source for the bio data seems to be the band's own website. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Dont have time to look it up now, but doesnt being a member of a notable band confer notability on the members per Wiki:Music? Jcuk 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly, but if there are no independent sources then actually that is a non-starter per WP:V and WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. WP:MUSIC doesn't appear to say that being a member of a notable band is enough on its own to confer notability. Since their articles have (at most) some extra trivia about these people, I'd say delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - not notable enough for their own articles (per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC). Jayden54 13:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Delirious? Catchpole 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of these articles was already nominated for deletion, and it survived then. Why delete it now when it's only developed more? — D. Wo. 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my understanding of Wiki:Music and the fact one of the articles already survived AFD Jcuk 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I guess that they marginally meet WP:MUSIC, which as written does not leave space to interpretation ... on the other hand, do we need an article about every "famous" band member ? Alf photoman 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the band meets, WP:MUSIC, but the individual members do not. Which bit of WP:MUSIC 'does not leave space to interpretation' on this? Have I missed something? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I've worked on most of these articles... independent, reliable sources include Martin Smith[29][30] (I'm sure that there are others somewhere; I've definitely seen more from other reliable sources). Meh; if members of a notable band (I would say possibly the most influential Christian band of the 90s, given that they and Matt Redman kick-started the modern worship movement) aren't necessarily notable themselves, go ahead and delete; I cast Keep for Martin at least, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatheMezzaMorphis163 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Edit & Comment: Oops; I forgot to sign the above. Anyway, I would actually say that it's much harder for British Christian bands to meet the criteria. In America, there's a massive CCM industry willing to report on bands, etc.; in Britain, there's literally no CCM subculture... and a lot of music magazines, channels, etc. refuse to consider Christian bands (and hence especially their by-definition less-notable members) as being worthy of attention. Oh, well... I still would say Keep for Martin and Weak Keep for the rest. --3M163//Complete Geek 13:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Include any verifiable and pertinent info in the band article and redirect the pages there.GassyGuy 15:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delerious is one of the most important bands in contemporary Christian circles, especially in the UK. and has influenced worship in 1000s of churches. Martin Smith and Stu Garrard in particular have written songs that are used regularly in worship and are Christian hymnwriters in their own right. It might be best to keep their articles seperate and combine the others into Delerious' article. There are other sources of information about them. MMcCaghrey 16:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delirious and the song writing partnership of Smith/Garrand have been a major worldwide influence on christian worship music over the last decade, penning some of the most sung songs in churches throughout the world - these are modern hymmns - do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.93.196 (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Martin Smith, merge others into Delirious?. I happen to be quite a fan of Delirious, but I don't think any of the band members, save Martin (who's written a lot of very popular songs) is notable in and of themselves. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glasnost (band)[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 12:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. MER-C 13:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent and non-trivial sources exist to back the info, thus the topic cails WP:MUSIC. Not even perestroika can help here :) TSO1D 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see why you would want to delete this page? It's a legitimate band, I contributed this article because I love their music, what source do you want? I have all sorts of sources. Just let me know what I need to add in order to keep it opened before even considering closing it. Spotnick
- Please take a look at the criteria on WP:MUSIC. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." TSO1D 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there are reliable sources from the 2 former bands of each member of this duo, almanso being a band from Argentina and The Minus One being one from Greece. Do you actually mean you'll reject any side-project because it's not YET discussed everywhere? Spotnick
Delete fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omendil[edit]

Mis-spelt article, correct entry is Ornendil Thu 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected per nom. MER-C 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sourced information to merge. —Centrx→talk • 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berwick High School[edit]

not notable Monotonehell 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Berwick, Pennsylvania as the article is short and the community of Berwick is not so big that a school district article is advisable. Regarding the claims about football achievements, it does seem to have some merit even though no sources are cited. A look through Google revealed this and this from USAToday which might do as references. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I can't support keeping this article in its current form. — RJH (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is about the school's football team, which is only regionally notable. As it currently stands, this fails any and all school criteria. -- Kicking222 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge/redirect. Basically an empty article -- I don't think the team is even truly regionally notable. (I'm living in the region at the moment. The team gets the coverage I'd expect of high school football. This article's claims, and the ones in the town's article, are likely a bit inflated. I have to admit, though, I'm not a big football fan, and particularly not of American football.) Shimeru 07:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now to incubate it. Just H 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable as many of the other articles in Category:High schools in Pennsylvania. Honbicot 14:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That suggests bad things about many of the other articles in that category. Good grief, I hope most of them are in better shape than this one... Shimeru 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - School stubs should be merged to the parent community article, and this is clearly just a stub. If someone establishes notability and grows it, they can split it out again later. For now, merge. Georgewilliamherbert 01:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Berwick, Pennsylvania or keep and expand using reliable sources. Silensor 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and expand - their are numerous high schools that are listed. this one does have some notability CarmenBryan 08:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the high school of Jimmy Spencer, and I remember hearing that Berwick won several statewide football championships. However, unless someone locates sufficient sources, this is just a directory listing. Unless sourced and claims of notability added, merge and redirect to Berwick, Pennsylvania (or to its public school district if there's a valid article for it). The competing schools notability guidelines agree on handling unsourced stubs. Barno 18:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Reasons given for keeping are poor (i.e. "he's on Google" and "the article is new"). —Wknight94 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Andrews[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 13:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can find him on google, I say keep it. Kris Classic 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lots of people can be found with google, that doesn't make him notable. He's a new wrestler who hasn't accomplished anything yet. ↪Lakes (Talk) 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So? All guys were new at one point, and it really isn't hurting anything being on Wiki. Kris Classic 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It certainly hurts. Wikipedia has a notability policy and he fails it. He might accomplish something later, and if he does then an article can be made about him. ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Puh-lease, this is an encyclopedia, used to look up anything. Just because he is a small time wrestler doesn't mean he doesn't deserve an article. Please just move on. This is a place for learning, not a popularity contest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete - Just barely passes WP:BIO, but I still don't think that it warrants an article. Now, if someone cites a few things in the article, then this might survive. (Gee, the more I do these AFDs the more I realize I'm a deletionist...) PTO 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Weak or not, it still passes, so I don't even see a reason for it to be up for deletion. Kris Classic 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy. P TO 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's only recently been added, give it a chance to grow I'd say. Govvy 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN wrestler, article also doesn't assert notability and this guy looks like any other indy wrestler. TJ Spyke 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking like "any other indy wrestler" isn't a good reason for an article to be deleted. Kris Classic 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not why I voted delete, I was just pointing that out. His article doesn't do anything to seperate him from the thousands of other non-notable indy wrestlers. TJ Spyke 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable independent wrestler. Only source is an unreliable fan site. One Night In Hackney 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unreliable fan site? That is BS. OWW is a reliable source, used as a site on most wrestler's articles. Kris Classic 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Afd etiquette before making any further comments? Secondly, OWW is a fansite and not reliable. Example [31] states "Khosrow Vaziri started out as an amature wrestler and even won a medel at the 1968 Olympic Games, representing Iran". Ignoring that your "reliable source" can't even spell medal or amateur, it is incorrect. Khosrow Vaziri states "Although he was billed as having been a 1968 Olympic medalist, this is untrue", which is confirmed by the relevant results from the 1968 Olympics. OWW is nothing more than a fansite, and should not be considering a reliable source. One Night In Hackney 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that amature is the British spelling of the American amateur. Am I wrong? Also, One Night, please don't WP:BITE the newcomers. Cheers, P TO 02:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, even us Brits spell it "amateur". Sorry wasn't meaning to bite, was just trying to help him. One Night In Hackney 02:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Maybe we should remove OWW as a source from all wrestling bios, as if you look at any of them, they are there.
- Then why not remove IGN and GameSpot from all video game articles just because they have made errors? I'm not arguing for or againat OWW, jut pointing out they aren't the only ones to have errors. TJ Spyke 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OWW is a glorified fan site for wrestling fans. I doubt every wrestler listed on the site is notable. The fact OWW links are listed in many wrestling articles means very little: seeing as how there isn't alot of other major wrestling sites out there (besides the official ones for WWE, TNA, etc, along with news sites and fan sites such as OWW). RobJ1981 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Needs a lot of work but i think he has worked with major independent promotions ~~and has worked internationally~~ and thats enough to make him notable -- Paulley

Comment Reliable source for the international work please. One Night In Hackney 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it's Davey Richards who is schedualed to compete in the KOE cup. ---Paulley

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

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

The result was keep - in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, articles are not deleted articles simply because they are philosophically displeasing - otherwise, Christians would disallow Gnosticism, Jews Messianic Judaism, etc. If they are notable and sourced, the article ought to remain. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takwin[edit]

non-existent,no sources or whatsoever,a muslim will never ever say "takwin refers to the artificial creation of life in the laboratory",this is clearly false information. Alnokta 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - google give some links, so it seems real. Geber has twice the reference to this article. Seems enough for an historic/philosophical term. I hope there is a good reference! Cate |_Talk 15:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, there is a conflict; you cannot be a muslim and at the same time believe that you can create life in a laboratory. Jabir was an experimental chemist, also alchemy in Islam differs from alchemy at large. so there is no point of keeping the article, because if we remove the line about Jabir and the other irrelevant paragraph; there will be no article hence I'm adding it for ~~deletion~~.

Comment - I think you do wrong assumptions. The article talk about research of about 1300 year ago. Islamic theology was not very developed, as also communications. Do you think that in a century the traditions and local believes can be erased? And in all the people? I think "Islamic" it should be interpreted more in an historical way, about environment, not in a very strict way. Cate |_Talk 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Someone got a PhD[32] out of researching this concept so it exists - whether a good muslim would do it is irrelevant; science is full of people doing things counter to what their religion tells them is allowed (and that seems to be part of the dissertation - this article could do with some expansion and sources). --Jamoche 22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)r[reply]

Nah, there is no such thing called takwin or not takwin, also that is not a proof of verifiability, I don't care if it from pennsylvania or else..there is a possibility of being a fake research or something.. the article is a false assumption and no need to keep it..btw, that don't happen in Islam and even if it happens, it will not happen in the golden era.. you don't just say need that or that..you don't know Islam and you keep in talking convincing other fellows of false information...I don't like to appear as bashing every keep statement but it is necessary to explain.. again, the article's subject is non-existent and needs to be deleted!.--Alnokta 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per Jamoche. TruthSpreader^reply 01:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per PhD link. --Striver - talk 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (negative): All of this talk about "Google says it's real" and someone's PhD dissertation means nothing since none of it is in the article ... the basic policy of WP:No original research says that there must be verifiable reliable source citations for assertions of WP:Notability ... as nom states, "no sources or whatsoever" in this article, so as it stands, it is blatant original research since it is unsubstantiated by any reliable sources ... "It is not about what you know, it is about what you can verify." ... it looks as if this article was created solely to be referenced from Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan, an undeniably notable 8th century Mulsim alchemist, but this subject is not worthy of an article of its own (except maybe {{Copy to Wiktionary}}) ... this material should be merged with his article, possibly as a new section, or as an expansion of the paragraph in which it is mentioned. 72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation is in the article now. — coelacan talk — 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Coelacan. --Mardavich 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joe 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The High Society[edit]

Fails Wikipedia's Notability (music) criteria as have had no releases, no coverage and only a myspace and a couple of concerts. Advertising, surely? Rainbowfanclub 14:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I agree, this band has not achieved enough notoriety to merit an inclusion into an encyclopedia. Cyrus Andiron 14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find anything to confirm notability per WP:NMG--Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Having 2 former members of King Adora means they pass WP:MUSIC. Found this interview which confirms this is their new band [33]. One Night In Hackney 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per One Night in Hackney Jcuk 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've heard of The High Society. They're highly influential in Birmingham and possibly elsewhere. I've seen at least one show in London. Adroit Nubian 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes criterion five of WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nothing done by this band whatsoever - it's desperation, not encyclopaedic material —isocoles_eye 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)— isocoles_eye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment They are notable according to WP:MUSIC, which is the guideline for inclusion. One Night In Hackney 14:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana[edit]

Spammy article riddled with weblinks but subject may be notable. CReated by a WP:SPA and edited since exclusively by a single IP (probably the same person). Won a prize from a redlinked press, that sort of thing. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Obviously scraping the bottom of the notability barrel with things like a "Holiday Poetry Contest" from something with one Google hit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity page with no real notability asserted. Budgiekiller 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Robdurbar 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cody[edit]

Non-notable amateur pornography company, fails WP:CORP One Night In Hackney 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination --Mhking 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is virtually spam. Budgiekiller 17:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or despamify, the company gets over 200 Kghits so there must be something re WP:CORP , but the article is probably written by one of their public relations people Alf photoman 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete per nomination. The entry does meet the three content policies --Jlgarza 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)— Jlgarza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I looked through several pages of the ghits, and I couldn't find the type of independent non-trivial sources that would meet CORP. Certainly, none are cited in the article.--Kubigula (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-known, widely recognized in gay porn. With a minor modification, this article is neutral in tone, and report factually on what the company does. If there is spam remaining, please identify so that it can be removed. POV/advertising is justification for editing/improving an article, not for deleting. Zeromacnoo 16:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cowley Club[edit]

Non-notyable music venue in Brighton. Spamtastic. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article doesn't mention being a music venue at all, because that's a tiny part of what goes on there, the main activities being those actually detailed in the article. It's an important venue for anarchist and other left wing and community groups in the area. Regarding notability, please see the article's talk page for links to other sources concerning the centre. The article is linked to by UK Social Centre Network and Social Centre Wikipedia articles, and I don't really understand why those articles are fine but an article about the Cowley Club isn't. --Bobbob94 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article asserts notability in many fields. Eludium-q36 09:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of continuity errors and anachronisms in MAS*H[edit]

None notable, poorly sourced and could easily be classed as cruft Computerjoe 's talk 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete big ol' chunk of OR, right down to microtrivia like one scene where Hawkeye does not change his rubber gloves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's verifiable, and probably that means this is not OR. This is not cruft, this content obviously important for a good number of Wikipedia contributors. 195.216.176.150 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Agent 86 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft. Recury 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivia collection. I loved the show, but its called, suspension of belief and creative license.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Are we going to have List of violations of physics in Road Runner next? Tevildo 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally stuff like this should be junked, but M*A*S*H is one of the most popular TV series of all time, and depicts the otherwise often-forgotten Korean War, so knowing what parts of the depiction were real and what were artistic license is valuable and notable. Much of the material involves comparison against historical facts, and is thus not OR. Wasted Time R 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That last statement sounds like the article verges on violating WP:OR#SYNTHESIS, especially when the article seems to be constructed by reference to a trivia website and an army pamphlet (the only cited "sources" in the article). Agent 86 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Beat me to it; yes, comparing things in a TV show to historical fact is a synthesis of published material and is considered original research. Recury 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content cannot rise above the level of trivia, regardless of the show's popularity. TSO1D 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far to trivial, even for such a great show.-- danntm ^T _C 03:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. The Mob Rules 11:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, trivial. GassyGuy 15:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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::► 11:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of Eddie[edit]

Crystal Ball - crz crztalk 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax: nothing on Google for "The Life of Eddie" + "Disney Channel". Incidentally, does anybody know what the deal is with all the Disney Channel hoaxes? Is some kid obsessed with creating them or what? It seems we get more hoaxes about the Disney Channel than any other 10 networks combined. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom and per Starblind. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete didn't find anything either in search engine. Wait for the film to receive more publicity or actually be on the air before it is created.--Nehrams2020 01:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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::► 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrammed[edit]

Dictionary definition, pure and simple. Emeraude 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the word exists,[34] but WP:NOT. Salad Days 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure dicdef. delldot | talk 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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::► 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coppi's (2nd nomination)[edit]

I was surprised to see that a previous AFD was judged to have no consensus on this article. I've eaten in this restaurant (decent food, if anyone's interested) and can think of nothing that makes it more notable than a dozen other restaurants within a block radius. Banyan Tree 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does not seem to detract from the overall quality of the encyclopedia to have an article on Coppi's. -Toptomcat 17:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic, fails WP:CORP, this is not a directory or phone book, and no notability is asserted. It's just a restaurant. Agent 86 17:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a restaurant, and that on its own is not notable. WMMartin 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, obvious hoax (see article talk page). NawlinWiki 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ford[edit]

Most likely a hoax. Prod contested and notability is claimed but there seem to be no credible source to back this up. I highly doubt that anyone would buy his way out of prison after a triple murder (in a foreign country to boot). Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as obvious dumb hoax. No need to carry it out another 4 days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this high school gag article (see Talk:Tyler Ford). Zero relevant ghits, story is full of holes (why would a triple murderer in Detroit be jailed in the BVI?). Tubezone 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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::► 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International trade of India[edit]

This is a very brief and confused page which could easily be cleaned up, but the subject is covered comprehensively and clearly in the India and Economy of India articles so I see no point in keeping this. Emeraude 16:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork. Tarinth 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article Economy of India covers this topic well-enough, no need for a fork. TSO1D 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for a fork. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed as a fork.68.238.191.134 15:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was me, got logged out somehow.-- danntm ^T _C 15:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reliable sources are a necessity. Proto::► 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Colony (game)[edit]

An online game. Nothingon Google News, nothing on Factiva, "Version 0.71 is due to be out on Friday, January 4." No sources outside the game's own website (WP:OR?). Guy (Help!) 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The game is classified as "in development". The Game's website is a primary source, why should it be up for deletion? 24.136.249.147 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The game is listed on Gameshout.com http://www.gameshout.com/news/pc_games_gameshout_announces_lost_colony_video_game/article8617.htm however, as Red Planet LLC seems to belong to gameshout...... I would argue that the controvesy surrounding the game is enough to merit a Wiki entry not to mention the staffs tactics in dealing with anyone who criticises it. Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 0534GMT 6/1/07.
Keep: OMaHTLD is correct in the site he provided, however I do disagree with his reasoning for wanting the article not deleted. The article HAS had the problem of edit wars by people who seem to have a vindetta against the game on multiple sites, and the user StateofShock, who is a developer of the game. While Im not sure it is nessaraly approperiate for a developer to be editing out things in place of info that essentially plugs the game, on the same token it has also been a problem for the article being vandalised and constantly putting up things of speculative nature as fact. Though peoples opinions and speculation have been put in a community reaction section, which is where I think it is approperiate imho. But I digress, the game is still under development and the game's site is a primary source. The link OMaHTLD provided, albiet a sister company, is a seperate source that the game exists, again Under Development. Simply because the company has not had a great amount of advertising or is not prevelent in the news, it should have merit for an entry in wikipedia because of thoes sources, or at least as much right as other games being developed that have articles. Thanks. TheSittingDuck 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are quite correct in that some people have made some fairly vitriolic comments about the game/devs, and some unsubstantiated comments, mainly relating to the licensing of the Torque Engine, something of which they would have no way of knowing either way.

There is also speculation over the actual existence of the full game the devs have claimed is completed after a years development, of which they are unwilling to release any screenshots etc before asking for cash. This has led to speculation that they intend to begin production on the money gained by pre orders and delay the game due to ‘bugs’ as the only in game screenshots are from their testbed version of the game which has drawn criticism as being a simply modified version of the Torque demo included with the engine.

Just as the Wikipedia entry should contain information about the gameplay, in which Stateofshock has not been shy in adding, it should also contain information on the controversy surrounding the games inception, in which Stateofshock has not been shy in removing. Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 1210GMT 7/1/07.

Comment: Should we delete every article for every game that isn't out yet? Following Lost Colony there are many people who want to see it fail, including a rival company. A base for deletion needs more then the fact that the game isn't out yet and that people don't like it (or want it to succeed). The only merit in deletion that there is, is that this is a hot topic. But on the same coin, why let an article die because its controversial? Zanduar 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What rival company would that be? Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 1244GMT 8/1/07.

Comment: I am here as OMaHTLD's advocate and will not be making a keep or delete recommendation of my own, although I may present some arguments in OMaHTLD's favor. I've tried to reformat everyone's comments to make clear who thinks the article should be kept, and to make clear who has been saying what. If I've gotten anything wrong, please feel free to let me know. Thanks, TheronJ 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a representative for the game itself, Lost Colony, I am all for deletion of this Wiki article. There's no way we can fairly provide information about the game while both Vashner and OMaHTLD are running this speculative crusade. All they have done at Wikipedia, according to their logs, is to pick on this game and to stir up more controversy. Yes, there was a thread posted on GarageGames which was CLOSED because of the speculative nature. Lost Colony is VERY much involved with the community, you can see that from our website. We also have involved community members in the game using some of the faction logos they created. We have done a lot of development for this game, using Torque's Shader Engine early adopter, which the "early adopter" doesn't even provide a running game engine. Thus, we had to make several development changes to make it work for Lost Colony. By default, TSE (TGEA) early adopter is not a runable game engine.We have argued these truths, but both Vashner and OMaHTLD keep coming back with "you're running the Torque Demo". This comes from the same 2 people who originally thought we were using "Torque", which we are not. We are using a different engine made by Torque known as "Shader Engine", or TGEA. All of this fuss is a waste of time, and the only reason Vashner and OMaHTLD want this article to remain, is so they can further confuse the public about our video game. Enough already. I say get it off Wiki if this is the way it's going to be. We've had enough of this nonsense. Stateofshock 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This game hasn't been released, and there are no reliable external sources. -- Alan McBeth 02:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrapped-Brain[edit]

Non-notable neologism, also unreferenced ChrisWakefield 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --ChrisWakefield 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should have just prod'd the article. The neologism is obscure in a relatively specialized (AI/futurology) topic. --ChrisWakefield 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most ghits appear to be WP mirrors. Article cites no references that make use of this term. Caknuck 08:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet cesspool[edit]

Non-notable neologism, also unreferenced ChrisWakefield 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --ChrisWakefield 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantially better sourcing can be provided to document this neologism. Tarinth 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Wikipedia? ⇒ bsnowball 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Silva[edit]

Non-notable semi-pro driver, POV obituaryesque entry Drdisque 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable driver. Budgiekiller 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Needs sources but Silva received primary coverage in a STOCK CAR RACING magazine feature article from the 1970s for certain, and also in other reliable sources. I don't have the SCR issue and the mag's past content isn't online, so we need someone to find it and cite it. Silva also was headlined for winning local and regional special races in many newspapers and racing trade papers. Article needs NPOV cleanup and fleshing out, but topic can certainly be the basis for an encyclopedic article. I will try to round up sources. Barno 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I identified two reliable sources that I don't possess, so I've listed them on the article's talk page. Barno 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I rewrote the article essentially from scratch. He should be kept just on the basis of him being inducted in the New England Auto Racers Hall of Fame if nothing else. I'm sure that Barno will come up with more resources. I will continue enhancing and citing the article. Royalbroil^T : C 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new version. I'm glad the article went through this process to bring it up to wikistandards. -Drdisque 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. He deserved much better. Sounds like we have a withdrawl of the nomination! Royalbroil^T : C 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was hoping to setup a WikiProject for notable U.S. or North American racers like Silva who fall through cracks of the other racing WikiProjects. Barno has expressed interest. Anyone else interested should contact me. Royalbroil^T : C 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The guy is notable enough to have multiple articles written about him in both specialist and non-specialist press. Alexj2002 10:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12 parsecks to freedom[edit]

Not notable. Group just started in 2005. Poorly written page. Recommend deletion. Ronbo76 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, should have been so tagged, fails WP:MUSIC on all counts --211.29.137.28 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete 12 "parsecks" way from meeting WP:MUSIC Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Budgiekiller 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong or Speedy Delete Fail WP:MUSIC.--Hús ö nd 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. John Smith's 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Raw totals, disregarding one likely puppet, are 4-2 Delete. Keep arguments are not strong: one indicates that having a single book published by a non-vanity press is sufficient for an article on the author (rather than the book), which seems dubious to me. The other points to a review in the online edition of the Guardian, but it is after all of the "briefly noted" variety, two paragraphs. And that is the only thread on which to hang the article - one brief notice. These arguments do not to me seem sufficiently convincing. Herostratus 04:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Llewellyn (author)[edit]

Non notable author, page used to promote non-notable book... also the page is a clear vanity addition.

The article was created by Tidal Wave (talk · contribs), who also recently edited the Donny Tourette article (punk rock frontman and current Big Brother contestant.) adding his non-notable opinion, with "David Llewellyn, in his Myspace blog, described Tourette's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother as "another trustafarian wanker"[35]

The address of the mentioned MySpace profile? MySpace.com/tidalwave1978, thus proving the article is a vanity addition by Llewellyn himself in an attempt to sell a book. - Deathrocker 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Author is very recent and does not much if any notability. Original edit to his first book listed it published in 2003 and with the current edit 2006. Publishing a book, especially your first one should be an unforgetable date (from article's history of edits) Ronbo76 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That he once collaborated on the script for an Welsh indie film isn't an assertion of notability. yandman 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of a non-vanity book from an independent publishing house. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article on the book suggests that there have been multiple independent non-trivial reviews, though the references are not well sourced. I went through 20 pages of ghits, and there were no non-trivial reviews. The concerns over verifiability, notability and apparent conflict of interest make me support deletion. At most, the articles on the author and his book should be merged.--Kubigula (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe the articles on the author and the book should be merged. I managed to find the Guardian review of the book on the Guardian website - http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1983074,00.html. It seems silly to remove the whole entry when there's a very good chance it'll have to be uploaded again some time in the future. Plus... it looks like it's already been tidied up a bit. benedictus237 10:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC) — benedictus237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well done in finding that review! I searched for the other one referenced in the book article, but couldn't locate it online. If an actual citation for that review could be dredged up, I could support keeping a merged article as having multiple nontrivial sources. Short of that, WP is not a crystal ball, so we don't know if the article would meet the guidelines in the future. If you are confident, you could always preserve the contents in user space, pending further career developments.--Kubigula (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I say merge the articles. He's a first time author, but one who (so friends tell me) is gaining a bit of kudos in the UK. There's no need to have a separate author and novel page just yet. Mrsmajica 02:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC) — Mrsmajica (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete, and I really hope this is not recreated. Proto::► 13:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity cocaine addicts[edit]

If Brad Patrick were to see this he'd have a fit. Most of the sources are far from reliable, the list seems to ignore the difference between consumption and addiction, and someone will eventually sneak in a name that will make his/her lawyer's day. A liability. yandman 16:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a libel suit waiting to happen. Any cocaine problems should be addressed under the specific person's article, if and only if they can be reliably sourced. Seraphimblade 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If kept, at least rename to something that doesn't have the words "celebrity" or "addict" in it. Recury 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted then List of known opiate addicts may as well be deleted too. Firelement85 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll list it once this one is zapped (linking to this !vote to make things go faster). yandman 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I struggle with lists of this sort, but trying to be neutral, what if we made it cocaine users and put in the heading that it was for notable people reported in the press to have used cocaine and get a source for each? As if Kate Moss will sue wikipedia before she gets the Times. The core question is why delete the full list? If the info is not sourced then boldly edit the entry.Obina 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for the same reasons as stated in the List of famous alcoholics AfD. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just no.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuron (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. GassyGuy 15:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of known cocaine users and keep. Nothing here makes out a case for deletion, although "celebrity" and "addict" probably should be rephrased to something more neutral. Quite a number of people, from Marion Barry to Sigmund Freud, are known for having used cocaine, and there is no good reason not to have a list of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with less POV name change. All are sourced and with a random walk through the sources, they look reliable. Perhaps "Known cocaine users" may be a better name. And remind people that an entry must have a Wikipedia article already. People sipping in names should not be an excuse for deletion, people already do that for every other acceptable "vice" category. This is less subjective than the "alcoholic" list, everyone has a drink, but not everyone uses cocaine and then mentions it in an interview, is arrested for possession, or dies from an overdose. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much potential for abuse. (No pun intended) Also "celebrity" seems like a debatable concept.--T. Anthony 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Babylon 5 characters[edit]

Subset of the fabled List of non-notable people. A list of non-notables is not made notable by including a lot of them. Article is entirely unreferenced (for months), and I can find no non-trivial secondary source mentions in reliable sources regarding any of these characters. Seraphimblade 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Just being a list of minor characters isn't a criterion for deletion that I knew of; B5 just has way too many characters to fit them all into one article. Yet some of these did in fact have a significant effect on the series, like Turhan, and a lot of characters need to be added. At the very most, this should be merged with List of Babylon 5 characters, which only exists to link out to individual articles. Interspersing them would be fine. --Masamage 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge straight away, on second thought. The main character list certainly isn't too big for it. --Masamage 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Babylon 5 characters but only those who are from canon sources. Otto4711 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Babylon 5 characters. That page can be repurposed to include information on all characters and link to the more detailed pages with {{main}} Koweja 18:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. If the editors of that page decide those characters aren't worth the space, then they can delete their entries. Recury 18:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others and make final page look something like this. Static Universe 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I actually created this list based on some other listings that seem to work well, e.g. List of Star Wars characters. Major chars get their own article, minor chars are combined in one. The main B5 list was just supposed to be an index. I wouldn't mind if this gets merged into the main B5 list, as long as a proper contents table is added at the top. However, I don't want to see every B5 character combined in one page. Regarding Static Universe's example, List of characters from The Wire - that page is 220 KB long! Doesn't Wikipedia:Article size say that pages over 50 KB should be split up? Quack 688 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. See List of characters in Heroes for an example (if not necessarily the best one) of how to handle major and secondary characters in a TV series. 23skidoo 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' or Merge though I'm relucant to say merge, since I can understand how it might be better to have an index page and then a page like this for minor characters. As for sources, I saw the episodes being referenced. FrozenPurpleCube 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "I saw the episode and observed that..." is the same as "I did an experiment and observed that..."-original research. Of course, if a secondary source has written up the character, that'd be a source. Seraphimblade 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...if that was true, we could never cite TV shows. Or books. I think what Manticore is saying is that the episodes themselves are references. --Masamage 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree, TV shows shouldn't be cited. Of course, for plot summaries and the like, there's usually the tv.com's and such of the world which offer plot summaries-that would be a secondary source, but in that case, you're not posting your interpretation, you're posting theirs. That's the definition of source research vs. original research-basically, with proper sourcing, someone who has never seen the show should be able to verify everything in the article. Seraphimblade 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that like...I mean, if I'm talking about the character of Hamlet, shouldn't I make references to William Shakespeare? Commentators are great, but they don't completely preclude ever using the original as a source, do they? --Masamage 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course not! However, primary sources should be used in conjunction with secondary sources, not in place of them. I don't think anyone would be hard-up to find reliable third-party analyses of Hamlet. There'd be nothing wrong with citing the part of Hamlet the critic cites in addition to citing the criticism-just not instead of the criticism. However, per WP:NOR, we still shouldn't be offering our own interpretations of Hamlet, only reporting on others' evaluations. Seraphimblade 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So it seems like "TV shows shouldn't be cited" is a little stronger a statement than what you meant--oftentimes the best commentary on any work of fiction will be in the work itself, like when a character talks about himself. I think the real issue is that TV shows need to be cited very exactly, which is to say, without any extra commentary, unless that commentary is coming from somewhere else. --Masamage 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I think direct quotes from the characters would be perfect candidates for direct sourcing. However, interpretations (such as plot summaries) should be secondarily sourced. Seraphimblade 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no, I think I'm quite comfortable with relating simple facts from television shows and other fictional media as quite acceptable. Why? Because anybody else can also observe the thing. It is not an experiment, it is not a theory. It is reporting directly from the media. It is really no different from saying "And Author So-and-So says this about that" . Basically, I don't need some third-party book to tell me Hamlet is about a Danish prince who returned home from England to find his father dead, and his uncle married to his mother. Analysis beyond that, yes, that would need further sources, but to say that we can't report what occurs in a television show (or other fictional work) unless we can find some other source that says it? Far too strict an interpretation of NOR. Sure, if there's some dispute or disagreement as to what happened on a show, or to some specific detail behind it, that'd mean checking other sources, but even then, given that the episodes were named here, I would say a link to a book on B5 or a website would be quite feasible if you desired to do it. Might even be references in the Wikipedia articles on those episodes already. Anyway, the real point is, I don't see that objection as possessing much merit. FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree, but I'd suggest moving this to user talk-I don't think an individual AfD would be the place for such a discussion. I'm also not sure how it's "too strict" an interpretation of WP:NOR-the policy is no original research, not "Only a little bit of original research." Anyone can get hold of a lemon and make a battery out of it, but to say "I did this and it works" is OR, regardless of "anyone can do it"-and even regardless of the fact that it's dead-on correct. On the other hand, reporting on a reliable source stating that this can be done is sourced and verifiable to anyone. Also remember that Wikipedia is worldwide-while probably most anyone can get hold of Hamlet, some of our readers in various parts of the world might find it difficult or impossible to obtain a Babylon 5 episode, at least legally. Using reliable sources would mean that any reader, anywhere in the world, can verify the information. Seraphimblade 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Template:Cite_video and Template:Cite_episode covers all your citation needs. The Babylon 5 DVDs constitute published, verifiable, commercially available primary sources. Static Universe 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary source" is the problem-if some part of a TV series/movie/etc. has not been covered in secondary sources in some form, it isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Seraphimblade 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability - I think the main thing we need to establish is that the work of fiction is notable. If the work, as a whole, is truly notable, then by extension, so are its characters. Minor characters, however, don't earn their own articles - that's why, according to WP:FICTION, it's best to combine them in a list. I made this minor chars list to address that exact concern - I don't really care what list these character bios end up on, but they shouldn't be split up.

Now, regarding the use of primary sources, I think this is the most relevant quote from WP:OR:

anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.

If the plot summary says "Bob shot Greg", this is verifiable by anyone who watches the show. We don't need a movie reviewer to say "Bob shot Greg" before we're allowed to say it. The key question here is, when does a plot summary turn into original research? I wrote up a "thought experiment" on this a while ago - it's not really finished, but given that it's relevant here, I'd appreciate any feedback. I'd just like to re-emphasise the disclaimer at the very top of the page that most of it is shite in its current state - it's just a scratchpad. Still, if you've got any comments, feel free to start up a discussion page there and speak your piece. Hell, if you folks just want to discuss this further on a user talk page, I'm happy to host the party there :-p Quack 688 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've already got a proposal going, I'm all for moving it there, no use crapping up the AfD (any further). Seraphimblade 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NOR is much more verbose than just "No original research" even the nutshell statement is far longer: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." As these episodes were unquestionably published, the data from them is not a problem. Access to Babylon 5 episodes is not an especially big issue, there are plenty of books used as references I could not easily obtain. And if you really want to do so, there are plenty of books and other material on Babylon 5 you could review and use as a reference. So basically, as a deletion reason, OR is not especially applicable in this case. Feel free to edit some of the content though. FrozenPurpleCube 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. WP is not the personal webspace of B5 fans. CyberAnth 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mister Manticore -- perfectly nice article, it would do more harm then good to merge in my opinion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is not a clear-cut poster child for violations of WP:OR, I don't know what is. Actually, I do, but that's another matter. CyberAnth 11:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Even if it does have some OR in it, that's got nothing to do with the inherent concept of the page, which is about characters in a television show. Easily verifiable, doesn't have to advocate a position. Not a real problem. So as a poster-child, no, I'm afraid it's not a good one, except for the value of clean-up over deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also still concerned about notability here-earlier, you suggested "notability by association", if the show is notable so by definition are all its characters, with which I (and WP:FICT) strongly disagree. McDonald's is notable. That doesn't mean each one of its workers is, or even each one of its stores. Notability has a purpose-if no or very little secondary-source material exists on something, it would be impossible to write a thing but a very short article without OR. Seraphimblade 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant part of WP:FICT is:

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." (emphasis in original)

I agree that shouldn't be extended to truly insignificant characters (e.g. the guy who opens the door for someone, then is never seen again). However, all the characters listed here have a significant effect on the the plot of at least one episode or novel. Quack 688 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a perfectly good List of Babylon 5 characters. You do bring up another point though-who determines what a "minor character" is? If these characters had major plot impact, they may not have been minor. As an example, take Q out of Star Trek-he only appeared in a pretty small minority of episodes. But was he minor? I really don't know you could say he was. By placing anyone on this list, we're editorializing. (On the other hand, placing Q on a "List of Star Trek characters" would not be an editorial, there's no doubt he certainly was that.) But let's not have cruft. Seraphimblade 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there are quite a lot of Lists of minor characters on OP, this probably opens yet another discussion we really shouldn't get into on AFD. There have been several merge votes, however, which seems like a solid approach. I've even changed my vote to reflect my support. --Masamage 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on minor vs major, WP:FICT says "the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character.", but it's intentionally vague on the matter. However, I take your point about editorializing - I'd be happy to see this merged into the main B5 list. In my mind, the only real reason to have separate lists is size (like the Star Wars lists), and that's not applicable in this case. Quack 688 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14 Year Old Girls (third nomination)[edit]

second nomination - fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Previous AfD here. Tevildo 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the reasons listed nigh-unaminously in the original AfD. These 'I didn't like the community's consensus last time, so I'll just roll the dice again' repeat nominations are one of my pet peeves. -Toptomcat 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can you provide any more information as to why it fails MUSIC? If this is just an attempt to extend the first debate to get a desired result, then speedy close. Koweja 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per the previous two AFDs. If renominating, please at least give a thorough reason for deletion or explain what has changed since the last time. — brighterorange (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - And I agree with Toptomcat, seems like relisting simply because the last AfD didn't go the way some wanted it to. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I'm with Toptomcat on this one. Jcuk 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep given that this has been through AfD before and no substantive rationale is provided for deletion. Tarinth 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ahem, to set the record staight, the result of the last AfD was NO CONSENSUS, which is not the same as KEEP. Still no independent sources of notability are provided on the page, to say nothing of independent and non-trivial as required by WP:MUSIC. They meet none of the specific criteria listed. You may find the page worthy of inclusion, but I strongly contest the idea that this AfD is not valid. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I always thought the burden of proof was with the arguement that an article did pass notability. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heathcliff 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Robdurbar 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rafi Sharif Bey[edit]

The subject of this hagiography is a non-notable person — WP:BIO failure. ➥the Epopt 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although it appears correct that he had a role in the Moorish Science Temple and the schism I couldn't find any really reliable sources. If we could find a couple the article should be stubbed, we don't need to know about his Boy Scout troop. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete we do have an article about the Moorish Science Temple ... the question is, if there are sufficient non-trivial references to back up an article ... I couldn't find any Alf photoman 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article tries to claim notability, but i can't find any sources. Was the author contacted before the afd was started? --Striver - talk 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I placed a prod tag on the article on 12/31/06, I notified the author. RedRollerskate 04:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google hits are not much and does not looks like notable enough. Please tell me to change vote in case the creator of the article comes with more good sources. --- ALM 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the bulk of this article appears to be copied from a blog post -- Whpq 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. ITAQALLAH 10:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophobia[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Dicdef Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think it goes very slightly beyond the dicdef by including the adultism thing, and it certainly has the potential to expand into a good encyclopedia article. Why not add an expand tag instead of deleting? Plus, it is referenced to an article by an anti-ageism group. If others do choose to delete, I'd suggest considering a redirect to ageism. delldot | talk 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ~~Changing to merge to Ephebiphobia per KeithTyler's comment below: Ephebiphobia already has a short bit about Pedophobia, so the merge should be really easy anyway.~~ Switching back to keep per KPalicz (am I wishy washy, or what?) delldot | talk 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be added to Ephebiphobia. Pedophobia and Ephebiphobia probably should be merged at best. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge to Ephebiphobia or Keep. It most certainly does exist and this is legitimate/useful information.

Also, a well-known example: Jean-Luc Picard's "character flaw" seemed to be some form of Pedophobia, although he overcame it as the series progressed. Yes, that was nerdy, but it had to be said. - Scharb 02:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The key is the source of the name. Some web sites have created lists of many hundreds of phobias. (Spartaphobia is fear of Sparta, etc). What are the sources that say this is a psycological fear? The fact that this word exists on the net and a web article discussing ageism puts the word in a box is not enough for me. Is the word used other than on web lists? With no better sources I think no article and redirect to Ageism is fine.Obina 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of pedophobia is explored in several academic circles, and there is substantial evidence to support its maintenance as an article. See updates. Freechild 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By way of critical thinking, I've gotta ask why the articles about child and youth related oppression continually run up against this type of resistance within the Wikipedia community. I look up terms like gynarchy and androcracy and manx cat, and all of them lack citations of any kind - yet their validity is undoubted. However, ephebiphobia, adultism, and student voice, have all been extremely scrutized - and now this. How biased is the Wikipedia community against young people and the realities they face every single day? Unfortunately, with the call to delete this article I am afraid the answer is coming clearer. Freechild 05:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per KeithTyler's comment above: The two words mean two different things, sourced in their roots. Academic literature supports the differentiation between them. Is it Wikipedia's place to negate what the academy has proven?Freechild 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 8 google scholar hits, the word appears in the title of a 1995 book. Opinion of an expert may be better than the voting. Pavel Vozenilek 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is similar to ephebiphobia, they talk about two different groups of people (teens vs. children) and some people may fear children but be ok with youth and vice versa. They are distinct enough to warrant individual pages I believe. KPalicz 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire article is nonsense. It is original research and special pleading. It's highly questionable whether there ought to be an article on "pedophibia", and if there should it would probably be better to delete this one and start from scratch. We have had the same problem over at Ephebiphobia... the technique used is the same: establish (or try to) the existance of an obscure medical condition and then use that for leverage to write a social advocacy essay. OK, first: as to the medical condition "pedophobia": there's no question that the number of people who are subject to actual phobic reactions (panic, shortness of breath, sweating, etc.) brought on by the idea or presence of children is not zero. The number of people who have phobic reactions brought on by the idea or presence of spiced ham, Bob Hope, slotted spoons, or most anything is usually not zero, either. We don't have articles for each of these; I think we have one article where obscure phobias are given a one-line listing. I think that "pedophobia" rates a line in this list and no more. Second: as to the social phenomena "pedophobia", I'm not at all convinced that fear/scorn/hatred of children is sufficiently well established by verifiable neutral respected authority that the assertion of its notability is not original research. (Unlike Ephebiphobia, which article deserves existence because Ephebiphobia (fear/scorn/hatred of teens) is a real enough phenomena.) Yes, some people think that children are ridiculous or despicable. That does not in any way require this article's existence. Lots of people think that mullets are ridiculous or despicable; lots of people hate cheese; lots of people think frogs are slimy and disgusting; and so forth. We don't have separate articles for these. The article looks on the surface to be scholarly. Closer examination shows that it is not, and ought to be deleted. And I don't say that lightly. Herostratus 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is it the domain of Wikipedia editors to decide the relevance or veritability of established scientific study? Is this discussion really about the legitimacy of this article, or individual editors' opinions about the subject at hand? Are those two things synonomous, or does meeting the encyclopedic premise of Wikipedia supercede personal perspectives? Also, Herostratus, it would be good to see where your "closer examination" shows that the citations are not scholarly - and I don't say that lightly, either. Freechild 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, we judge the relevance and verifiability of sources and material all the time; that's what we do here. The discussion of is about the legitimacy of the article, the point being that, basically, there is no such term as pedophobia. Wikipedia is not the place for articles about terms that you yourself have made up. It is also not your personal soapbox. Get yourself published in sociological journals, establish the term "pedophobia" as an actual term in the literature, and we'd be happy to have the article. Not til then. However, I doubt that anyone will publish your work until you use more rigrorous reasoning. Your essay (and this is what it is, not an encyclopedia article) transparently attempts to conflate medical and sociological terminolgy for advocacy purposes. Scholarly journals don't fall for that. Sorry to be harsh, but there it is. Herostratus 03:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not directly addressed your concerns about the illegitimacy of the references, nor have you shown that any of the publications or other sources cited here is illegitimate. I don't understand your charges of me "making up" a term when the article references academic journals, publishers, organizations, psychotherapists, social scientists, critical pedagogues, and even a few other advocates who have used the term - dating back into the 1980s, when I was probably the subject of the said non-existant phobia. Can you please explain how this term doesn't make your grade, and what gives you more authority than the articles referenced? Does anyone else support that concern? And for the sake of being pithy, can you compare and contrast why soapbox has an article of its own, but pedophobia should not? Freechild 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Pavel Vozenilek - Jord 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Nom) Recent expansion has illustrated a distinction with ephebiphobia which may have merit. Also, sources have been added. I'm not withdrawing the nom, because this discussion is still worth having. BTW for those that care about such things, the GC for this term is 11,000. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Most certianly is a real concept, is well known, and a good article on this topic should be written.--Sefringle 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The group of articles might need sorting out a little. But that's no reason to delete.DGG 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ex-officio delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 and Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006[edit]

Nothing encyclopaedic about these incredibly long lists, and heaven forbid if every attendance list of every political party convention receives the same treatment. Fails most of the criteria of the first of the Five pillars. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. It is not a soapbox or means of self-promotion, a directory, convention list, or party database. We also do not need the voting record for every leadership convention. Agent 86 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pointlessly long and unneeded list. Darth griz⁹⁸ 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly do not see the purpose of this article. It is basically just excessively detailed electioncruft. Some of the table showing the province by province breakdowns could be merged into Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006, but this is really too much. Resolute 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, the content is historically relevant. Second, the Wikipedia list was actually significant in the process of this election; it was by far the most comprehensive account of ex-officio delegates and was cited extensively among commentators and in the mainstream media. I honestly think this page is a Wikipedia success story. -Joshuapaquin 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Joshuapaquin. Also better cited than most articles. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joshuapaquin. - Jord 19:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I would be interested in seeing the sources for the mainstream media using this information. If sources can be referenced to create the list, they can be referenced to substantiate the claim that the list was actually cited by the media. I agree with Resolute that it looks like electioncruft; remember that usefulness for a particular group of people is not a criterion for inclusion. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here are some mentions of the ex-officio list.

Liberal candidates court 'prestige' delegates; Ex-officio voters could influence convention Camps mount campaigns to woo big-name support; [ONT Edition]. Les Whittington. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Nov 18, 2006. pg. F.2. Breaks down ex-officio delegate counts according to Wikipedia.
'Super Weekend' will show who has a chance:; [All But Toronto Edition]. Graeme Hamilton. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Sep 29, 2006. pg. A.5. Mentions ex-officios and uses Wikipedia numbers to indicate how the candidates are doing.
Website shows five-way Liberal race:; [Early Edition] Joan Bryden. Edmonton Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: Jul 31, 2006. pg. A.6. As you might guess from the headline, this article is entirely about Wikipedia's numbers.
Liberal hopefuls watch Wikis. Jane Taber. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jul 29, 2006. pg. F.2. This article isn't about the Wikipedia numbers - it's an MSM article about the Wikipedia articles themselves, specifically the two listed for deletion.

I won't post full texts here because of copyright concerns - but if anyone here has ProQuest (Canada Newsstand Major Dailies) access, it can be verified there. -Joshuapaquin 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only because we all know a similar American article would never be deleted. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish we had equivalent articles for earlier Canadian leadership races. Cas510 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously worth maintaining as a record. CJCurrie 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know how the insinuation of what the result would be for a similar American article or "wouldn't it be nice" addresses the inherent problems with these "articles" and their failure to meet the basic core policies. As for maintaining this as a "record", maybe some other wiki-project would be suitable if the intent is to create some sort of primary record, but this is not the place. This is not a web-host for an organization's data. Finally, regarding the media use of these articles, the citation of the articles by the press doesn't make them encyclopedic. If anything, it supports the assertion that the articles were successful for the purposes of self-promotion. Agent 86 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you're saying about self-promotion in your nomination and last comment. Are you accusing the Liberal Party of Canada of being the primary editors of these articles? Cas510 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - articles can be seen as extensions of the main convention article. Eludium-q36 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree that these pages are useful, historically relevant and that they serve what might be a vital and unique purpose within the Canadian political communications process. However, as WP:NOT suggests, Wikipedia is not meant to be a host for websites that would otherwise not exist; in this case, the appropriate home would be a website associated with the Liberal Party of Canada, specifically subpages of http://www.liberal.ca/leadership2006_e.aspx. An article relating the salient points of 2006 events within the Liberal Party of Canada, including the Leadership Convention, would be quite appropriate; but the extensive content included in these pages should have a home on the Liberal Party's website; if that is not possible due to technical, human resource, political or financial reasons, that is unfortunate but it would not be a reason for using Wikipedia as a replacement website. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was an entire article in Canada's most prominent newspaper on this page. - SimonP 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of it is incorrect and it's misleading as many ex-officios changed allegiances as the voting rounds progressed.1130130 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joshuapaquin. — coelacan talk — 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bruce Cole, delete duplicate page Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman. —Centrx→talk • 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman, Bruce Cole[edit]

Note: added Bruce Cole, an exact copy. Fan-1967 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a dump of some NEH press release, not remotely resembling an encyclopedic article. As it's from a .gov site, it's not a copyvio, but it's certainly not an article either. Author's only response to {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} tags is to repeatedly remove the tags and format it further away from Wiki standards. I don't know if there's anything salvageable here or not. My recommendation is Delete. Fan-1967 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a copy-and-paste from here but Mr Cole is not notable. Budgiekiller 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a simple cut and paste. Its proper content and it should stay.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petedaly (talk • contribs)

Note Author is repeatedly removing AFD tags, as well as warnings from his Talk page. This particular edit is rather amusing. Fan-1967 18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some useres who like to make up stories, and user Fan is one. Why make problems User Fan ? Standards are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petedaly (talk • contribs)

Neutral. Despite the decidedly uncooperative behaviour of the article creator, I think Mr Cole has the potential to be notable, as chairman of a government agency and an academic. If Petedaly stops his abusive editing, formats the article appropriately (including removal/rewriting of copyvio material), and provides reliable sources for Mr Cole's academic achievements (see - WP:PROF) then the article can stay. Tevildo 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Tevildo, I certainly agree that if Petedaly is being uncooperative as you say that behavior would need to be addressed. But I don't think that deleting an article that would otherwise merit inclusion is the right way to handle it. There are various dispute resolution processes, and in cases where the 3RR or other policies are violated (e.g. continually inserting copyvio material), the individual may be blocked. I haven't looked at the article to determine whether I think it should stay, but I suggest that we look at based on its own merits rather than the behavior. Cheers, delldot | talk 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ban is in place. Does the NEH website count as a reliable source? If so, I think we're in "keep" territory if we include it as a reference. Tevildo 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman, no opinion on Bruce Cole. Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman is a duplicate article and an unlikely search so would probably not be useful as a redirect. Nice work cleaning up Bruce Cole, Telvido! delldot | talk 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the cleaned-up version of Bruce Cole, delete Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman. The Bruce Cole article cleaned up nicely (add my thanks to Telvido!), and as the head of a US government agency and as a academic and researcher, he seems to meet minimum standards of notability. The other article isn't needed, and has a name which nobody is going to find. -- ArglebargleIV 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bruce Cole, delete Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman per ArglebargleIV. Being the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities is a sufficiently prominent position that anyone who holds it should qualify under WP:BIO. Wikipedia already has articles about five of the seven other chairmen of NEH (there have only been eight), among them William Bennett and Lynne Cheney. --Metropolitan90 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio from http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/colebio.html Guy (Help!) 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As the nomination indicates, that page is a Work of the United States Government which is not copyrightable. --Metropolitan90 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bruce Cole, delete Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman per ArglebargleIV. Very unfortunate that the editor could not use more cooperative behavior, but a separate issue. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bruce Cole, NEH Chairman has now been redirected to Bruce Cole. Although US Govt information is not copyrighted/copyrightable, I still think it's bad form to lift something wholesale as was done by te creator. Ohconfucius 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Attila the Hun. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scourge of Europe[edit]

Delete - states right in the article that it's a neologism and that there's no consensus as to when or how the term is used or to whom it can refer. No ghits I can find using the term to refer to the character grouping outside of Wikipedia and the occasional bit of fanfic. Nothing in the article that can't be appropriately housed in one of the many other articles dealing with one or another of the four characters. Otto4711 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - the article provides some information that I can not see being placed on the character's individual page. In addition, the page provides a way for readers to see gathered and summerized information about the four vampires all on the same page. Further more, the title of the page can be changed to something that is not a fan neologism. In conclusion, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and my opinion is to keep the article. --Meraculas 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what information do you believe can't be placed in one of the character pages? What alternate name do you suggest for the article? Otto4711 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any relevant information can be put in the character pages. This article would be better on a BtVS fan-site - if it's not actually OR it certainly skirts perilously close to it. WMMartin 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Further, redirect the article title to Attila the Hun, who was known as the scourge of Europe long before the TV show aired. Pastordavid 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect As a neologism, fails WP:NEO by not having reliable secondary sources about the term. As a neologism from fiction, also fails WP:FICT by being almost entirely in an in universe from fiction. Redirect to Attila the Hun as Pastordavid pointed out. GRBerry 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as multiple independent published reliable sources about the subject could not be found, so notability to WP:WEB standards was not demonstrated. GRBerry 22:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sore Thumbs[edit]

Unreferenced article, no assertion of notability. Please don't let this turn into WP:ILIKEIT. Does not meet notability (per WP:WEB. /Blaxthos 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. /Blaxthos 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a fine comic, but no independent sources to show notability. Edison 18:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is written by Chris Crosby, who runs Keenspot. Just that would make me deem it notable. Superosity, by the same guy, also has an article. --Johan Tenge - /spit 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So we should keep the article because of who wrote it? AFAIK that's not how we measure notability. Honestly, all the articles you listed seem to serve the same purpose (self promotion). FWIW I've also AfD'd the other articles you mentioned. See WP:WEB. /Blaxthos 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Johan meant the strip is written by Crosby, not the article. And works of a notable author are often themselves notable primarily for that reason. Powers ^T 03:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 15:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep External links show it meets notability guidelines. 66.35.99.183 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Existance of external links does not satisfy WP:WEB. /Blaxthos 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Comics Buyers Guide review (reference supplied in External Links) satisfies Criteria 1 of WP:WEB, as do the print collections themselves. 66.35.99.183 12:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Delete, fails pretty much all our content policies as Wikipedia is not an internet guide and this is original research with no third-party reliable sources, let alone enough to write from a neutral point of view. This also fails the WP:WEB guideline, not that we could keep an article that meets a notability guideline but fails multiple content policies. The idea that "The Comics Buyers Guide review ... satisfies Criteria 1 of WP:WEB as do the print collections themselves" is incorrect. First, The Buyers Guide article doesn't even mention this webcomic. Second, the single brief mention on that web page of this comic is in a press release, and a single mention in a press release is not independent of the site, or non-trivial, or for that matter multiple non-trivial and independent. Third, the self-published book (with the Amazon sales rank of "none") is not an independent source either. My searches for non-trivial reliable third-party sources at my library have turned up nothing, let alone anything that suggests notability. -- Dragonfiend 07:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You misunderstood the Comics Buyers Guide review I referred to. What I referred to was this index of Comics Buyers Guide reviews that lists Sore Thumbs Election Special 2004 as a previously reviewed title in said print magazine (the review itself does not appear to be available for viewing on the internet). Secondly, the Sore Thumbs book you link to is not yet published (despite Amazon's incorrect publication date), and to call it "self-published" is (arguably) somewhat of a misnomer, as its publisher (Keenspot) is only partially owned and run by Crosby. Past events indicate that he is in far from full control of what Keenspot publishes, such as his failed attempt to get his brother's comic "Pumpkin" accepted by Keenspot's board of directors, among other comics. 66.35.99.183 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be far from meeting the WP:WEB guideline, let alone our content policies. -- Dragonfiend 14:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 04:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Monday Night Raw results[edit]

Pages like this are just cruft, Wikipedia isn't a guide to every Raw episode and it's results. As a note: previous pages like this (for 2006 and other years) have been deleted in the past. RobJ1981 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pages similar to this have been delete before for being cruft. TJ Spyke 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. The Mob Rules 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy 11:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Paulley
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki and delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 ECW on Sci-Fi results[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a guide to every ECW show and it's results. This article is better suited for a wrestling wiki RobJ1981 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki if someone can find a good wrestling Wiki. Cruft like this has been deleted before with near unanimous support. TJ Spyke 01:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. There is a currently-dormant wrestling-related wiki here. The Mob Rules 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Paulley
Delete per nom. -- The Hyb rid 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wrestlecruft. AgentPeppermint 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carpet Football[edit]

Per WP:NEO, it seems this article is describing a neologism and it should be deleted -- search reveals no notable hits and the article has no sources provided. // Laughing Man 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't say I've ever heard this term used.... ChrisTheDude 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, never heard of. – Elisson • T • C • 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism and dicdef. Qwghlm 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Which I think is unfortunate, but there it is. First of all, a goodly number of editors were kind enough to comment. The raw vote total by my count is 13-7 Delete. That's not counting a "Keep only if expanded and modified" - since there's no guarantee that this will happen, that's probably more a Delete than A Keep, but I didn't count it either way. Two of the Keeps were Weak, as was one of the Deletes. Granting that AfD is not a vote, when 20+ editors comment with 2/3 in one camp, that has to be taken into account.

A couple of notes: first, the fact this this person was a crank counts against him, for this reason: his work is not and cannot be the basis for any later research. He's a complete dead end. Thus he's never going to gain any more notability than he already has. So that's a point against him. Second, the article as it stands is mostly copyvio and must go. (You can use short passages for illustrative purposes, not glom whole paragraphs to create the body of an article. This doesn't really bear on this AfD either way, though.

Now on to the arguments. A synopsis of each Keep editor's comments:

'"Seems to pass WP:BIO" (but not further elucidated)
"probably passes the professor test on the basis of having published more material than the average college professor" (but it is not clear if he has, although it's not clear that he hasn't)
"co-author of a ... noted theory"
"Juergens' co-authors to The Velikovsky Affair Alfred de Grazia and Livio Stecchini both appear notable, as does the subject of the Affair, Immanuel Velikovsky." (but de Grazia at least appears to have many other accomplishments, and the notability of the subject of one's work is not really germane)
"[Arguments] that an article on an unconventional scientific theory cannot be notable because the unconventional theory does not find support in the conventional literature is at best tautolgical and at worst insidious censorship" (but this does not really address the issue at hand (notability), nor does this editor's later comments)
"somewhat notable as co-writer of "The Velikovsky Affair".
"If I wanted to find out about this hypothesis or its originator this article would be quite helpful."

As to the Keep arguments, I'll just note that failure to meed WP:BIO does not require an article to be deleted. And WP:PROF is mostly cited for articles about someone's professor. Here's a guy dead 30 years and someone wanted to write a highly researched article about him. He's around halfway to meeting the 100-year test right there.

Basically, it seems that this article hangs on Juergen's co-authorship of The Velikovsky Affair. There's no question in my mind that The Velikovsky Affair is notable. Is Juergens's 1/3 authorship of that book sufficient for his inclusion?

No, not as I see it. The 13-7 supermajority clinches it. (A shame, because I think we ought to have the article, but there you have it.) Herostratus 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Juergens[edit]

This article fails the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). In particular this claimed "researcher" is only published by vanity presses and the author has tried to establish notability with non-notable journals such as Kronos. --ScienceApologist 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:BIO as far as I can tell. His electric universe theory seems pretty unlikely, but that doesn't make him non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to why it passes WP:BIO? By the way the electric universe "theory" as you term it is up for deletion too. --ScienceApologist 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that verifiability is a bigger issue. --Philosophus ^T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The article as it stands consists essentially of a quote by one individual, whom I've never heard of, whose importance is never asserted and is without a Wikipedia article himself. — BillC^talk 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable as per nomination. The article is also verging on a copyright violation; if the article is kept, then that big quote and the related footnotes definitely want to be removed. Mike Peel 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if expanded and modified I think this is not terrible, but it has almost no content. It definitely should be labelled as pseudoscience and obscure. Perhaps too obscure to even have its own article. From what I can see here, there is not enough from an article. If it can be reasonably expanded, it is worth keeping, but if not, it has to go.--Filll 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I just reminded someone at Wikipedia Talk: Notability (science), obscurity is never a problem at Wikipedia, but notability may be an issue. --ScienceApologist 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, verifiability is more important than notability. In this case, we only have sources from vanity publishers. --Philosophus ^T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable pseudoscientist. There are no sources that are not from vanity publishers. --Philosophus ^T 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this guy is (most likely) a crackpot, he probably passes the professor test on the basis of having published more material than the average college professor. Tarinth 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the phone! This guy has published far less than most college professors and he hasn't "published" in the normal sense of peer review. This is a total misapplication of WP:PROF. --ScienceApologist 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Wikipedia:Notability (academics) suggests nothing in the 6 criteria or 10 examples there to support a claim of notability here. — BillC^talk 20:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to reconsider, but it brings up an interesting point: just how much does the average college professor publish? Thus far, the professor test is somewhat subjective since it is defended on the basis of someone's subjective opinion of whether someone publishes more or less. Some concrete information on this would be helpful! Incidentally, WP:BIO does not state that the professor test is based only upon publications made only in peer-reviewed journals, although I can see why one might wish to interpret it that way. Tarinth 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment It depends on subject, but one can attain tenure & Associate professor rank in most colleges with 3 or 4 articles, if at least 1 is in a major journal. At Ph.D. -granting research universities the requirement is much higher, depending on the university--but the difference is quality, not quantity. In most fields, top universities do not go by quantity. But the test says merely an academic.

But read it again--WP:Prof is a guideline, not policy, and the test as it stands makes no reference to number of papers written, no matter of how high their quality. It requires that they be written about, that is, cited. The frequency again depends on field. The average article gets 1 cite, and there is no WP specification for how many more are needed, but I think a tenurable person at a college would have at least a few articles with more than 5 or 10 cites--in most science fields, including this one. Below that is definitely not notable. There's an active discussion on the criteria, and no consensus whatsoever.

In this case RJ has published no papers whatsoever in the mainstream literature. Therefore he is not a scientist, notable or otherwise, and should not be judged under this test. Zero is certainly not notable, and non peer-reviewed papers are simply not considered RS in this context--especially when ALL of them are not even mainstream non-peer-reviewed. (and no evidence that his work, whatever it may be thought to be, has been written about except in self published souces.)

He has no graduate degree either, only a BS. A BS by itself does not make someone a scientist.-there is no requirement for conventional graduate education, and a BS and notable published peer-reviewed work would certainly count. But he has zero peer-reviewed work in physics or astonomy journals. He is simply not a scientist. If he is to be notable, it must be on other grounds.

The electric universe article was judged non-notable, so he must be judged on the basis of the first paragraph alone, whether he is a notable supporter of Velikovsky. He does not seem to be, having written only one non self-published article on the subject. Therefore a
Strong delete DGG 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html contains an excerpt from SKEPTIC for an article entitled "An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions" which mentions him quite a bit, and a quick search via google also turns up numerous other skeptic sites (as well as the run of the usual ZOMG ACADEMIC CONSPIRACY sites, but I'll discount those). I think it would be hard to argue against his inclusion purely on the basis of WP:BIO. While I think the goal of educating the public about pseudoscience is admirable, erradicating people from the historical record doesn't seem like a good idea to me--I'd rather simply have an accurate portrayal of their lives, including the fact that they are considered pseudoscientists. Tarinth 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears the be non-notable as his major accomplishment is the creation of a mon-notable theory. This article should not be recreated unless notability can be established and the new article written from a neutral point of view. --EMS | Talk 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, Philosophus and EMS. Anville 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nonsense article and a non-notable author.--Anthony.bradbury 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clarify and wikify. This may not be a co-author of a mainstream theory yet, nevertheless, one of a noted theory ... as far as WP:PROF ... I fail to see the problem, and that we don't like what he published does not mean it is not notable. Alf photoman 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the theory "noted"? --ScienceApologist 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in several non-trivial publications, in several books and been laughed at by several hundred professors IMO that is noted. Same thing happened to Zeppelin when he tried to sell his dirigible to the French sciences academy Alf photoman 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have any evidence of this? I will note that the argument that it has "received criticism" is one specifically rejected in WP:SCI. I think your rationale is bordering dangerously on WP:ILIKEIT. --ScienceApologist 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standards for WP:BIO are considerably lower, and widespread criticism would probably account for notability. Tarinth 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I don't see how Mr. Jurgens passes WP:BIO either. The relevant criteria is

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

This is much more restictive than just being mentioned in published works. In addition, without the citations it cannot be determined if these works are "independent of the person". --EMS | Talk 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my firm opinion, he's not a scientist, and is a crackpot, but that doesn't mean that he's not notable. We have articles on many notable crackpots. Judging crackpots on the notability criteria for academics is inappropriate. I've heard of this guy and his theories, and he does seem to have a bit of a cult following, which might make him notable. On the other hand, I'm far too lazy and uninterested to research this further, so I'll leave it up to those who care to either salvage or toss this article. Xtifr _tälk 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Juergens' co-authors to The Velikovsky Affair Alfred de Grazia and Livio Stecchini both appear notable, as does the subject of the Affair, Immanuel Velikovsky. Juergens' own theory is verifiable in several journals, and while it may be bogus, he deserves them to be explained reliably --Iantresman 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User Science Apologist's contention that an article on an unconventional scientific theory cannot be notable because the unconventional theory does not find support in the conventional literature is at best tautolgical and at worst insidious censorship.--feline1 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I make that contention exactly? --ScienceApologist 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your proposal for deletion. It looks a bit ridiculous when rephrased in a less weasling fashion, doesn't it? :) --feline1 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should re-read the nomination with an eye toward WP:SCI. The rationale is not "delete this article because the guy doesn't publish in conventional journals". The rationale is that the guy is non-notable, and his only publications are in journals that do not qualify him as notable under WP:SCI. --ScienceApologist 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't regard him as a valid scientist in the first place, so obviously by definition he won't meet the criterea of WP:SCI. You might as well demand that articles about Genesis P-Orridge, Pol Pot or Mickey Mouse measure up to WP:SCI--feline1 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of notability criteria is that articles are subject to all of them simultaneously not just individual ones. If you think WP:SCI isn't the best standard to use for this article, then perhaps you think one of the other notability criteria that this article fulfills. I'll point out that Juergens also fails the WP:PROF test and other ideas listed at WP:BIO. However, the articles you listed are all notable according the relevant notability guidelines. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you regard Juergens' ideas as pseudoscience, and you do not accept notability for pseudoscience: you don't think pseudoscience should be in an encyclopedia, "period", as they say in America. That's your bottom line, isn't it? Whereas, to me that would be censorship, and I think wikipedia should have have a concise mention of the idea in question, and explain that mainstream science rejects it. Otherwise, if some high school student in Alabama tries to look it up in wikipedia, he won't find it and will have to go somewhere that's potentially a lot less objective for his answer.--feline1 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience definitely belongs in any good encyclopedia. For example, astrology, modern geocentrism, creation science, perpetual motion machines, time cube, and Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations all belong in Wikipedia. What doesn't belong are non-notable subjects. By attempting to change the subject as to whether pseudoscience belongs in Wikipedia or not, you are missing the whold point of this AfD. Whether this subject relates to pseudoscience or not is not the issue. In fact, if you read the last point in WP:SCI about arguments not to use you'll see that pseudoscience is not a rationale to be used for deleting an article. I also would thank you not to make false declarations about my agenda. Disabuse yourself of the notion immediately that I am here to excise pseudoscience from this encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Jeurgens and the Electic Universe idea (which I was quite flabberghasted to see had been deleted from wikipedia) are a part of the ongoing legacy of Immanuel Velikovsky, who is certainly a notable pseudoscientist.--feline1 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Velikovsky has an "ongoing legacy" is fairly contentious. He does not receive the media attention he once enjoyed when Sagan was all the rage. Certainly the electric universe and Ralph Jeurgens do not seem to rise to the level of notability in popular culture which is all that is left since (I think) we agree that these subjects defy scientific notability. It may be that Ralph Jeurgens can be mentioned at the Immanuel Velikovsky#"The Velikovsky Affair" section but to insist that he be a biographical subject in his own right or that the Electric Sun/Electric Universe articles be subjects in their own right doesn't seem to have any justification. They just don't seem to be notable enough. --ScienceApologist 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, scientific articles need to have sources in the conventional literature. As this topic does not have sources in conventional literature, and as it does not have enough sources to be presented as a media phenomenon, it should be deleted. --Philosophus ^T 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for wikipedia coverage. The work that forms the basis for his inclusion appears to be vanity press only. Sdedeo (tips) 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you guess Juergens publishes in the vanity press, rather than try to find out? :*Kronos was published by Kronos Press. The staff on the magazine at the time the Juergens' article was published included 10 professors or associate professors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iantresman (talk • contribs) 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, yes, Kronos seems to be more crackpot than vanity. When Egyptologists are reviewing supposedly scientific contributions, it's hard to call the journal something else. In any case, a handfull of fringe publications does not notability make. Sdedeo (tips) 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that when Nature reviews and article for publication, that it asks the chemists on the staff to referee the articles on astronomy, and the astronomers to referee articles on biology? --Iantresman 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete authors who get their work published in and by Kronos only. --Pjacobi 10:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or make dab page linking to "The Velikovsky Affair". Juergens is not notable as a scientist but he is somewhat notable as co-writer of "The Velikovsky Affair". He contributed some 20,000 words - see e.g. here. This means the article needs to be pruned quite a bit: nearly all Juergens' nn pseudoscience info has to go. One line should be sufficient. AvB ÷ talk 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyright violation and non-notable. TimVickers 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or turn into a redirect to The Velikovsky Affair. If his alleged notability stems from his contribution to The Velikovsky Affair, then he should be mentioned there first (he is not), certainly before warranting his own separate article. The "electric sun" crap is non-notable, as was well established in that article's recent AfD (not to mention that it consists of an enormous copyvio quote). HEL 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a note ... Can this article, or something like it, be kept, with a note that the Electric sun hypothesis is not accepted as mainstream science? If I wanted to find out about this hypothesis or its originator this article would be quite helpful. (Maybe the sections could be merged with other articles, except that the Electric Universe article is now deleted.) Deletion makes me think of a witch-hunt. Do we really have to drown this stuff entirely, so in the future it will seem not to have existed? Can't we just hang a sign around its neck to indicate that mainstream science either ignores it or holds it in low regard? I am not suggesting that those arguing for deletion have bad intentions, because, as far as I know, those who pursued "witches" had perfectly good intentions. Its just that deletion seems over-the-top - it is less informative and more destructive than keeping the article in some form with some notes to guard against a naive reader thinking the theory is more highly regarded than it actually is. Also, perhaps, a note that Kronos does not meet WP's criteria for scientific notability because it is not a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal. Robin Whittle 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We nominate these sorts of articles for deletion not because we want to blot them out, but because we can't make them both comply with Wikipedia's fundamental policies on verifiability and no original research while also complying with the equally fundamental policy of neutral point of view. Most respectable scientists don't have time to write a critique of pseudotheories like this one, and then publish it in a reputable scientific source. Most reputable scientific sources don't have room for rebuttals of the thousands of individuals who each have their own miraculous theory of everything. On the other hand, most of the individuals in question have copious amounts of time in which to sing the praise of their ideas, and rebuke the unfaithful with yet more praise and misunderstanding. If we were to have acceptable sources for all of these ideas, then we should keep them without hesitation, but as we do not, and are thus unable to craft an article that would not be a disgrace to Wikipedia, we have no choice but to delete them. --Philosophus ^T 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to write a critique of an article to make it conform to NPOV. We don't critique "Jewish beliefs" with "Christian beliefs" to make it NPOV, and we don't critique Stephen Hawkins latest theory on black holes, to make it NPOV. --Iantresman 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what a load of waffle, and from a self-professed sock puppet too! From time to time, people will go to wikipedia and type in "Electric universe" or maybe even "Ralph Jeurgens" (most likely led there by summat on Immanuel Velikovsky). If the wiping-pseudoscience-off-the-face-of-the-interweb brigade get there way, wikipedia will just say "No article with that name exists", when it could quite easily have one or two paragraphs summarizing what the theory is and calmly noting how it is rejected by current mainstream science, all in compliance with the various necessary policies. It just makes for a less informative and useful encyclopedia.--feline1 13:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the problem. We do not believe that we can have an article like that in compliance with policies, as I have described. If you would like to show that we are incorrect, then I would suggest that you create an article like the one you describe, and put it here. It is quite probable that if it were to be respectable while complying with policy, a significant number of these votes would change. That has happened before in these cases. Furthermore, please note that, as I said, I am a sock puppet only on a technicality, since the definition of the term in policy is very different from the meaning that most people understand and expect. With the policy definition, for example, many administrators are sock puppeteers (all bots are sock puppets). --Philosophus ^T 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a cynic might note that since the eradicate-pseudoscience-from-wikipedia brigade seem so deeply versed in what does and doesn't constitute compliance with wikipolicies, they should find it relatively easy to lobotomize any article into compliance... conversely, having checked out the behaviour of some of these characters on wikipedia in recent times (I note Science Apologist was before the arbitration committee not so long ago...), I'd be reluctant to spend the time editing something only to have it all just erased by that lot. This is why their conduct can be disruptive: notwithstanding their desire to censor certain types of information, it puts people off contributing, cos they don't want to become involved in edit wars with zealots /sighs/--feline1 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Feline1's comments are bordering very close on getting too personal and he seems to be accusing me of forming a cabal. I suggest he try to resolve his issues at dispute resolution rather than trying to defame the messengers. --ScienceApologist 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auch look, I really have no desire to get into a personal confrontation about this. To be honest though: I feel that you yourself make things personal, because of your self-professed antipathy to what you deem "pseudoscience". When other editors read your comments, despite them being packed full of diligent references to various wikipolicies, it is all too easy to think "here is a guy with an agenda". It tends to undermine your credibility - all those careful wiki policy references begin to come across like carefully-researched excuses for you to be able to get your own way: i.e. eradicating pseudoscience. --feline1 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be accusing me now of wikilawyering. And I am not too fond of you ascribing an agenda to me. As I've said before, I have no problem with verifiable articles on notable pseudoscience being included in Wikipedia. However, when articles are written that are unverifiable or not notable, I don't think they belong here. In the future, please assume good faith about those whom you oppose. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL wikilawyering, you know all the tricks don't you! LOL Anyways but I *did* assume good faith, until I started reading your user/talk pages, your edit history and your arbitration history! That's when I got suspicious :-D LOL. Please also see my reply to your comment above^^ Best wishes--feline1 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that your laughter is belying a bit of discomfort with being called out for doing shoddy research into my edit history and arbitration history. Vague ideas and suspicions are never a good thing to base community relations on. You could have asked me about what my opinions were instead of arrogantly assuming that you obviously knew. --ScienceApologist 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that nearly all of these articles are neither verifiable or notable. I don't consider notability to be an important point of Wikipedia policy, and instead think that verifiability and neutral point of view obviate the need for notability restrictions in most cases, including these. For a response to your reply to my last comment, I will agree that we are deeply versed in Wikipedia policy, and know enough to understand that we cannot create articles of this sort that comply with the policy. There have been attempts by some of us to change the policy in the past to allow for proper coverage of topics like these, but they haven't been accepted, in part because they would require changes in the non-negotiable fundamentals of Wikipedia. As for ScienceApologist being before the Arbitration committee recently, that is of little detriment to his character: requests for arbitration against decent editors are often created by pseudoscientist supporters, who often then find that the process backfires. I am currently a party in arbitration as well, for example, by my own choice. Finally, there is no cabal (though there are the Einstein's Witnesses). --Philosophus ^T 04:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually, I'm back now, since it seems that dispute resolution has changed enough that it is possible to defeat pseudoscientific points of view, thanks especially to the recent work of the Arbitration Committee" - you crack me up, you do! Can't you go and do something more useful with your time, like go down to the Grand Canyon and tell them how old it is? :)--feline1 11:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, without prejudice. Not notable as a scientist, and much of the article seems to be a copyright violation. Involvement in the Velikovsky Affair seems to come close to notability. Cardamon 09:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn and no further comments other than keep. Note: I am NOT an admin. I am closing this discussion as permitted by Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Bwithh 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell and High Water[edit]

Reads like an advertisement; no attempt at critical analysis or encyclopedic content. Raymond Arritt 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not necessarily a good reason to delete, but to fix. OTOH I don't look forward to another round of Exploded Consensus or whatever it was. Are there notability criteria for books? William M. Connolley 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added the article on this book, and I certainly welcome contributions by other editors who are more experienced at writing book reviews than me. The book relies on the same science as Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (except that Romm's book is almost a year newer than Gore's). It has only been out for a month, and I have only seen one major media review of the book so far (from the Toronto Star). As soon as more reviews come out, we can add those. The book has quotes from California's energy commissioner, among others, but I did not quote these, since they are being used by Morrow to market the book. -- Ssilvers 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can edit the article so that it doesn't seem so promotional it would go a long way toward satisfying my concerns. Starting out by describing the author as a "physics and technology expert" is awfully generic and has echoes of puffery. Additionally, the author's views are seemingly taken at face value. Can you tweak the article towards a more neutral and objective tone? Raymond Arritt 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misqote the article. The author is described as a "Physicist and energy technology expert". As described in detail at Joseph J. Romm, he's an MIT PhD. physicist, and a well-published energy expert, who served as the head of Energy efficiency and renewable energy at the US Dept of Energy. What details do you think are most appropriate? I've tried to tweak the article for NPOV as you suggest, but the article needs some more editors to contribute. It was only created an hour ago. -- Ssilvers 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My original concerns have been addressed, and the article is now a useful (and neutral) contribution. Raymond Arritt 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could possibly use some more NPOVing, but that's a reason for cleanup, not deletion. delldot | talk 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 20:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Afflerbach[edit]

The subject of the article is a young actress who has so far only appeared in one movie where she is a minor named character; this does not sufficiently pass WP:BIO for an actor/actress. Internet searchs provide nothing reliable besides mention of her minor role in School of Rock. The page has also been subject to extraneous and trivial information added by IPs. If reliable, third party sources can be provided that further her notability, this shouldn't be a problem. I have not problem with there being a page if and/or when she takes part in more movies, or at least a larger role in a notable one. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN minor child actress. A couple of speaking roles isn't notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay, for various reasons. Firstly, she has more than a few lines in these films, and I'm sure people would like to search up on her! As well as this, she is likely to be in films more in the future, meaning that her popularity is only going to improve, and then this will already be here, like it should anyway with her being an actress. And she isn't that minor at all really. I can't really explain it too well, so I'm not making it sound as good as it really is, but it should really stay here though, and a lot of people do actually like her also!
MAZITO - Friday, 5 January, 2007; 21:53 (GMT)
- Comment in cases like this the deletion is generally without prejudice, that is, with more notability and sources the article may be recreated at a future date (for example, with a starring role in a major motion picture). --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I love the movie and love the character, she really doesn't meet WP's notability criteria (yet). Possible smerge to School of Rock. Xtifr _tälk 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should stay. Wikipedias goal is to have as much knowlege as possible correct? Well by deleting this it would limit the knowlege and show decreases. Plus if you look back on any actors or actresses career a lot of them do one commericial when they are 11 then stay out of Hollywood until they are 22 (finished University) then they work there way up to the top with smaller roles than this. She had around 20 somelines which is pretty big, plus she had to act without roles constinatnly. For example; when she Was listening to Zach's song, or when she was with Franky when he told Miss Mullens "your the man", or how she had to act enthusiastic at the end. She may not have been the star of the scenes but imagine Zach singing to nobody "that would be weird". Ok, directors will also most likely use her as tributes to Schoool of Rock. This can boost her popularity tremendously and thus make her the next Star. And wouldn't want you to have her a site on WP when that happens? "From Middle School Students for preserving Afflerbach" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.247.179 (talk • contribs)
- No, Wikipedia's goal is not to have "as much knowledge as possible". That's why we have a policy about verifiability, guidelines about notability and reliable sources, and a whole list of things (policy again) that Wikipedia is not. We don't (for example) want articles about things made up in school one day, even though that is, technically, knowledge. Anyway, the verifiability policy means that we're not "limiting knowledge", because everything in Wikipedia has to be traceable to other sources, which means the information is still available. If you want to create a fan page, there are plenty of free hosting services out there that will allow you to do so, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. As I said, I loved the movie, and thought Ms. Afflerbach did a fine job in it, but until she actually becomes "the next Star", she shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. But she can certainly have as many fan pages elsewhere as the traffic will bear. Xtifr _tälk 21:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I say we keep the page and merge it with other the Other School of Rock Groupie to make a "school of Rock groupie page" or you give her or her fan base several days to create a fan hosting page which when created will be given 2 days on wikipedia saying this site has been moved away from wikipedia to a new website. Then after the 2 days delete the site. Again the merge is preferable but creating a free hosted site is quiet easy. And me and my collegues would be willing to help create and run it. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.247.179 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 Jan 2007 (UTC)
    - I rekon this page should be kept. I agree that in the future, and even now, she will get bigger as a star, and therefore it would be better if the article was kept, and a lot of people seem to like her in SOR, where her part is definitely what I wouldn't call small! It's important, and really, quite big, it just ain't one of the main ones, but they're not just the big ones, and more importantly, they're not just the important ones. Veronica is an important one, and an important person. I reckon it should be kept on Wikipedia like it is now. I know she ain't the biggest of stars (yet, at least), but that can, and probably will, change as the time continues; Wikipedia is good for finding things out, and I actually am very surprised it's up for possible deletion. Something like this must surely be here. I say keep, for sure! And although this is just one entry, it's the opinion of many of us, here at the college. KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.189.55 (talk • contribs)
Weak Delete - i think it is on the line of NN, but nonethess, NN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears that a Delete vote by Chrislk02 was deleted by 212.219.189.55? _SUBWAYguy 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I replaced it; if people are unsure, you can check the history differences for the original comment and the deletion by the IP. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete I think it deserves to be deleted. Her role in the movie is very peripheral. If she was one of the main characters then you can argue that an article about her should exist. But that's not the case. She is not notable enough for an article on wikipedia, at least for now. Fighting for Justice 04:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that wikipedia sets up a moviepedia and has both major and minor stars in it including afflerbach and her friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackDeer (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouzounian Productions, Inc[edit]

Non-notable production company and vanity page, based on article creator name. Google searches on major terms from article ("Ouzounian Productions, Inc", "Ouzounian Productions" and "Ouzoun Productions") bring back no returns at all. Search on "Sniperz Gone Wild" brings back only 6 unique on 131 total, all inconsequential. Delete TheRealFennShysa 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. delldot | talk 16:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost speediable because the weak claim of notability does not really withstand scrutiny. Pascal.Tesson 05:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Stephenb (Talk) 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al Eryan[edit]

This article is about the son of Tarek Al Eryan. Tarek, being a famous director, is notable but his son is not. The only contributer is User:Omar Alarian. There is another deleted article named Omar Alarian which is a variant of the same Arabic name: عمر العريان. Please see User talk:Omar Alarian#Omar Alarian. Meno25 19:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. Wikipedia is not a resume host. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wants a career in film-making - fails WP:BIO miserably. Ohconfucius 05:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Brown[edit]

Non-notable model, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sufficient assertion of notability that I can see. delldot | talk 16:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same with most of the pages on here!!!

Delete - Basically an advert for a NN pinup girl. - Peregrine Fisher 21:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Klerks[edit]

NonNotable architect. Does not have recognation, therefore unarticle worthy. - User:BushCheney2004 19:31 UTC

COMMENT: But the focus of the article is less upon his occupation as an architect and more upon skyscapercity.com, the notability of which has been explained in the article. - Erebus555 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question How many cases can you think of where someone's status as leader of a web forum has been considered sufficient notability to merit an article? Fan-1967 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am not a regular visitor to the AfD pages so I would not know. But when this web forum has such a large number of members and was created by this person who has developed an internet celebrity status among architecture webforums, just like people on youtube have (not on architectural webforums though), then this could warrant as notable. - Erebus555 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon request by article's subject - Erebus555 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially move to SkyscraperCity. Alexa rank around 5,000 is highish for a specialty forum, and there are a handful of Google News Archive citations. If WP:RS cannot be found, though, delete. Delete per Erebus555 (although that bulletin post is not viewable without registration). --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, I did not realise this was the case. It says "I'd rather not. I asked it to be deleted." upon a reply to a general discussion on the article. - Erebus555 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jan pointed the page out to me about 12 hours ago via MSN and mentioned his desire for it to be deleted. Now I know it's not Wikipedia's policy to delete articles based on the subject's desire, but to be blatantly honest, Jan's not worthy of a Wikipedia article. That said, the forum Jan founded, SkyscraperCity, is notable as the 98th largest forum on the internet, and this stub would make an excellent addition to a well-written article about the site. --DaiTengu 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not that major a forum, certainly not enough to merit an article for the moderator/webmaster. Fan-1967 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not about the forum (which is itself debatable) but its creator, for whom we have no reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active game[edit]

Almost certain neologism; we're the number one result on Google and only one peripheral manufacturer seems to use anything approximating this meaning for the term. Sockatume 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have heard this term in news outlets and such. It requires a cleanup and frankly, "active game" is not a genre of game rather, a typr of gaming. SYSS Mouse 04:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of how widely it has been used, it needs to be shown that there is enough reliable material out there that is specifically about the term and its particular usage, per WP:NEO. I feel that plenty of time has been given to address those concerns. It's been nearly two months since I originally tagged the article. Dancter 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't seem to be even a neologism, but a protologism. Any traction the term may have gained is probably because the Wikipedia article was allowed to stay up for a while. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Dancter 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had never heard this term before today, despite being an avid gamer, and a regular magazine/website reader. It is undeniable that there are games that do require active user input (especially with the release of the Wii), but I have not heard this term previously - I certainly wouldn't say it's widespread enough to be included in an encyclopedia. --Dreaded Walrus 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User: Acalamari[edit]

The result was speedy keep, AFD is the wrong place to discuss userpages. In addition, the page was PROD'ded[36] instead of putting {{subst:afd1}}. MaxSem 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources or anything. pointless user page. Opronc-oB 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Acalamari is an active user who does not need his page deleted, sources are not required on user pages, additionally this nomination is malformed - user pages should be nominated on MfD and the template added to the page itself was {{prod}}. Tra (Talk) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Keep as apparent bad-faith nom. Tarinth 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as AFD is not the appropriate place. If there is a real problem per user page policy then nominate at Miscellany for Deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSIT[edit]

Contested PROD, but no change since PROD tag. Non-notable organization, non-standard page title (should be actual org name not a generic-looking abbreviation). If anything, would be a one- or two-sentence note in the parent organization's page. DMacks 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7, no notability asserted. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per Dhartung. delldot | talk 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE as WP:OR (!votes without reasons, saying only "cruft", or keep because the nominator hasn't a reason were discounted. But of the rest there was a consensus that this was OR. -Doc^g 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies in Warcraft lore[edit]

Although slightly sourced very crufty article. Computerjoe 's talk 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not for the reason given ("cruft" isn't a reason to delete) but because the entire article is original research. Might be keepable if it could be adequate sourced, and probably notable given that this is one of the largest gaming franchises. Tarinth 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is sourced. Xombie 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources do not suggest the argument put forward, only the information used by the writer. Thedreamdied 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thedreamdied 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid nomination reason given. crufty is no different than "I don't like this" and as such is very inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While the nomination reason isn't valid, that doesn't mean the article itself is fine. Please do not make the same mistake as the nominator and discuss the article rather than the nomination. --Scottie theNerd 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am sorry, but a bad nomination reason is still a bad nomination reason. If an article is going to be nominated, there should be a high responsibility to make sure you have a proper reason. If you can't articulate it, then ask someone else for help. At the least, picking insulting and demeaning language is highly inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is the nominator's responsibility to outline the reason for deletion, but the nominator's phrasing is not definitive nor is it final. The whole point of the deletion debate process is to gather more opinions on the value of an article, and in most cases the resulting debate expands on the original nomination, as is the case here. A bad nomination reason does not automatically make the article a good one. What you're doing is disagreeing with the nomination using a deletion debate version of WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you don't like the nomination doesn't mean the debate isn't valid. --Scottie theNerd 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a matter of not liking the nomination, it's a matter of not accepting the nomination when done so poorly. I'm not saying anything about the article per se (I actually think it would best be a sub-section of some large Warcraft article), but I do find myself forced to reject the initial action. And while fostering discussion may be important, it's less likely to happen when you start it off poorly. I see at least two opinions expressed that don't even have an iota of reasoning behind them. Maybe you should say something about that? FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What's there to say? The nominator put forward an argument you don't like, we put forward arguments that are more relevant. Just because the nomination doesn't refer to any policy doesn't mean the whole process is invalid. Why don't you put forward your own valid argument instead of "I don't like the nominator's argument"? --Scottie theNerd 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have offered my rebuttal to comments that this is OR. You even replied to me. What more do you want me to do? If you want a stronger argument, I don't much care. My initial concern was that the process was tainted by a poor nomination. That remains a problem. So are the bad arguments spoken by others. I can accept that people who think this is OR have a valid (if mistaken concern). That includes you. Other people? not so much. Do I really care about this article? Not so much. I think it would be better done in the articles on the subjects in question, rather than one base article. Still doesn't mean I can't speak out against bad nomination reasons. FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your responses to our OR concerns are fair enough. I'm pointing out that your initial post was a Keep because you didn't like the nomination rather than the article's merits. If you had intended otherwise, it certainly was not conveyed in that contribution. --Scottie theNerd 14:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a matter of not liking the nomination, that implies I have some interest in the page, a more accurate description is I don't like the nomination reasons given. This would apply regardless of the subject. I suppose I could have been more verbose, so I'm sorry if that confused you. Whether the article should be kept or not, well, I don't have the opinion that there's anything sufficiently wrong with this article that warrants deletion. Clean-up yes, diffusion elsewhere? Maybe. But deletion? Nope, don't see it. And like it or not, I'm not going to look for reasons to delete an article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. It even cites WoWWiki! Axem Titanium 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Maybe WoWWiki will take it? --Alan Au 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In order not to be OR, there would have to be a citation for each claim, not from the warcraft history, but from a source that's pointing out that claim. Otherwise you're drawing these conclusions in the article. delldot | talk 18:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: violates WP:OR and uses unreliable sources (WoWWiki, of all things). This article would be better on WoWWiki than on Wikipedia. As noted above, being a "crufty" article doesn't mean automatically mean it should be deleted. --Scottie theNerd 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may object to WOWWIKI as a unreliable source, but the existence of it does mean there is a source. FrozenPurpleCube 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a credible source, so naturally other Wikis would also be considered the same. No one here has argued against sourcing, but arguments have been put forward over the misuse of sources. --Scottie theNerd 05:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can demonstrate where the source given is wrong on this thing, then that would be something, but just saying "NOR!" when it's another site doing the research? Doesn't make sense. Say poor sources, that might be something, though in this case, it's not too convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I do personally find it a pretty interesting read, but a lot of these claims aren't backed by the correct sourcing. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, very crufty -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I started the article and I must admit that it could definately be classified as original research. However, my dictionary doesn't contain the word "crufty" or even "cruft," so I'm not entirely sure what that means. :) RobertM525 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have CPed it to WoWRP.com as to not lose it completly. WoWRP isn't that occupied with keeping OR out of the picture. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment surely isn't this in breach of the GFDL as I doubt you've credited all editors? Computerjoe 's talk 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Even though I'm usually a vigilante when it comes to helping and working on Warcraft articles, I've been extremely skeptical to this article since it was first created. Whereas I tried to get people to source everything. But, as it stands now, it breaks WP:NPOV and WP:OR. If people can clean it up before the AfD is over, I'll change my vote to Keep, but as it stands I give a weak delete. I would also like to point out that the AfD reason is not the reason I voted what I did, as "cruft" if not a good reason to delete anything. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a little bit, then relist I know this isn't a real vote, but I say give it a bit to see if anybody will source it (I may give it a shot if I have time) and if they don't, relist and let the inevitable do its thing. -Ryanbomber 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. Combination 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Clearly fails WP:OR The Kinslayer 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. The game itself is notable, but its plot holes are not. Also fails WP:NOR, particularly WP:SYNT. Determining whether something constitutes a conflict in a creative work inherently involves advancing a new position.--Trystan 23:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've redirected, merging can be done from the history. Sandstein 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Kiriakis[edit]

Nominate for WP:HOLE. Wiki is Freaakky. 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Days of our Lives characters per WP:FICT: minor characters get merged, with a short description, into appropriate list. delldot | talk 19:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per delldot. Claire is a baby, and not EVERY character on a soap deserves an article. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Days of our Lives characters per above. --maclean 07:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All-Star Lists[edit]

rather trivial info about a minor award wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate collection of information, also violates WP:NOR, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 more articles to the list Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And add also All-Star Rookie Families, All-Star Rookie Records (that could be rename to List of Major League Rookie Records though, All-Star Hall of Famers, All-Star Rookie MVPs, All-Star Rookie Cy-Youngs and All-Star Rookie Managers of the Year Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Bubblegum cruft (ewww)? All these lists are non-notable "awards" based on whether or not a collectable card manufacturer included a player on a certain list or not. A couple of these lists are more opinion (i.e. "near misses") than anything. Finally, if these are (unfortunately) kept, the titles and introductory paragraphs should be clarified so as to make it apparent that these are baseball related lists, rather than some other sport. Agent 86 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all A whole lot of a minutiae about a not-particularly-important topic. Cruftacious. -- Kicking222 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Topps All-Star Rookie Teams. The subject isn't notable enough to warrant nearly a dozen articles (and that's not including the 47 yearly rosters listed at Topps All-Star Rookie Rosters). Caknuck 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered that but some of the info is way too trivial to even merge I'm tempt to afd the Rookie Rosters page itsself Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Topps All-Star Rookie Teams is fine. Topps All-Star Rookie Rosters stretches the point a bit, but this isn't paper. The ones listed here go too far into what WP is Not, per nom. I don't see a merge as a practical solution; it's just too much information.--Kubigula (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Lists are unnotable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Granger Tovets (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heinen's Fine Foods[edit]

Commercial, advertising content Haans42 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to keep article, after removing content that is advertising and rephrasing sentences to approach a neutral point of view. I will go ahead and see what I can do. --DangApricot 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to point out that this article was nominated for deletion before. See more about this at Talk:Heinen's Fine Foods. --DangApricot 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but this seems to me to be a straightforward advertising article which I would have flagged as {{db-spam}}--Anthony.bradbury 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. I don't see this as meeting CSD G11 except a couple of sentences; it's a reasonably well-formatted encyclopedia article and mostly NPOV. Also, admins tend to frown on speedy being applied where there's a prior AFD as it may be seen as overturning consensus. That said, there is little in the article that truly asserts notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search shows there is independant media coverage, though none is cited in the actual article. The company appears to meet WP:CORP.--Kubigula (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's more notable than the typical retail business of this size, with media stories like this. Mereda 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionist Generation[edit]

This is one of a large series of interlinked articles devoted to extolling the view of American history put forward by historians/lifestyle gurus Strauss and Howe in their book Generations. They think that American history (and English history before America) can be divided into distinct generations, each of which has a distinct archetype, be it 'Hero', 'Artist', 'Nomad', or 'Prophet'. It sounds like cobblers, and most of the articles are wholly uncritical.

I'm nominating this particular article for deletion principally because it's a non-notable neologism, confined to the books of Strauss and Howe. It does not appear to be a widely used historical term, and giving it a separate article undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Nydas^(Talk) 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undue weight given to the views of two historians. A lack of sources doesn't help much either. --Folantin 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The William Strauss and Neil Howe books are influential, published by mainstream publishers, and the names they use for each generation are in some use outside of the context of just Strauss and Howe fans. At worst this is comparable to having articles on each Star Trek or South Park episode, what some might consider "fancruft". That and the characterization of the authors as "lifestyle gurus" doesn't reflect well on this nomination. The article does need some work and expansion, starting with an explanation of where the term originated and who coined it. Dragomiloff 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Interesting, googling turns up that this is not a Strauss and Howe term. Strauss and Howe use the name Gilded Generation for this generation. "Abolitionist Generation" does appear to be in some use though. For example: [37] [38]. I still say keep and expand. Dragomiloff 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not all the terms they use are in popular usage, Compromise Generation for one. I don't see the problem with describing them as lifestyle gurus, given their website is named Life Course Associates. In any case, since this is not a Strauss and Howe term, it is even less notable than before. One of those sources is a collection of literature essays with no strong connection to the term as defined here, the other is a passing mention.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nydas, I think you are right that there are serious issues with this whole series of articles. All the "names" for generations are or were neologisms, though some have clearly become sufficiently notable for articles (e.g. Greatest generation). Some of the names are basically Strauss and Howe inventions, others are more widely used, and still others are somewhere in between. This one appears to be somewhere in between - I found more mentions of the term in respected sources -[39] [40]. It seems to me that the whole panorama of generation name related articles needs to be cleaned up, perhaps centered around an improved List of generations article. Some of the content from this article could be merged there. It's a can of worms that may be better resolved through a process other than AfD.--Kubigula (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources just use the term in passing, though. It's also unlikely that they refer to 'abolitionist generation' as defined in this article, with a strict start and end date. 'Thatcher generation' gets almost as many Ghits, and includes plenty of respected sources using the term. They're both just a stock phrases, like Red armchair or Second hand car, and not worth including in Wikipedia.

As for the Strauss and Howe generations, I'm concerned that articles on commonly used terms like Generation X are dominated by their perspective. I agree that a list might be more appropriate than a series of articles.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, and I have no heartburn about seeing this article deleted. My larger point is that deleting this one article will do little towards cleaning up the larger morass of the generations articles. If you are using this as a first step towards a larger cleanup, then you have my wholehearted support. It seems to me that the article on the Strauss and Howe book should be expanded a bit to include a little info on each of "their" generational definitions - there's no need to have separate articles for each.--Kubigula (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Generation X for the article improvement drive. That should help a bit.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Re-reading the above discussion, I recalled that "abolitionist generation" is not even the Straus and Howe name for this generation. Therefore, I agree that this needs to be deleted as an insufficiently sourced and notable neologism. At most, it could be listed as one name on the "List of generations". I still hope that some bold editor(s) will tackle the current generations scheme and template.--Kubigula (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. Naconkantari 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformatics Solutions Inc.[edit]

Advertising Jvhertum 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Blatant spam and WP:COI. P TO 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. Naconkantari 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mateusse[edit]

Advertising. Jvhertum 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I tagged it with {{db-spam}}. It's blatant advertising. P TO 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Way Forward[edit]

Propaganda term, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, speculation. User:Zoe

Comment -- this deletion discussion has been targeted by a school group using a shared account and discussing strategy off-wiki. [41]Umpteenages 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Conditional keep, see below - per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, it sounds a little too communist for something that Bush would say. (oh noes!) P TO 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Propaganda or not, it is the term the press is using for the speech Bush himself promised December 6 that the press has reported extensively on in the last 24 hours. And when I say press, I mean CBS News. marketwatch freemarketnews wall street journal USA Today press briefing from whiehouse.gov Time magazine This is a slam dunk Keep This speech and the context of Iraq War political initiatives and head rolling needs to be documented somewhere in Wikipedia. If not here, where? MPS 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bush can say whatever he wants in the speech, but everything before the speech will be speculation. It's like saying that USC is going to win the Rose Bowl because the experts say they have a good team. It's speculation. Wikipedia is a place for facts, and not just what people will think will happen. I reconsidered my vote, and I still will vote Delete. P TO 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the article to place more emphasis on the media speculation. It's an undeniable, sourceable fact that five high level posts related to the Iraq war are being changed, that the press is reporting on a "surge" and that in the many NOTABLE sources cited above ALL sources use the words "new way forward" to describe this series of initiatives. Whether or not a speech happens, it is clear that the Bush administration is leading the press to use the words "New Way Forward" or "The New Way Forward" with respect to these changes. Please reread the article and reconsider. MPS 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second time that you have asked me to reconsider, and for a second time, I will say Delete. So, it is confirmed that this is going to be the title for Bush's speech. But the contents of the speech are only speculation, as I said above. Wait until Bush does his speech, and THEN write the article. You said above "I have now edited the article to place more emphasis on the media speculation.", when it's the speculation that we are trying to avoid. Wait until Bush makes his speech, and THEN make the article. P TO 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but what about the contents of the stragegy change? It is abundantly clear (to the media-- i.e., independent citeable sources) that these changes are already taking place... the series of initiatives listed in the article. If you are suggeesting a name changes that is one thing, but to delete the article is to delete perfectly good (and sourced)content. What are you trying to hide? MPS 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a bad faith comment, MPS, and I expect you to retract it. This has nothing to do with "trying to hide" anything, and completely with trying to keep propaganda and speculation out of an encyclopedia. If you want to write your or other people's speculations on a blog somewhere, that is certainly your right, but we expect encyclopedia articles, not somebody's expectations. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad faith comment; just frustration coming out, and for acting on this frustration I do apologize. Re: the topic, I have two responses....(1) These opinions aren't just opinions (the annouced personnel changes aren't opinions... the term "new way forward" is not some opinion I made up or the media made up -- it was introduced used by Bush to describe his coming changes, and reinforced by his subsequent press secretary statements at whitehouse.gov) the media is reporting on this set of changes with more than speculations, more than just opinions. (2) The WSJ, Time magazine, reuters, USA Today, and CBS News are not just "some people" as you suggest. This is a significant chunk of the mainstream news establishment reporting on "NWF" I'm not citing bloggers, I am citing The media MPS 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its not simply a speech so much as it is a policy change. You dont like the name? You think its a propaganda term? Doesnt matter one bit, take one look at the Great Leap Forward article and you will see that even when a program is named to make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread we can still have articles on it. There are reliable sources talking about it, waiting for the speech to happen before making an article is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the comments on the speech talk about what the commentators expect to happen. These are not reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited are most certainly reliable sources. Let me put this into terms similar to the earlier football analogy. Lets say experts predict that Eagles will win. We cannot state that the Eagles will win as a matter of fact, but we can state that experts predict the Eagles will win the Superbowl in the Super Bowl XLI. Thats what is being done in regards to the commentary. But not all of the information is speculation, neither in this article or in Super Bowl XLI. For instance, the date has been officially announced, the logo has been officially announced, the location has been officially announced. The fact that Super Bowl XLI has not yet happened does not keep us from having an article on it, does not keep us from stating the information we know, and does not keep us from stating information that is being speculated in reliable sources. The situation for the New Way Forward, or any other subject matter, is no different. Again, the entire premise behind this deletion appears to be a misunderstanding of guidelines and rules. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - (to Rangeley): This doesn't have anything to do with the name. My comment was drawing a similarity between The New Way Forward and the Great Leap Forward. P TO 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the argument that because this was a propaganda term, it could not have an article. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Never mind. P TO 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, as of right now, it is only an informal term. It would be different if it were something like the New Deal or the Great Society where it is used often enough that it actually becomes a proper term. Currently, it's just a short phrase that the media has fixated on just as a way to give it a name (despite the supposed speech not even taken place). Axem Titanium 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axem... this is what I don't understand... we all recognize that there is something here... we all recognize that the news media and the Bush administration is "informally" calling this whatever, this foo, this topic, is called "NWF" ... but it could just as well be called Bush Administration's reaction to the Iraq study group report and all the crap they are taking over bungling the Iraq war. Why should we delete it if we can't think of a clever title for it? The media and the Bush administration have a clever title. Finish the thought for me here, please. MPS 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, the problem with this article is that it's just people's opinions, and we won't know if they're right or not till the speech is given. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Zoe, your stance has moved from thing to thing and reached a point where its merely your perspective and not actually an argument meant to change peoples minds. The simple fact is that a lot of people are talking about it, its a speech thats going to happen, its a policy thats going to be implemented. We can only create articles for future events when we are quite certain that this said event will occur - and we are quite certain this event will occur. Please read the guideline again where it clarifies this. As for what will be said, what changes will occur, all we have are breif statements and things that the media expects. We can, and most certainly should represent these things as they are, expected announcements. We wont know if they are right or wrong till it happens, so we wont say they are right or wrong, we will just say that these are what the experts are expecting, or what the government has said thus far. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge relevant info into the proper Iraq War article.--Kross ^Talk 00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Iraq War article is pretty big already, all I would really want to see there is a breif overview. The more in depth info deserves a place to be at, and in this case that warrants a new article. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find 1,020,000 Ghits for Bush "Way Forward" compared to 1,060,000 for Roosevelt "New Deal" 417,000 for Johnson "Great Society" 217,000 for Kennedy "New Frontier" and 210,000 for Mao "Great leap forward" . The term has been repeatedly used as a coined term for a new Iraq strategy by White House spokesmen and the President [42] and has been widely discussed in the press. It is not crystal ball that he and his spokesmen have already been using the term.Edison 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub (for now) that links to an article at Wikinews. --JWSchmidt 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful article. Too much content to merge into any other article proposed so far as they are already lengthy. Johntex\^talk 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The name of the article is a term documented as used by President Bush to refer to the article's content. It is the most correct title to use, compare to 'New Deal', 'Great Society' etc. --Joffeloff 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral I'm going to have to agree with the nominator here. No matter how notable the term is, I just don't see how we could write an article about what news organizations think the content of a future speech might be. Lets wait until after the speech before we create this article. Since the speech in question has now actually occured my concerns are null.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see latest additions here that show the (heretofore not understood by me) links to the Heritage Foundation's "New Way Forward" conference November 9 as well as the American Enterprise Institute's December 14 "Choosing Victory" document. It is clear from media references that media is looking to and critiquing Bush's "New Way Forward" policies by examining the content of these other think tank reports. This is a significant revelation for this AFD Discussion in that it points to the fact that the media isn't just speculating willy nilly (crystal ball predictions), but they are critiquing actual published proposed policies. MPS 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - The research I've done on google and other sites reveals precious little about this "New Way Forward": see the search results for "The New Way Forward" (CNN) and FOX News, MSNBC, and the New York Times, and Google. Note that two of the first four sites that come up are blogs. There are only a few relevant articles within these searches, and the few that are relevant refer to Bush's upcoming speech. If this article is becoming a definition of the term "New Way Forward" based on the way the media uses the phrase, then this fails most of WP:NEO and possibly (?) WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. If this article is becoming a summary of Bush's speech, then you would have to rely on media speculation which I have mentioned before as not being a good idea. <wink>Unless, of couse, you wait for Bush to make his speech before re-making the article.</wink> That way, you can use some genuine facts to build this article. P TO 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your method is wrong. First, you should search on "new way forward"... second... CNN website search comes up with blogs, but that seems to be a failure of the way news websites do searches. When I do a "google news search" of CNN, this turns up many articles, as seen here. Ok, now I will do the same for MSNBC, NYT, Fox News. It seems that there are plenty of articles about NWF by each of these news organzations. It's not a neologism (WP:NEO) article in the sense that the topic of the article article isn't intended to be the words "New Way Forward"... but rather the topic is the political reponse/initiative. In the same way, six party talks and Road map for peace and Quartet on the Middle East are neologisms, but their articles are not about words but are coherent references to th complex of political initiatives associated with those words. The speech is the capstone, but the article is about the Bush initiative that has been going on for at least a month in response to public rejection of the way the war is going. MPS 00:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. But in all seriousness, I'd like to end this debate in a way that makes everybody happy. To do that, I think there are a couple things that need to be said: what you want in the article, what I want in the article (along with anybody else), and a way that we can incorporate those two (or more) things in the article. The only problem I have with this article is the abundance of media crap, to put it bluntly. Even the better links you provided above are plauged with speculation (to quote one, "...House has refused to talk publicly about any of the decisions that Mr. Bush has made about his plan, which is tentatively entitled “A New Way Forward"..."). I would support not doing anything with this article until the speech is done, and then write the article, as I have said a couple times before above. Comments? Concerns? Let's work together here, not against each other. P TO 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PTO... let me first start my comment with a degree of wikilove...by saying that I have absolutely no ill will towards you or anyone else leaning towards a delete vote. My wiki-stress level is now set to copacetic, and I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it. The reason we call these Article for Deletion instead of Vote For Deletion is because this is not just a vote but a discussion... among equals. Viva Wikipedia!!! Group Hug!!! Secondly I want to respond to the content of your post by saying that the subject of discussion is whether there is notable content here. The discussion over how to frame and present the notable content is better left to Talk:the New Way Forward, a page that is at present red-linked. If you agree that there is subject matter here worth writing about, then change your opinion to Keep IMHO, we can mercilessly edit the media links as better ones emerge. If you think there is grounds for deletion, you need to be clear about why... I think I have shown that the article documents the verifiable political machinations and intimations that have occurred prior to the speech, and the natural starting point for this narrative is the Nov 2006 Democratic Takeover, followed by the progressively higher profile meetings that the president has held leading up to his often-promised speech. The section on "the Speech" was deliberately left empty because we don't know what he is going to say, only that many of his actual recent speeches have alluded to an upcoming "new way forward" plan to change the situation in Iraq. In short, believe I have made the case for preservation of the article, and I agree that the links and references should be mercilessly edited (per WP:OWN) as further information emerges. WikiPeace, MPS 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to conditional keep. Doing some homework and reading the links you posted has revealed to me that the term is more of a blanket term than I thought...originally, I believed that the article was only going to be on the speech. Therefore, I've found that the article does have redeeming value, and I am willing to keep it if we don't use any media sources to speculate on what Bush's speech will be on. Cheers, P TO 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PTO and MPS – Thank you both for your most recent posts. I think they’re certainly moving this discussion in the right direction. I wanted to return to a question raised earlier by JWSchmidt that seems to me to be a threshold issue in the deletion debate. That is, does this topic merit a stub? Would you two (or anyone else reading this page) be willing to agree that the New Way Forward is a media title for potential changes to Bush’s Iraq strategy? If the answer is no, then there should not be a stub, let alone an article. Only if the answer is yes should we shift the discussion to the content of the article – and, as MPS suggests, that discussion might be better conducted in the Talk forum. Thoughts? Sean Kass 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are omniscient :D. We have had a few threads on you all at WP:ANI. Back on topic, though, after thinking this one through and doing a little homework, I've found that this warrants at least a stub discribing Bush's opposition about his Iraq policy and his promise to deliver a new plan. However, I still feel that the media garbage about Bush's speech should be left out until they can produce something that isn't just an educated guess. P TO 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can state it as mass media speculation, we just cant pass it out as truth. There is wide speculation that there will be surge, for instance, in troop numbers. This warrants noting. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, it's a wikipedia:stub only because the content is partially there, not because the article is only partially merited. I think the many (NYT, Fox NEws, CNN, Time magazine) google citations I gave to PTO above establish that the media lumps Bush's strategy change under the rubric of "New Way Forward." In short, yes, I believe the content is there to merit an article. IMHO It's a stub for now because we all recognize there's still more research to be done. MPS 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do others agree with MPS’ claim that there is enough consensus to merit an article? Keep in mind that stubs are supposed to be limited to three to ten sentences. If we cannot agree on any more than that, a stub may be all that is merited until we learn more about the New Way Forward (i.e. until the speech or some other announcement of policy).Sean Kass 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is this encyclopedia article supposed to be about? A speech that hasn't been written that might be written and if it does then must be at least partly in response to Democratic actions in Congress that haven't even taken place? A newly coined phrase spinning that the President actually has a plan that is new and will be in a forward direction but with no clear specific meaning except to try to spin public opinion in the face of the public rejection and military failure of "stay the course"? (Now that's an idea. Move this to Stay the course?) Or about various and sundry recent unencyclopedic pundit reports filling commercial infotainment media containing teasing vague conjectures about what happens next between the between the commercials that the teases exist to provide eyeballs for? WAS 4.250 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems to be phrased as if you don't expect a clear topic to be identified. This article is about the very public Bush response to the Iraq Study Group that he has repeatedly referred to as a "new way forward in iraq". Bush has consulted several conservative think tanks and high level officials and promised a speech that most of the mainstream press reports indicate will propose a troop "surge." I mean we could call it proposed troop surge of 2007 but that's a matter for talk:The New Way Forward to sort out, not AFD. MPS 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- Even though it is a speculation, the speculation has congealed as a thing of its own. Don't we want wikipedia to include famous media speculations (e.g. predictions of who will run for president)? In other words, a significant speculation can be viewed as a news event in itself. If it turns out to be wrong, that update should also be added to the page.
- This page is useful for people who hear the term on the news and don't know what it is. Is there any rule about including pages that are useful?Bobrudin 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Even if there is currently uncertainty about the scope of this topic, there does seem to be a foundation of cited material and factual developments to justify the stub. More importantly, if Bush delivers this speech soon there may be many more people looking to read and edit this article. Abgb23 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with reservations. I think it's silly to have an article about what some people think a not-yet happened speech will be about, but it does not seem to violate the crystal ball rule because it is sufficiently documented in the press and it seems that the speech will happen in some form or another. As more details become clearer the article can be updated accordingly (but perhaps some of the sections, such as the personnel changes that may or may not be attributable to the New Way Forward speech/doctrine, are still to speculative for inclusion even if the article as a whole is sufficiently nonspeculative). I don't find any glaring neutrality issues, at least none that can't be cleaned up. And the bottom line to me is that by the time this debate settles on whether or not to delete the article the speech will have happened and then there will definitely be enough material for an article. But if, on the other hand, a couple weeks go by and it becomes clear that the New Way Forward speech will in fact not go forward, then there is certainly a strong argument to delete the article (as opposed to keeping it, and having the article be about the media speculation of a speech that never was). Bsiatadshmia 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep, since it's used on the president's website. Axem Titanium 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Compromise[edit]

Reading the comments above, it sounds to me like the arguments for deletion are two fold:

1) Neutrality: The positive phrase "The New Way Forward" seems to endorse the Bush Administrations policies and is therefore not neutral.
2) Speculation: The speech "The New Way Forward" is in the future and not certain to happen.

What do you all think about trying to address these concerns by making some changes to the article? To make the article more neutral, perhaps the article could include a small section describing--but not endorsing--criticism (by opposition politicians, people in the media, etc.) of the new strategy and/or the phrase itself? To make the article less speculative, perhaps the focus of the article could be on "The New Way Forward" as a policy or strategy rather than a speech. As others have pointed out, parts of the strategy associated with "The New Way Forward" have already been implemented, and are therefore no longer speculative. The article could still mention that the President is expected to lay out the details of this new policy in a speech. --3L Senioritis 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... How do I say this... I appreciate your proposal, 3L. But ... there is already an expectation at wikipedia that this article is going to improve over time (become more WP:NPOV) as editors weigh in with new sourced content. Any wikipedia article becomes more neutral over time. The AFD page is a discussion of whether the article should exist at all. This article stub is less than 72 hours old. If you want to suggest neutrality improvements and title changess, I will start this discussion at Talk:The New Way Forward. In the mean time, be bold and feel free to update the content as you see fit. As for the discussion on wikipedia:speculation and the merits of this article even existing (IOW, this AFD), I really believe that the article currently documents quality information on Bush's publicly advertised Iraq strategy change (nicknamed "new way forward" ). IMHO, it's solidly referenced content about actually occurring historical events ... and for that reason I think it's not WP:CRYSTAL. We shouldn't delete an article stub that covers a legitimate topic that has been documented by the mainstream press for over a month. MPS 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The White house just announced to day that a "way forward" speech will occur Wednesday with details to follow Thursday at Fort Benning. [43] I have added this to the article. Are there any major objections left to ending this AFD? MPS 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, "The New Way Forward" was not in Bush's speech and it does not seem to be at the White House website. --JWSchmidt 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard "The New Way Forward" several times during Shepard Smith's commentary after the speech on FOXNews. PTO 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - whitehouse.gov fact sheet: A New Way Forward in Iraq —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPS (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - After hearing and reading the speech and reading and hearing comments about the speech, I find the article to be an unfocused mess that misinforms and is unencyclopedic. WAS 4.250 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, It is absurd that we have not closed this vote yet. There very obviously was a speech last night, and it did lay out Bush's new strategy in iraq based on criticisms made by the Iraq Study Group. As evidenced by press reports many refer to this as Bush's "New Way Forward" speech. The name is immaterial. If the article is unfocused, then edit it to make it better. As far as content, most everyone would acknowledge that this was a hugely notable speech about a hugely notable policy change, so why are we talking about deleting the article? If you want to page move this to Bush's speech announcing his new Iraq strategy January 2007 then talk about that on Talk:The New Way Forward. MPS 16:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The title of the article is inappropriate for the title of an article about the speech and the article has very little to do with the speech (being written before the speech might have something to do with that) so that a speech was given means nothing as the speech and the article have little in common. WAS 4.250 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The speech and the strategy change were both formulated prior to January 10. The article cites sources to trace the development of the strategy change as it developed. If you don't like the title, then please participate in the discussion at Talk:The New Way Forward to think of a better title. How about New Way Forward (Iraq policy change speech). We don't delete articles that have bad titles.... Also the Gettysburg Address has a background section, and Chocolate City speech has a context section so why not this speech having some lead-in content in it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPS (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for now - At this present time, this is a really hot topic, and seems to be talked about widly in American media right now. I suggest that more time be given to see whether it really survives the test of long tern notability. Avador 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that per the essay ...WP:RECENT... that we can reevaluate this in a few months. I am starting to wonder if the AFD may last that long? ; ) MPS 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but why not rename it? If it sounds like Wikipedia would be endorsing Bush policy by using the White House's name for his policy change, try to think of a more neutral article title. But don't delete it while there's a link to it on the Current Events page. But surely we have articles on anti-Bush (or Democratic Party initiatives) which have similar titles. We need a policy for describing government initiatives whose offical titles have a positive spin. --Uncle Ed 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; I personally don't have a strong preference about what the name of the article should be -- but whatever we decide, we should seek to be NPOV. Let's talk about this at Talk:The New Way Forward. MPS 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally hate GWB and everything he says or does, but this is a good article on a valid subject. yalbik 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- For the reasons stated by user edison LCpl 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The White House explains the new strategy with "Fact Sheet: The New Way Forward in Iraq " [44]. That argues for keeping the article, and referring to it from Iraq War. Edison 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment 15 keep, two delete... I call the question. Will somebody please call the admins? MPS 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep It sounds like Newspeak, but even though Bush is doubleplusungood, imho, the article was enclopaedic from the beginning. Agree with rename to The New Way Forward in Iraq as per White House usage and above. Also, it would seem that this article should have had a breaking news template and that it still should.--Hjal 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Advertising. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red-onions.com[edit]

Advertising, does not meet notability guidelines Jvhertum 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete db-empty, tagged. Danny Lilithborne 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. He's already listed at List of Countdown octochamps. Sandstein 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Briers[edit]

Typical Countdown octochamp that has not seemed to transcend the boundaries of the show in terms of receiving major press coverage, nor has he broken a major record on the show. He also does not seem to be notable for any non-Countdown endeavors. As Countdown champions are not automatically notable as per previous AfDs on the subject, I am nominating the article for deletion. Andy Saund e rs 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person does not meet the guidance of notability. Personally I'm not sure if even Countdown series champions are notable merely for their achievements on Countdown. Sam Blacketer 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Countdown octochamps and merge any merge-worthy info (probably nothing). delldot | talk 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Steel 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bickel[edit]

Meaningless vandalism, of no purpose or value to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjbfour (talk • contribs)

Speedy G1. Appropriate tag added. Rather a mess of an AfD, but I hope we're back in process now. Tevildo 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete that bad boy--Tainter 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game music[edit]

Well, this is actually for List of video game music and List of video game music A to List of video game music Z - forgive me if I haven't the time to do everything to the other 26 pages. It seems to be trying to be a list of every single game soundtrack CD etc. ever released. It's just a huge, pretty much impossible to maintain list of mostly unnotable CDs (etc.). FredOrAlive 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WAYYYYY too broad. WP:NOT#IINFO. Axem Titanium 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable. If this were a list of Grammy nominated game music or something, that might be okay. --Alan Au 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too broad to be feasible or useful in documenting or illustrating anything. GassyGuy 16:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article could certainly exist for list of video game music but this isn't it. — brighterorange (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: List is unmaintainable; whoever started the list is presumably trying to document every song in existence, something that a specialised site caters for, not Wikipedia. Additionally, the list provides links to site hosting illegal material. --Scottie theNerd 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 10:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin - it seems that the edit history was not maintained properly when these articles were originally split off from the main article. Would you mind checking the deleted history of List of video game music A to G (if those edits weren't lost in the long ago database crash) and see where this information was originally taken from? --- RockMFR 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's unmaintainable, too broad in scope and since when was music from a computer game considered notable for an encyclopedia. It's VERY rare that VG music is notable enough for an in-depth article. The Kinslayer 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because its not even a list of video game music, it's a list of video game music sites. Bad grammar and spelling...and seriously, what kind of person would put a Wikipedia link to "list"? TheListUpdater 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M-2 (Michigan highway)[edit]

There is no conclusive proof that there's ever been a highway numbered M-2, except for one (stated in the article as unreliable) map. Thus, M-2 is just a placeholder designation, and there's no need to have an article on it.—Scott5114 ↗ 19:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need to have articles on routes that have never been assigned. An article listing all unassigned Michigan designations may be acceptable, however. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Michigan highway system. The quote can be a footnote or something to its listing there; the article seems to exist mainly to highlight Bessert's (informed) speculation. But it's not much to go on. --Dhartung | Talk 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to see how other systems handle nonexistent routes, and found that U.S. Route 47 redirects to List of United States Numbered Highways. Therefore we should redirect this to Michigan highway system and remove it from the browsing order. --NE2 02:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable nonexistent road. Edison 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dhartung and NE2. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dhartung, NE2, and Polaron. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - if it never existed - why have an article on it? • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 18:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was TURNIP... er, mean KEEP. -Doc^g 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center[edit]

(third nom)

Completely unencyclopediac. Part of a walled garden of conspiracy theory articles controlled by a cabal of trolls and POV pushers. Previously a POV fork from main article. Improperly kept on previous articles in violation of truth. Article exists only to allow Truthers to earn a buck and serves as an advertisement for their cause. TheOnlyChoice 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turnip Will not be deleted currently. I vote turnip to avoid drama. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. There is a big, huge, titanic, enormous problem with this article: the hypothesis has zero basis in peer-reviewed research. 100% of the sources are conspiracy theory websites, whose reliability is slightly below that of an alcoholic crack addict. Why are there no rebuttals in the professional journals? Because the professional journals, without exception, treat the theory as the twaddle it clearly is and won't give it house room. But it has got a lot of coverage in the popular press, albeit again mostly borderline incredulity. I'd say it needs drastic pruning and the lead needs to eb rewritten to reflect the fact that nobody who had not already made their mind up has lent any support to this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Just because it's utter bloody nonsense doesn't make it non-notable. It's along the lines of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations and other such paranoid conspiracy *COUGH*drivel*COUGH* hypotheses. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't have said it better than TheOnlyChoice --rogerd 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article documents a social phenomenon - that of the facts of the hypothesis and the existence of the hypothesis. It does not argue for the hypothesis, nor does it argue against it. It simply, correctly and competently documents it as a hypothesis that exists. The topic is suitable for encyclopaedic coverage and the article simply gives it that. There was a certain inevitability that, as soon as a WP:Peer Review was asked for, someone would take the opportunity to propose it for deletion. There is no issue with that since an AfD is, in many ways, a review process. However it is important to make the distinction between the article which documents the demolitionists' hypothesis, which this handles correctly, and the hypothesis itself. A correct and encyclopaedic article, which this strives to be, documents that citable facts of the existence of the hypothesis without either validating or invalidating that hypothesis. The article needs to be judged on the merits of how it handles the topic - a notable, well reported topic - not on the merits of the various opinions people have about the truth or otherwise behind the destruction of the buildings. Fiddle Faddle 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The comment "POV Fork" in the nomination is incorrect. The article was created as a content fork, which is a valid, recommended and documented procedure when the parent article has grown too long, and the content which formed it was deleted from the parent article. As for trolls and POV pushers, as someone who has been working on the article itself while absolutely not supporting any thoughts about controlled demolition being respinsible for the destruction of the buildings, I do find that comment rather hard to swallow. You don't need to believe a thing is true when working on making a decent article about it. Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, once again this article is listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, a page which violates several policies.[45] This article has been put up for deletion twice before, and everytime the article is kept (first time keep, second time no consensus).
In addition, User:TheOnlyChoice who nominated this article has few or no other edits, Just over 20 in all, and this account has been solely used for Afds. This is a bad faith nomination by probable sockpuppet. User:Hemlock Martinis, User:Nyp and User:Bouke in the last AfD[46] this "user" nominated all called that nomination a bad faith nomination. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travb: Your argument here has nothing to do with the question of whether the article should be deleted. 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielF (talk • contribs)

Okay, here is my argument why it should be kept. I keep repeating myself on all of these AfDs, sorry GabrielF that I didn't repeat myself here again. Even though this hypothesis is kooky and, in my opinion, total bullshit, that doesn't mean that it doesnt have a place on wikipedia. I would not support this hypothesis on the 9/11 page, but there is a small fringe group which support this theory, and which have written a lot of articles supporting the theory.

See: Flat Earth Society Apollo moon landing hoax accusations Kennedy assassination theories for others group that believes kooky theories. The first two pages have never been put up for deletion, and the JFK page was closed early because of overwhelming consensus to keep.

I think these editors who disagree with this theory should spend there time adding condemnations about this theory on the wikipage, instead of attempting to silence these conspiracy theorists. This takes work and research though. It is much easier to simply delete ideas you disagree with, then researching why those ideas are fallacious and have no merit. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The hypothesis is complete nonsense, but the fact that a lot of people believe it is unfortunately notable. The article does a good job of describing that notability. --Bduke 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bored Keep This is the 3rd nomination for this article! Have you nothing better to do? The article is in fact encyclopedic, and wikipedia if full of balanced articles on kooky theories. Seen the Flat Earth Society article? Just because there's an article doesn't mean that wikipedia endorses the concept. If the public want to find out what all the fuss is about, where better to go than a balanced article on wikipedia? Deleting the article will make wikipedia a poorer place and a less useful encyclopedia.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 107 references. I love the name-calling in the nomination – very persuasive. — goethean ॐ 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and speedy close We've been through this many times now. Same circumstances, same result.--Hús ö nd 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've just read about this entrepreneur from UK who is making furniture from human hair. Lovelight 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what could be made from recycled AfDs? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination was unnecessary and tendentious, especially in light of previous discussion and consensus. Please find a more productive manner of contributing to Wikipedia, thank you. Badagnani 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nonsense, yes, but encyclopedic nonsense none the less. GabrielF 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid encylopedic entry for people looking for information. --RedHillian 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Yes, the subject is a conspiracy theory not grounded in reality. However, it's very notable, easily verified as notable and currently undergoing Peer Review to improve the article's quality. The AfD is premature, and worded in a rather uncivil manner. - Kesh 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Fiddle Faddle, Travb, Seabhcan. SalvNaut 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hoax, and a fairly silly one, but notable nonetheless, with multiple verifiable reliable sources. I worked in a similar building at that time, and I would have made serious inquiries if explosives had been installed around the structural columns. The plane crashes were a sufficient cause to bring down the flimsy buildings which lacked good fireproofing of structural members. But if this many sources said people believed the moon was made of green cheese, we should have an article noting the fact, which can also be a good debunking page. Edison 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fantastic article. Maybe this is a GA nom put in the wrong place? ;) --- RockMFR 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't imagine an article could be deleted based on the argument offered in this nomination. An article can't be deleted on the basis of unsubstantiated claims about its editors' motives, can it? Even substantiated claims about such motives would be irrelevant if the article ultimately met WP standards (e.g., by the efforts of other editors). No specific criticism of the article's content has been offered.--Thomas Basboll 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turnips, per above. I still think this page is original research by synthesis, and will be until enough social scientists write papers about a Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center - and even if they ever do, I bet the papers are called something like Jewish Lightning -- Conspiracy theories about Building 7. But per Hipocrite, deletion is unlikely. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the subject matter itself is unlikely to ever have a valid peer review, it's pretty well established as a notable conspiracy theory. And if you want a more scientifically grounded view of the conspiracist's claims, try this book. As soon as I can scrape together the cash, I'm going to get a copy and use it to help improve the article. -- Kesh 17:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

emphatic Keep Article is well-sourced. Theory is notable, though absurd. That's ok, as article does not advocate truth of the theory. Derex 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I vote Potato(e). Part of a walled garden of conspiracy theory articles, supported by refs to conspiracy theorist websites. Next thing you know, advocates will be creating an article entitled Guvment agents alter Pentagon parking lot video to cover up missile attack hypothesis. No wait, am I supposed to be Mr. Green today, or Mr. White, or Mr. Brown? Nuclear, can you remind me what my role is today? Sing it with me now [Copyvio removed - FAAFA]. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you bring it up, I believe I said it was to go on articles and complain about sources ... what are you complaining about here? If you care to watch the movie, there was no conspiracy, none of them were inside workers. GG. Anyway this looks like a bite you won't be taking *cough* giggle narf point. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wingnut theory, yes, but a notable wingnut theory that should have an article. delldot | talk 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:per Fiddle Faddle. Bad Faith Nomination from a Walled Garden of Anti-9/11-Truth Cabalists ™ ;-) Is it written somewhere in the Official Cabal Playbook that all nominations must allege that editors are trying to help generate profits for some nebulous nefarious unnamed person or group? - Steven E. Jones Defense Fund 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accusing your felow editors of POV pushing is not a reason to delete an article. WP:AGF. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't work on that page, for the same reasons mainstream engineers don't bother to spend much time rebuttaling the CT misinformation....it's not worth their time. My comment isn't a reflection on many who have put time into the page either because they find the issue interesting or because they are determined to create a NPOV article of the event. I still think it should be retitled to Conspiracy theories regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center, however. As the article won't be deleted...I "vote"....Rhubarb--MONGO 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The mainstrem editor has spoken. ;) SalvNaut 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cannot agree with any sentence in the nomination. Notable conspiracy theory. The Pet Goat says so. William Avery 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep On part because it seems like the deletion is being pushed by a cabal of POV pushers themselves. I disagree with the CD hypothesis myself, but I don't think it should be deleted, because it is a notable social phenomenon. I mean blink 182's Mark Hoppus and Charline Sheen believe this theory. South Park based an entire episode off of this, parodying the wingnuts. Plus... THERE'S A THING CALLED A CRITICISM SECTION. Which, is not based off sources from wingnut websites. --Saint-Paddy 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where's this so called cabal of POV pushers, exactly? Are we the ones voting Turnip and Rhubarb? Did you just decide not to read the discussion? Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try not to be so paranoid. Doesnt seem like he is mentioning your name at all. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable, definitely encyclopedic. .V. 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep notable and important to wikipedia. Free expression is absolute. Wiki ian 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article expresses an issue with a portion of the population of the USA and other countries in the world. I agree with Saint-Paddy and others. (BTW: A view of the contributions by the nominator shows an entry onto the Conspiracy Noticeboard [47] and an FYI notice sent to other members.)Lmcelhiney 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very Noteable, Very Idiotic. However, even idiotic theorys can become notable, and sane people can find out on wiki what the nitwits are blathering about. 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Personally biased about this page, because I was there. I did not sense or suspect any controlled demolition during or after the attack. Abe Froman 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That you were present and saw no evidence of controlled demoliton may, if citable, be a useful part of the article. Additionally, the fact that you saw no evidence for it neither makes the article suitable for deletion nor for keeping. It is a valid personal statement but not a valid reason to "vote" either way. The article is not about whether the destructon had any elements of controlled demolition in it. The article is about a hypothesis that some people have proposed to explain the demolition. As one of the editors who have worked on the article I can state that I think the hypothesis is WP:BALLS, but that does not prevent it from being notable. The article is about a notable piece of what appears to be ludicrous folklore. It does not express any opinions or conclusions about this hypothesis, it simply documents that it exists. Fiddle Faddle 07:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant keep - This is notable because there are sufficient numbers of 9/11 conspiracists who believe this. It's clearly WRONG, but enough wrong people are notable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dogpile Keep. Article satisfies all inclusion criteria. Is someone trying to make a WP:POINT? — coelacan talk — 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable and fairly neutral to me. Atlantis Hawk 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that some organizations have published material specifically to discredit this theory only adds to its notability. Also, the article doesn't say "The WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition." The article is about the hypothesis itself. What we have to do is provide NPOV coverage of the hypothesis (even if it's crap). A truly NPOV coverage requires outlining both sides of the argument. Quack 688 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I may, I'd like to remind the nominator of WP:AGF. I think the name-calling in the nomination is entirely uncalled for (but then again, I think name-calling is always uncalled for.) .V. 07:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per unencyclopedic consipiracy cruft material and WP:NOR. --Strothra 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. The only reason for this article is so the conspiracy theory people can have a place to promote their zany ideas.--Beguiled 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral problemed article which does not appear to have improved much since I last looked. Does have notability, but that isn't the sole requirement for existence of an article. Most likely should still be just inculded in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and not have a seperate article. The current article is mostly a technical explanation rather than a summary of the idea, and therefore is unencyclopedic. The article is also written much like a paper trying to justify a thesis rather than an encylopedia, which falls under the previously mentioned "unencyclopedic. This all can be improved, though I have serious doubts as to whether or not that will ever happen. --Wildnox (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be reincluded in the root article because that is 112 kilobytes long when the maximum should be 30kb. This article itself is 70kb, rather than being deleted, it should be split in two. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Petri Krohn 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nonsense, possibly and probably yes, but notable and encyclopedic material.--Vintagekits 01:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I disagree with the hypothesis completely and have little understanding of the mindset that makes people believe this stuff. But the hypothesis is out there and the article makes an effort to provide nearly 100 sources, many of which are unaffiliated with the more wacko blogs of fellow conspiracy theorists. Alansohn 07:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Alansohn above. The editors of this article have done a lot of work to keep it NPOV and encyclopedic. -sthomson06 (Talk) 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - NPOV and encyclopedic. Stacks77 20:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know that the basic premise is a lot of crap, and this has been repeatedly debunked, but it does adhere to WP:NPOV and notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Leave it in. RashBold (talk · contribs · count) 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, if only because it's a view held by a large number of people and is therefore notable. Personally I think the official story of 9/11 was a little far-fetched, but I also know that we'll never ever know for sure what actually happened. Deleting this article would be kind of like deleting the God article. --Jim (Talk) 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as we know September 11 was caused by elephants wanting to take revenge on their zookeeepers by hypnotizing some Arabians and making them take over a plane (don't ask me where I got that from). Now, we don't have an article on that, so Delete. (Also fails WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Jorcoga Yell! 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that your theory is as likely to be true as the one this article is about. However, we have no veriable sources that anyone actually supports your theory, while we do have verifiable sources that people support the boloney in this article. That is the difference and why your arguments for deletion are not valid. --Bduke 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Exactly. Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of a single known truth - it operates on the basis of reporting verifyable facts. It is easily verifyable that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists include people who hold this opinion of what happened, and that they've written extensively about it. It's notable because enough people believe them. It would be neglegent of us not to report that people believe this, even if every single reasonable rational human being thinks that only crazy people think that way. We should (and do) report on the fringe opinions that we don't agree with; this is no exception. Georgewilliamherbert 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question In what ways does the article fail WP:NOR and WP:NOT? One cannot just throw things like that into the pot. That is like saying "The sky is green" and not justifying it. If it fails these then I think the closing admin needs to know what you are referring to. Equally those editing the article deserve the chance to put that right. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopediac topic (if not air-headed, but that doesn't make it less so). F.F.McGurk 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable and notable nonsense. Gazpacho 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 19:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Covered Hall[edit]

The article does not state any reason for notability Meno25 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think an arena of this size is inherently notable. Yes the article needs to be expanded, but deleting wont help that process.Obina 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks notable to me. Why not add an expand tag instead of deleting? delldot | talk 19:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Paddy[edit]

AfD nominated by Taramoon. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination, my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is used very often in Ireland and the article's matter is relevant. If there are reference problems, I suggest bringing the matter up with the Irish Wiki Projects. Cat Constantine 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, it has references and content. Obina 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline insulting, but has references and many GHits.--Anthony.bradbury 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is sourced and verifiable. -- ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cultural appropriation is never pretty, and this entry doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:DELETE. - WeniWidiWiki 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems sourced, notable, and verifiable. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as repost of previously deleted article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddies. -999 (Talk) 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:User:999 is canvassing and vote-stacking on this issue and has contacted at least five other editors attempting to influence the outcome of this debate as evidenced HERE - WeniWidiWiki 04:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The previous version of this article had weak citations. This version is now thoroughly cited. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's referenced and notable. :bloodofox: 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sociological phenomena are notable if verifiable. Caknuck 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The references included don't seem to verify that the term is in general usage. The existence of one song doesn't make it a real slang term any more than "Polythene Pam" or "Mean Mr. Mustard". It is possible that a bit more work could remedy this, however. I found a couple other examples with a simple search, definitely better than footnote 5 (which is really stretching it). ANY reference from a slang dictionary would be welcome, whether general or specific to the U.K. I'm also not sure it means what the article says it means in most cases: it seems to be used as an adjective mostly, not a noun. (But who knows; maybe it will BECOME a term in use one day, like "Truthiness".) Rosencomet 17:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I see a number of references to usage have been added, but has anybody written about the term in an academic context with respect to cultural appropriation. That is, this appears to be the first article to try to draw all these facts together and draw conclusions from them. That falls under the definition of "original research" on Wikipedia. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you haven't looked at the article recently but there are citations in academic journals. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Academic journals cited for the use of "plastic paddy" in terms of cultural appropriation include The International Journal of Cultural Studies, Irish Studies Review and Irish University Review. That's more citations than found on the majority of WP articles that *do* require academic-level cites. For an article of this type, popular culture cites would be sufficient. This article goes beyond that and includes citations of usage in both popular culture and academia. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be very well cited. Tarinth 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep however, the article is almost entirely POV - needs a MAJOR clean up or else it would be a delete from me. Also the references quoted to not back up what is claimed in the article - again very POV--Vintagekits 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - reduce to dicdef and move to Wiktionary. Not particularly notable, but deserves a place in the dictionary. Jefferson Anderson 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is already in Wiktionary. Article is unneeded, this expression needs nothing more than a dicdef. It's simply neo-slang. Jefferson Anderson 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has very weak references. Also, who uses the term. I have never heard the term being used once in Ireland. The only people who use the term are a handful of journalists. 86.42.159.149 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep - Useful cultural reference, similar to Scanger in scope. Needs tweaks for NPOV, though, and editorialism - Alison ^✍ 18:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are really two questions:

Does Wikipedia need an article on "people whose claim to be Irish is disputed or derided by many Irish people"

If so, what is an appropriate name for such an article?

I believe the answer to (1) is no. The phenomenon is real but not very well-defined or autonomous. The references seem more to prove the term exists than to define what precisely it means, who it is applied to, and by whom. The content and references belong in Irish diaspora, Republic of Ireland national football team, Immigration to Ireland, Irish American, cultural appropriation, cultural cringe, etc. If (the answer to (1) is yes, then I don't think "Plastic Paddy" is a POV answer to (2), but there may not be any neutral term to describe the alleged phenomenon (cf Neoliberalism). "Plastic Paddy" is a genuine term, and certainly merits a place in Wiktionary, but nothing more. jnestorius^(talk) 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should be about the phenomenon and not solely on the history/usage of the phrase, obviously, but it is easy for me to imagine that we'll have a reasonable encyclopedia article here, given the existence of academic writing on the subject. Have the people arguing for deletion missed the notes and references in the article? The only other deletion comment seems to be "never heard of it / not in general usage", which I dsipute both as a factual statement and as a criteria for deletion. The article needs some help, but I don't see any evidence that it is a lost cause. Jkelly 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've encountered the term in the Usenet newgroup soc.culture.irish and the article as it currently stands has references. Autarch 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs some cleanup and maybe a little bit of NPOV tweaking, but I don't see any case for deletion. Dppowell 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is referenced as a notable term. Logoistic 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a dicdef appears to be more suited to Wiktionary than Wikipedia. WP:WINAD. Lo and behold! it's already there at wikt:Plastic Paddy. I too have seen the term in s.c.i, but what does that prove? If someone can suggest how this can be expanded beyond a simple definition, I'll change my opinion, but so far I haven't seen anything like that. What [N]POV has to do with the matter escapes me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As a result of Angus McLellan's find I am changing my vote to Delete for the same reasons--Vintagekits 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning that this is a dicdef and belongs in Wiktionary. Tunnels of Set 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef `'mikka 04:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be ephemeral but so are lots of (e.g.) computer games listed on wiki.Stamboul 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced, verifiable, and more than a dicdef. —An gr 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable, multiple sources Catchpole 21:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well used term (Gnevin 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I think it should be kept due to it's wide use.Wikidudeman 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edeals[edit]

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

This is a definition and not suitable for Wikipedia. This kind of definition isn't suitable for Wiktionary, either. --Адам12901 ^Talk 22:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef, fails WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 02:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing worth keeping here. delldot | talk 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tubezone 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Ruffin[edit]

Jeremy Ruffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not verifiable. He's a 14-year-old billionaire with no relevant Google hits. I'd prod it, but he removed the "not verified" tag, so I assume he'd contest the deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Can even be speedied in my view by the fact that this is not a credible claim to notability.Obina 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can I be the first to say the word "hoax"? May be a subtle attempt to embarrass the subject. Sam Blacketer 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax is not a dirty word, and this clearly is one. Or at least an untruth.--Anthony.bradbury 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate delete per Sam Blacketer - article is creator's only contribution and appears to be a snide attack on a 14 y/o individual. I've tagged the page db-attack. Newyorkbrad 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been deleted - this can be closed. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The Delete arguments do not win the day here -- quite. Herostratus 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VGMix[edit]

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

First nomination here
Looking at the old nomination, it looks like most of the "keep" arguments were based on content, rather than notability. Its Alexa ranking has actually decreased since the last nom. I saw a couple of keeps based on its supposed connection with "The Shizz" which has since been deleted. VGMix once enjoyed a hopelessly passing mention in a Salon.com article but still manages to fail the "multiple nontrivial publications" requirement of WP:WEB. One user mentioned that OCRemix would have to be removed too if this article were deleted but fails to realize that OCRemix has a bazillion publications about it and has even gained notoriety per WP:MUSIC through its music album releases. One final thing, VGMix's ability to "help less-established remixers get critiques on their work" will not be impaired by not having an article on Wikipedia (ie don't even try a WP:ILIKEIT argument). Axem Titanium 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unverifiable, not notable. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete site has been dead for a year, and its not coming back any time soon as clearly illustrated on the forum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.14.135 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Extremely megasuperweak keep. I remember that VGMix got launched with quite a bit of fanfare (I think there was a Slashdot story and Pelit mentioned it on their website) and there was at least acknowledgement at the time that "yep, this site exists". (I remember it because it was one of the first big game remix sites I had heard of, besides of c64audio.com =) ...though most of the discussions that I remember hearing at the time were along the lines of "heck, we already have OCRemix and remix.kwed.org". However, I'm not aware of any big press mentions surrounding the place... clearly, not utterly insignificant site, but Í guess it's never been Really Big either. We've probably deleted articles about more significant sites... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sourcing to establish notability, only existence. GassyGuy 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Site isnt even up. Let them recreate the site, if thats really ever going to happen, and then restart this wiki. until then deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.140.176.14 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The above user has a history of "reverting vandalism" on the OCRemix and VGMix pages, while in fact adding more. This vote should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt. Powerlord 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anonymous users' voices on AfDs are already taken with a grain of salt. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the site is not presently up, it is one of the more well known video game music sites after VGMusic.com and OCRemix. There is no indication that the site will be down forever. Quite the contrary, the development team today released a list of features that will be included when the site returns. -- Powerlord 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the fact that it is not currently up is not one of its reasons for deletion. The fact that it isn't notable is. Axem Titanium 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please inform the two people who used that as the reason for their delete votes, not me. Powerlord 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for whatever it's worth, the fact that the site is dead is not really a reason to delete an article per se - otherwise we'd fail to document many pioneer sites, most of the dot-com boom, and famous sites deemed illegal. We even have a category for these! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have changed my vote from Weak keep to Keep based on Axem Titanium's comment. Powerlord 18:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it'll be up soon and it was massively popular when previously up. Here's a Gamespy mention of it to help with notability. The editor even praises VGMix over OCR. --Zeality 16:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Salon.com article and Gamespy's article both show its notoriety, and within the video game remixing community it is highly regarded and very well known. --Yellow Archer 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still has no substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. The Salon mention is one word, and the gaming magazine reference provided above is little better. Sandstein 07:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was also a brief mention (with screenshot) in an old issue of the Hyper magazine, if anybody's interested in tracking that down.--Gwilym 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage/sources exist for this, it seems. Debatable whether they are "substantial" - I think they are. --- RockMFR 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as an unverifiable group without reliable sources to back up any claims. (aeropagitica) 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Chamber[edit]

The Dark Chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Previous prod candidate deprodded by an anon. This article is totally unverifiable, and is not notable anyway. NatusRoma | Talk 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per {{db-group}}. No notability at all asserted for this garbage. -- Kicking222 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No sign of notability whatsoever. Unverifiable and at best dubious. Pascal.Tesson 05:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 any reliably sourced information to Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK). —Centrx→talk • 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Tweed[edit]

Jack Tweed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Only claimed notability is as the boyfriend of Jade Goody and as a contestant on Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK). Individual game show contestants are, I think, not notable in themselves. The other Celebrity Big Brother contestants are celebrities, and so are notable already. Sam Blacketer 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There seem to be sufficient articles of which he's the subject (linked with Goody, but still) to establish notability. Otto4711 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a long debate but I only make 232 independent google hits. Sam Blacketer 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of hits isn't relevant. The question is whether he's the subject of multiple reliable sources. He could have two google hits and as long as they're independent multiple sources he meets the threshold. Otto4711 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepBut by the end of the show he will be a household name as pretty much every other person that goes on the normal show is!. Timclare 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Timclare. --IanIanSymes 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn reality show contestant. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge What is his job? Is he famous in his own right like Jeff Brazier was? Triangle e 13:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, only "famous" because of his girlfriend. One Night In Hackney 20:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, since he will be written about frequently in British media, at least during the next few weeks. Dmn € Դմն 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The UK tabloid press have substantially lower standards of notability than an encyclopedia. Reality TV stars are generally not notable by encyclopedic standards, this has been established in many previous Afds. One Night In Hackney 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jack Tweedy is a vapid non entity but to ignore his noteriety in todays Z list celebrity creating society would be snobbish and elitist (traits that I feel sometime prevent Wikipedia fulfilling its real promise)

Exactly: they prevent Wikipedia from becoming a repository for all semi-notable human knowledge, so keep.--HisSpaceResearch 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, either, if you'd bother to read the link I posted. Nor is Wikipedia a reflection of popular culture. The person is not notable. You said this yourself. That's where the line is drawn, article deserves a swift deletion. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jack Tweed is famous as he is a model and a football agent in training. Also he has made lots of publicity. The article has been undated substantially, and is much larger than before. P e ter will 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - References? Not every minor model or football hopeful has an article. Please provide some press sources or web-based RS that justify your claim of "famous"ness.
Comment - Doesn't him entering Celebrity Big Brother give a sort of idea? P e ter will 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--W o o ty Woot? contribs 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- probably more famous than some of the other contestants. he is also fairly attractive. Astrotrain 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy is relatively well known on the Z list circuit and has appeared in many gossip coloums and magazines with Jade and is now in CBB 2007 which is probably enough in its own right --Vintagekits 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - his entire biographical information could be put into Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) with no disruption. There's no guarantee anyone will be interested in him after he leaves the show, especially if he splits up with Goody. Surely he does not merit a separate entry until such time as he does something noteworthy in his own right. 81.159.14.140 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I might add that his surname is Tweed, not Tweedy as above, he's not even notable enough for us to get his name right![reply]
Comment - Well I have been getting his name right, and I changed the page. Many tabloids also get his name wrong. He is well known, its just a thing that happens. Many people say Tescos or Lidls, however these don't have an s on the end. That doesn't prove anything. P e ter will 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It doesn't prove anything, but it's suggestive in this case. The examples you cite can't really compare, 'Tescos' and 'Lidls' are examples of a well known brand names acquiring a colloquial variant. That clearly doesn't apply here. A more appropriate example might be Jimmy Savile/Saville - but he has the excuse of having an unusual variant of the name. Clearly Tweed hasn't yet entered the public consciousness enough for people (even newspapers, as you say) to realise he's not a Tweedy. I never heard of him before today, and I'm not completely ignorant of pop culture. It may yet transpire that this guy forges a genuine celebrity career for himself in the future thanks to Big Brother, but until that time he does not merit encyclopaedic recognition outside a Big Brother/Jade Goody article. 81.159.14.140 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - hardly notable - did we know him before CBB?

Comment - I knew him. I don't read national newspapers or girl magazines, but I have still heard of him. Normally through TV adverts, so he is wellknown to some extent. I'm not say he is A list, but he deserves some articles. I have seen some articles, for example Toby Cockerell, Mandy Dingle or Peggy Skillbeck. These are all one line articles. If they can have a topic he can. I bet they'll all be shut now. P e ter will 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as per WP:SNOWBALL

Visible canadian moon[edit]

Visible canadian moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is probably a silly hoax, I'm pretty sure that the Moon can be seen in northern Canada. Speedy delete tag removed. Hopefully this shall be speedied per WP:SNOW, as hoaxes aren't a WP:CSD. Unless, of course, this fraxis lunas is an actual phenomenon. Hús ö nd 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete its a joke/hoak. --Salix alba (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it's true (I haven't been to northern Canada to check) it's not encyclopaedic. Sam Blacketer 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bogus. Article is creator's only contribution, never a good sign. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I guess it is partially true for some of the year. The Orbit of the Moon of the moon is close to the Ecliptic, so as the Sun is not visiable during winter in the far north, it might be that the full-moon will be below the horizion in the summer. Still not canadian specific, could be worth including something in Orbit of the Moon. --Salix alba (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article, though, implies that the moon is never visible in those locations and any photographs showing it are forged, which is clearly untrue. I suppose the article could be rewritten to say that as opposed to flat deleted, but it's an unlikely search term in any event. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyones interested I found a nice little program [48] which can show when the moon is above/below the equator and the corresponding phase. This confirms my guess about not being able to see a full moon in mid summer at high latitudes. --Salix alba (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely search term even if temporarily true (but the Moon goes below the horizon at all latitudes). See also midnight sun & polar night. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been as far north in Canada as the 55th parallel, and I had no problems seeing the Moon (although, it was summer). No ghits for fraxis lunas. If it smells hoaxy... Caknuck 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "This is due to a scientific phenomenon called fraxis lunas." Balderdash. Fan-1967 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper WP:BALLS. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm in Oulu (65° North), and the Moon is clearly visible (at least often enough when I've actually had any chance to go out of this home of mine at dark when the moon is not new). I spent my childhood in Muonio (67°57' North) and I have hazy recollections of seeing moon there too-oo. I don't have photographic proof because the Moon is so difficult to photograph, regrettably, we wolves think it's so-oo beauuutiful. My hazy knowledge of geography and astronomy notwithstanding, I can't see why moon visibility in Canada would be any different because this planet tends to kind of rotate or something. Yeah, obviously you can't take just my word for it in a deletion debate, but let's just blatantly assume that this is a hoax that has to justify its truthfulness, let alone existence, via reliable sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be working with one of those fraudulent tourist societies from the article! Delete as likely hoax, fails WP:V. GassyGuy 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax -- The Anome 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also, note that this is comprehensively debunked by http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2001/20011130.htm -- thanks for this link go to User:Angus Lepper, who posted it on the original contributor's talk page

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

~~^ Sherman, Robert B. Walt's Time: from before to beyond. Santa Clarita: Camphor Tree Publishers, 1998.page 109~~

[1] Sherman, Robert B. Walt's Time: from before to beyond. Santa Clarita: Camphor Tree Publishers, 1998.page 109

[1]

Lose a Shoe[edit]

Tacit Software[edit]

Avangate[edit]

Vagrant Downfall and David Beeler[edit]

Bro (second nomination)[edit]

Dalton Road[edit]

Josh avni[edit]

Quick Key[edit]

Gallery of illuminated manuscript images[edit]

Bishoujo Janshi Pretty Sailor 18-kin[edit]

Crappling[edit]

BMB Finishes[edit]

University of Nottingham Students' Union[edit]

James McFadden (Scottish Hockey player)[edit]

Fraze Gang[edit]

Greg Fraser[edit]

The Prank[edit]

Armistice and Dedication Day[edit]

Silver Chips Online (2nd Nomination)[edit]

American Nihilist Underground Society (4th Nomination)[edit]

Japanese suffixes[edit]

Crystal of Ultimate Vision[edit]

TWIRL- Seinfeld umbrella move[edit]

Fkn0wned[edit]

Chuck's Wood B-B-Q Pit[edit]

HARRY POTTER ONLINE[edit]

PGNx Media (3rd nomination)[edit]

Morgan Featherstone[edit]

L. A. Rotheraine[edit]

Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards 2004[edit]

Russian True Orthodox Church[edit]

Orca (supercar)[edit]

Faxed Head[edit]

The Bradford Gypsy[edit]

CCS (magazine)[edit]

John Russell Herbert[edit]

Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field[edit]

Bestian Order of Aestheteka[edit]

Order of Nine Angles[edit]

The Order of the Black Venus[edit]

Satanic artists[edit]

Fiscalism[edit]

English Tourist Board[edit]

Bull Moose Party II[edit]

Ergadenylic acid[edit]

Petri Suvanto[edit]

John deyto[edit]

Communologue[edit]

Careless Whisper Break[edit]

Formulism[edit]

Timothy FANTiM Frazier[edit]

Frozen scars[edit]

Ridgewood High School (Florida)[edit]

Timothy Jupp[edit]

Glasnost (band)[edit]

Omendil[edit]

Berwick High School[edit]

Davey Andrews[edit]

Takwin[edit]

The High Society[edit]

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana[edit]

Sean Cody[edit]

Cowley Club[edit]

List of continuity errors and anachronisms in M*A*S*H[edit]

The Life of Eddie[edit]

Shrammed[edit]

Coppi's (2nd nomination)[edit]

Tyler Ford[edit]

International trade of India[edit]

Lost Colony (game)[edit]

Bootstrapped-Brain[edit]

Internet cesspool[edit]

Ollie Silva[edit]

12 parsecks to freedom[edit]

David Llewellyn (author)[edit]

List of celebrity cocaine addicts[edit]

List of minor Babylon 5 characters[edit]

14 Year Old Girls (third nomination)[edit]

Rafi Sharif Bey[edit]

Pedophobia[edit]

List of continuity errors and anachronisms in MAS*H[edit]