Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

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 per Author's Request (and below, of course). Cbrown1023 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

170 RCACS[edit]

This unmaintainable article about an unremarkable air cadet squadron contains no information, only an ephemeral list of current members, a cryptic list of "camps" (which appear to be programs of some sort), and an unexplained list of locations. WP:NOT#IINFO ➥the Epopt 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page. My name is Zazzer and I fully agree with what all of you are saying. Go ahead. I'm not stopping you. (P.S.:I'm the page creator.) Zazzer 14:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to suggest anything notable about the squadron or its members. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would fail WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not asserted Akihabara 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The camps & locations are common to any RCAC squadron, so there is no need for inclusion in the article. The rest is non-notable. Caknuck 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Haemo 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Terence Ong 05:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of couse. Not notable.--Meno25 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable squadron.-- danntm ^T _C 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-notable. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about the current line-up or group of cadets; poorly written and non-notable because no historical perspective provided. Ronbo76 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. —dima/s-ko/ 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider (see WP:NOT#WEBSPACE). Also, since there does not exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, the topic is notWikipedia:Notability. The article probably was created under a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Since all the information in the article already is at the topics web site according to the article, deleting the article will not cause the contributors to lose any information. Delete for these reasons and the reasons set out in the nomination. -- Jreferee 05:05, 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 wasdel `'mikka 07:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lombardi[edit]

Vanity page created and edited by the subject with only text coming from a personal website CoolGuy 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and copyvio. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per precedent, being a contestant on a reality show confers no notabilty except to the winner. Take that away, and all you have is a guy who has started up a few minor, non-notable small businesses. Caknuck 02:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that it was copyright infringement is already enough reason to delete. Also subject was not that notable to begin with as mentioned by Caknuck.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going to back off of copyvio on account that it appears to be something that the subject and author (same dude!) already has copyright of, but per commentary from Caknuck, this gentleman is generally unnotable. --Dennisthe2 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:COI, WP:BIO, copyvio. Terence Ong 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but maybe not forever)- It says the person in the article will be on the Apprentice 6. If he wins or something, it'll make him notable. But for now, delete. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with TeckWiz's assessment. He is a February 2007 alleged guest submit to the whims of network programming. Non-notable at this time. Ronbo76 23:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny's Child Grammy nominations[edit]

A mere nomination for an award is insufficiently notable. ➥the Epopt 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Destiny's Child article. Definitely not notable enough. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I presume these nominations are already noted at the Destiny's Child article. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WJBscribe. JRHorse 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All relevant info already located at Destiny's Child awards and accolades Caknuck 02:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant = Caknuck's recommendation. SkierRMH 03:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Terence Ong 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There can't have been so many as to justify a separate article. 23skidoo 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the "Awards" section on the main page- Maybe, just maybe, the awards should go in the awards section :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The Destiny's Child awards and accolades article is sufficient for this topic. —ShadowHalo 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nominations don't mean anything. Ohconfucius 05:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awards won have another location and nominations are not notable. CRKingston 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to awards section AfricanAmericanHistorian 16:08, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Academy Radio[edit]

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines for Internet Radio, as listed in Articles for Deletion precedents (WP:AFDP). Prod tag removed by anon. JRHorse 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:WEB. MER-C 03:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kesh 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I do not listen to or am aware of this site, I do use other similiar internet stations all the time. Suggest cleanup or input from some of the historical users who have considerable contribution history. Ronbo76 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Their website states "We've collected $78.02 of our goal of $240.00!" With such low goals, it is not likely there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic per Wikipedia:Notability. -- Jreferee 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --Squilibob 07:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly speedy as vanity. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 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. Well done, Lyrl. DS 17:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Health Genomics[edit]

Originally prod'ded by myself, de-prod'ed by author. I'm really not sure what this is supposed to be, but it read (and still reads) like the introduction to a seminar on the topic, and never really addresses what the title of the article is supposed to mean. While it has references, all the article does is ask a lot of questions. This is not an encyclopedia article. As it is now, I think it should be Deleted. Danny Lilithborne 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't figure out what this is actually about. As the nom pointed out, it reads like the synopsis of a seminar with the proposed reference/reading materials. SkierRMH 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not a place to lay out the agenda for a seminar, either. --Dennisthe2 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to Keep. Good show, Lyrl, this works. --Dennisthe2 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. The topic certainly appears notable enough, with sponsorship from major universities, the CDC, and the European Union [1] as well as association with big-name groups like the Bellagio Conference (I'm familiar with them because they are responsible for LAM becoming a respected method of birth control). A bad article is not grounds for deletion. Lyrl ^Talk _C 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've taken out the seminar stuff and put in a stubby description. Lyrl ^Talk _C 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't that obscure of a field and it is growing with interest. This article will get populated and improved.Leah 10:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lyrl. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:04, 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 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trenseta[edit]

I'm really not sure if this hip-hop artist is notable. Google is inconclusive and he doesn't have an AllMusic page; I don't think "he is well known in the underground" is good enough. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article does assert some notability, but I'm not sure that simply having done work with Snoop Dogg is going to pass the bar. --Dennisthe2 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is non-notable at all. It does not mean that someone who has worked with Snoop Dogg automatically becomes notable. Fails WP:MUSIC criteria. Terence Ong 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unverifiable. Can only find blogs and boards. Bubba hot ep 11:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely notable and unveriable. Maybe a player, er article, in the future but not now.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neal's Yard Dairy[edit]

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Apparently just a small shop in London. Horário nobre 01:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A "small shop" that sells 500 tonnes a year of cheese, exports worldwide, has a worldwide reputation, and was founded by the late Nick Saunders. Other than that, not much. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a few news articles about the place. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - however, as a Monty Python fan I was surprised that this wasn't on the cheese sketch article (will be soon!). SkierRMH 03:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of notability as is demonstrated by not one but two links, as well as a run-in with John Cleese. --Dennisthe2 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, asserts enough notability with high sales and exports. More sources should be added into the article as well as an expansion. "Small shops" can be very well known actually. Terence Ong 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable enough. 500 tonnes? I can't even imagine that much cheese... yes, I can. Mmmm. Bubba hot ep 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems pretty notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 500 tonnes seems like a lot, and it seems that it's very well known (I say 500 tonnes seems like a lot because I don't know how many tonnes = one ton. Does anyone know? --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – FYI, 500 tonnes = 551.15 short tons/US = 492.10 long tons/UK. Major headache working that one out! Bubba hot ep 22:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's 5,000 kilograms -- about 11,000 pounds or 176,000 ounces -- of good British cheese. Montgomery Cheddar! Double Gloucester! Stinking Bishop! --Calton | Talk 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is clearly demonstrated and sourced. <3 Clamster 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this place is well known in UK foodie circles, and beyond. Pete Fenelon 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Referenced article indicated this is an award winning business with worldwide demand. Ronbo76 23:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. —dima/s-ko/ 02:23, 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 11:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

900 Tower Drive[edit]

Deleted prod template. Reason given was: Non-notable office building. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, nothing remarkable about this building or its use. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minoru Yamasaki. The building itself isn't very notable, but it is a Yamasaki Associates building and their office. --Dhartung | Talk 01:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung; there is no notability of the building itself, common use in that district. SkierRMH 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as prodder. MER-C 05:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Appears to be a mere run of the mill office building. Fails W:N. Nothing seems to separate it from other run of the mill office buildings.Librarylefty 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --If Wikipedia was filled with an article of every office building over ten floors, we'd have probably 500,000,000 million articles, if not more! --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even ten story office buildings may win awards or become notable for historical events. This one has not. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and reads like an implied ad for some of the tenants. Ronbo76 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "No assertion of notability, nothing remarkable about this building or its use" says everything. Also, it appears that everything in this article that is important to the Minoru Yamasaki article is already included in the Minoru Yamasaki article, so merge does not seem right. Also, merging would cause people searching Wikipedia for 900 Tower Drive to be directed to the Minoru Yamasaki article, which does not seem correct. If Minoru Yamasaki owned the building or was responsible for leasing out office space, then that might be a different situation.-- Jreferee 05:23, 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 11:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAPLAC[edit]

Deleted prod. Reason given was: Non-notable association, no third party independant references given. Reason appears totally valid to me. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder per the reason bolded above - my opinion hasn't changed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If I read WP:ORG, correctly , the first line reads, Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale. It fails in not having a verifiable third party citation which should be easy to find. Here's one that a bullet about the 14th annual conference held in 2003 in San Antonio, TX coming from the University of Conn., Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies. No affliation either location. Recommend cleanup, wikify, etal.

Comment - Please see the new suggested page after a little cleanup. Ronbo76 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has been around for about a month and is not a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. A prod to improve the article was met with deletion of the prod rather than improvement of the article. This was not corrected by anyone with an interest in improving the article, which tells me that there is not enough interest in improving the article. Also, the article is headed in the wrong direction since the one reference cited in the article is misleading as it does not support the text to which it is linked. Further, Wikipedia:Notability requirement requires that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. My own search revealed that there does not exist enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about AAPLAC. For these reasons and those set out in the nomination, the appropriate action in the case is to delete. -- Jreferee 04:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eli Falk 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jreferee. Fails WP:CORP. Ohconfucius 05:50, 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Expendable One"[edit]

Not a notable comic. Prod removed by anon. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - appears to have sufficient sourcing to be brought up to standards under WP:NOTE, but unless someone is willing to do so, I wouldn't be choked about it being deleted. Needs a "Cleanup" tag, at the very least. --Haemo 02:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted argument, however which part of WP:NOTE are you indicating? — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete 'The Expendable one' + 'graphic novel' = 521ghits; no mention of why it is notable in the article itself. (Just in case I added cleanup & wikify tags). SkierRMH 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've never heard of it but it could be improved. Isn't this getting deleted a little quickly? Leah 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Five days is enough time for expansion and providing sources. After looking up on Google, I don't see independent and reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - the publisher is notable, so the comic is notable IMO by proxy. It should stand to be cleaned up though. Just H 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not in accordance with any guideline. Rejected. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into publisher's page. Pete Fenelon 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable --- Safemariner 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Smith Sellers[edit]

Non-notable minister. Fails WP:BIO. References are to her own site or writings only; also concerned it might violate WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO. ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 98 ghits; these consist of brief summaries of her sermons and portions of her personal Website. There are thousands of United Church of Christ ministers in America alone and this individual has done nothing of note. Ministers are not inherently notable. Srose (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I know little of this denomination's organization. I get the impression that she is in some way the chief minister for Minnesota. Is a "Conference Minister" something that should be considered analagous to a bishop in other denominations, and if so, is that, in itself sufficient notability? The Conferences of the United Church of Christ article has no wikilinks on any name but hers. Fan-1967 22:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about the relative status of the position, but the fact that she is the only such person with an article, and that the article was created/edited only by Nasellers (talk · contribs) (similar surname) makes this seem even more like an WP:AUTO violation. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not a member of this faith but based upon a visit to their website, firmly believe she has notability as the Conference Minister which would make her akin a bishop. Its companion article, Conferences of the United Church of Christ lists over 20 CotUCoC conferences across the USA. My only concern would be that its creator is Username:Nasellers who may be related to this person. This minister was elected, January 1, 2006 with Nasellers creating the article on January 5, 2007. Ronbo76 23:50, 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 10:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HackerStory[edit]

Article is on a non-notable slang term for a video game. Violates WP:NEO, Wikipedia is not a dictionary for slang terms. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable video game jargon --JWSchmidt 02:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - violates WP:NEO and WP:NOT. --Haemo 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it admits that it's an 'in-house' nickname thus against NEO. SkierRMH 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn neologism, 469 ghits. MER-C 05:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MapleStory. Superfluous entry. Bubba hot ep 11:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per Haemo, not even notable/NPOV enough to be merged into main Maplestory article. Lmblackjack21 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with nom as article is one line long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 January 2007
Delete - I suppose all good jokes must come to an end. It was going so well till someone non-redirected it, too :( Casull 07:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also see HermitStory. I would nominate for deletion, but I don't know how to nominate redirects. Lmblackjack21 11:33, 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. Joe 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Guitars[edit]

Advertising. Article was nominated for prod, but prod tag has been removed without explanation or editing of article Macmic77 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable info into Gibson Guitar Corporation. CyberAnth 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Heritage Guitars is a separate company, and is notable enough to have its own separate article. Nick Graves 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ – is a company in its own right ~~and should either be deleted outright or~~ kept and worked on (it was very PoV until I removed a few sections). I am erring on the side of keep, albeit week because they are a verifiable company. Stress: article needs work, though. Bubba hot ep 11:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per Nick's efforts at improving this article with proper sourcing. Bubba hot ep 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is separate from Gibson and notable for its high-quality, traditionally crafted instruments built in the Gibson style. Such can be substanitated by nontrivial coverage in more than one independent source. I will begin adding such sources to the article immmediately. Nick Graves 18:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to clear the bar for notability and verifiability, for me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nick did a good job in cleaning up and satisfying WP:V. I think it's notable, so that covers that. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would chime in a hearty "keep" vote if sources could be shown that a couple Heritage guitars have been reviewed in something like Acoustic Guitar (magazine) or Guitar Player Magazine. I am sure a quick email to the company will turn up knowledge of any such thing. CyberAnth 10:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is quite likely that such reviews exist (though not in Acoustic Guitar, as Heritage exclusively or mostly makes electrics, I believe). I will contact the guitarists wikiproject to see if any reviews can be found. However, I do believe that the book coverage of the company is sufficient to establish that this company has been noted. Nick Graves 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be notable enough. The only commentary on the company that I've found so far is all on sites that sell Heritage Guitars, and the comments are very similar to each other, probably based on material supplied by the company. -- Donald Albury 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not determined by online sources alone. The company has receieved nontrivial coverage by at least two books unaffiliated with the company (those are just what I found on my own bookshelf--other sources are likely out there). Nick Graves 16:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have access to those books. They may indeed be reliable sources about the company, but that does not establish notability either. Judging from the titles, both books are about guitars (or electric guitars) in general, and mention in such books does not establish notability. I would be more impressed with a substantial published source (book, feature article in a general-interest magazine or well-established music/guitar magazine, etc.) discussing the company in particular. -- Donald Albury 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I think you're setting the bar pretty high for notability. WP:Notability states that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." The two books now cited provide such coverage of the company. That the books are not entirely dedicated to covering the company does not make the coverage trivial. The coverage is more than a mention--the Bacon book provides several historical details about the company's founding, while the Freeth & Alexander book dedicates a two-page spread to the company. I don't see how it is a mark against notability that the company is mentioned in books about guitars. What better place to find information about a guitar-making company than in a book about guitars? I am certain that coverage of the company can be found in well-established music or guitar magazines, but do not have access to such. I have made a request of WikiProject Guitarists to find such coverage. In the meantime, I think that the two book sources provide sufficient reason to keep the article. Nick Graves 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - not to split hairs, but "two" does not equal "multiple". If something is notable enough to be included in WP, it will have been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.
        Comment: My dictionaries differ on this. The American Heritage says multiple means more than one, while the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary equates multiple with several, which means more than two. Nick Graves 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable guitar manufacturer with a lengthy history. Plus a long list of notable endorsers/users to boot. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 18:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a very notable company. And per Anger22 — Arjun 02:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have withheld a vote awaiting to see if I could verify the two book sources but I just cannot get hold of them quickly. Therefore, based upon available reviews of the books, I am confident we can assume good faith that the authors of this page have represented the contents of the books accurately and that the current sources in the article are substantial enough to establish notability. I still think further sources can be found; but as a musician I know that laying one's hands on archives of periodicals like Guitar Player Magazine and Musician (magazine) where further sources can be found is a truly daunting and time-consuming task, that usually requires the researcher to travel a significant distance to the archive site. CyberAnth 10:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Dalbury above. Google search does not reveal independent and compelling sources. The books user mentions are on "The Electric guitar" – [2], [3], and not the company. It does not meet the threshold as put forward by WP:NOTE and WP:CORP. See Criteria for companies and corporations on WP:CORP. Common sense tells me multiple is much more than two. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:54, 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 delete by Pilotguy. --Wafulz 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superosity[edit]

Completely unreferenced stub with no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WEB, non-notable webcomics don't need Wikipedia articles. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 03:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not all Keenspot comics are notable. Can't go speedy here, though. --Dennisthe2 04:25, 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 speedily deleted by Deltabeignet. MER-C 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80 Proof[edit]

The article is on a non-notable band that has no released albums under record lables. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed this as a speedy delete. --Адам12901 ^Talk 02:41, 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 delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next nature[edit]

Non-notable book advertisement (hint: the book title is "Next nature" and it was published in 2005) wrapped up in pseudo-scientific lingo and pretending to be a concept. According to Amazon, the sales rank of the book is "#1,519,462" - which is absolutely horrible. -- ChrisWakefield 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --ChrisWakefield 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear exactly what this article is supposed to be about, but appears to be some sort of "The robots are going to take over the world!" essay. Original research at best. Wavy G 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also consider Koert van Mensvoort, who appears to be the creator of this term (and the author). Wavy G 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thx for the suggestion. Prod'ed as non-notable. --ChrisWakefield 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable.-- danntm ^T _C 21:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 16:11, 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. Mr. Perreault certainly appears to be an accomplished fetish photographer with a well known girlfriend. Those facts alone, however, do not sufficiently establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article borders on self-promotion. I am deleting the article as a failure of WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:V, as well as a direct and persistent conflict of interest per the arguments presented below. alphachimp 05:51, 12 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}}.

Martin Perreault[edit]

Photographer whose main (perhaps only?) claim to notability is tastefully photographing his improbably curvacious girlfriend (who also has a WP article: Bianca Beauchamp) in latex or bikinis or whatever for magazines of the kinds that I suppose come sealed in cellophane (no evidence supplied) and websites. Mentions of and links to the latter abound. No independent verification is supplied (WP:V) for anything but the websites, there's no hint of notability per WP:BIO, and the article (the interests of whose contributors seem limited to Perreault and Beauchamp) has a whiff of promotion about it. Hoary 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY TO THE ABOVE: This profile is as valid as any other. The above statement is pure discrimination against the work that I do.

My credentials can be easily verified online. A simple search on Google with my name will show articles about my work (notably from eros-zine online) and more searches will show LOTS about model Bianca Beauchamp, who is internationally known. Evidence is supplied many times, on both profiles. Googling any of the two names will provide anyone with more than enough information on the validity of these profiles. Further more, a list of all publications I have done can be found here: http://www.martinperreault.com/magazines.html . Each editor can be contacted to verify my credentials. Yes, I do shoot my "curvacious girlfriend". An article about someone should not be deleted on the simple fact that a viewer dislikes the art produced by the artist(s). A forum full of people who know about my work can be found here: http://forum.biancabeauchamp.com . This profile is not about self promotion. Fans started this page and I help them fix it with correct details. The same aplpies for profile Bianca Beauchamp, to which I only started contributing lightly very recently, even though her profile has existed for over 2 years. My involvement to both profiles is only to make sure of the validity of the information posted. For example, images users have posted on these two profiles were deleted due to copyright infringement; but by posting the same pictures myself, and by adding the information that I shot them, it makes them legit. The simple fact that my username on Wikipedia is the same as my real name shows that I do not hide behind a false name, like others might do to self promote. My involvement is to make sure the information posted is accurate. I can be contacted on my website www.martinperreault.com or on model BiancaBeauchamp.com website. I invite anyone here to contact the editors of the following magazines to verify the above information: Bizarre Magazine (UK) www.bizarremag.com to which I shot their covers 5 times in 2 years; Skin Two Magazine (UK) www.skintwo.com to which I shot their cover 2 times and featured in them many times. Marquis Magazine (www.marquis.de) for which I shot their cover 2 times in two years, _ many features. Penthouse Australia for which I shot their cover feature last year. Playboy Enterprise (www.playboyse.com) for which I shot a feature in Playboy SE in 2006 with model Bianca Beauchamp (who appeared many times in Playboy SE and on their cover of the Lingerie Edition). I think this should be more than enough to prove the validity of this profile. Martin Perreault - www.martinperreault.com 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't assert as to why he's notable, and appears to be somewhat autobiographical - possible POV issues, as it were. Excellent photography, though - but as has been demonstrated so many times, I like it is not a good reason to keep. Note to Martin, please remember to be civil in this discussion, and feel free to ask questions. My advice: change our minds. --Dennisthe2 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/response: An article about someone should not be deleted on the simple fact that a viewer dislikes the art produced by the artist(s). Strong agreement! And two comments. First, the visual evidence presented here shows that Perreault has a fine sense of light and how to use it; he seems to be an excellent photographer and my guess, fwiw, is that he'll go far. I hope he does. Secondly, while latex doesn't happen to be my thing, I've nothing against photos of pneumatic girls in bikinis, especially when the bikinis are much too small. So as it happens I don't dislike the art. ¶ However, this doesn't (yet) add up to notability or verifiability. It's unusual, to say the least, to say that verification can and should be sought by direct appeal to publishers. For other photographers, the verification is out there on independent, credible websites, in published books, etc. -- Hoary 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not establish notability by sources independent of the subject. CyberAnth 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These aren't "profiles" but "articles", and if there are perceptions that this is anything like myspace or the like than that is certainly incorrect. That being said, while the sources stated may be able to provide validation (although we'll need to cite sources that are accessible to a reader though, as far as I know); I don't believe those are enough to provide notability? Simply being the fact that you were a part of these things doesn't mean you are notable, and while you can personally verify a lot of information, it needs to be verifiable through reliable 3rd party sources. I haven't looked enough at the topic to know if that is possible, but if it is, and it is accomplished, I would have no objection to the article, as it is now, it needs to assert notability and verifiably prove statements. 66.159.174.217 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have nothing against latex. Article does not cite reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SELF and WP:V. Even if Bianca Beauchamp is notable, being her photographer does not make one notable by association. IchiAi is a single purpose account, and article may fail WP:COI. Ohconfucius 08:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Vote change to Weak keep, subject to cleanup per discussion and my comments below.[reply]
Should be perhaps moved to his user page? If not possible, leaning towards delete. Nice photos though. --Ouro 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion.
- Artist who certainly is notable. I've watched his work for several years.
- Sexual fetish artists are as notable as sports, e-games, and pro wrestling celebrities.
- Article is referenced, so I'm not sure why Verifiability is a problem. I checked references, they looked good to me. I found a number of independent references, such as Eros Magazine [4] and Skintwo[5] Atom 13:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may wish to specify how you disagree. -- Hoary 14:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Martin Perreault might not be (yet) a worldwide celebrity, but he’s definitely a world known and one of the most appreciated photographers in a certain (fetish) subculture. To address the issues mentioned above:
WP:BIO, reliable 3rd party sources:With time I believe Wikipedia have grown from a pure scientific encyclopedia to something bigger. There are many articles about politics, art and other fields of human existence, where a reliable source is not as clearly defined as in the guideline targeting mainly science. Still the mentioned magazines and e-magazines – repeated publishing inside them and even being author of several of their covers, so as covers of several books, that all IMHO is a good sign of notability. Another sign of notability should be that several other world famous fetish models worked with Martin Perrault and they include his work in their portfolio. (The links to Internet incarnations of some of the mentioned magazines and models: Skin Two, Marquis, Playboy, Bizarre Magazine, Penthouse, Julie Strain, Jean Bardot,Emily Marilyn, Darenzia, Storm, Sway, Masuimi Max).
WP:V): Isn’t this a catch XXII a little – especially in case of an article about a person. It’s not correct to write a biography about a person until somebody writes a biography about the person. Still in several articles about and/or interviews with him I read his short bio – if it’s enough.
The fact that Martin Perrault contributes to the article himself was addressed already but allow me to repeat it. If you observe his edits, you will notice they serve to accurate some information and to ensure the legal use of photos. Does it fall under WP:SELF – I would say not.
IchiAi being a single purpose account is not true. I know the person, so I can assure you –as far as you will believe me - he contributed to several articles, but created his account only when decided to write a completely new entry to Wikipedia. And something very similar applies to me. Naturally we edit only what is in the field of our interest.
Using word "profile" instead "article": not everybody is a native speaker and/or everyday contributor to Wikipedia (like me for example). Then it can easily happen such person don’t use a best expression.
And a final note to Hoary: Even tough you tell you are not against this kind of photography some of your words in the first paragraph hints otherwise. Why that personal and disparage remarks? .... posted by Rikapt (contributions), who didn't sign

— Rikapt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
—- Now what? Do you suspect I am Martin Perreault? No, I am not - but you will not believe me anyway... --Rikapt 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- (i) The links to Internet incarnations of some of the mentioned magazines and models: Links to the websites of the magazines prove nothing. What might be interesting would be links to specific pages on those websites in which Perreault is described as the photographer of this or that. But note WP:BIO on notable photographers: "Published [...] photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." (ii) It’s not correct to write a biography about a person until somebody writes a biography about the person. Essentially yes, that's right: WP:NOR. (iii) Why that personal and disparage remarks? What's at issue here is not me but the article. But OK, I'll bite: How were my remarks disparaging? (Please tell me on my talk page rather than cluttering up this page. Thanks.) -- Hoary 14:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I forgot to sign. It was not my intention to post the text anonymously (would have done it little smarter anyway ;-) ). Thank you Hoary for adding the information before I remembered to do it myself, also the link to my contributions is nice - does it mean anything?
  (i) Such content you required is in payed zone so it can't be linked directly. Does it not count then? And how to prove the appearance in paper versions of the magazines you don't know?
  (iii)I am aware it's of lesser or no importance in the issue. Still somebody pointed out Martin to react in civil way, so maybe he failed to notice your initial style might have initiate that reaction. (more on your talk page). --Rikapt 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantive claim to notability. A great way to earn a living, but without solid evidence that he's been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, he fails to meet WP:BIO. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addition OK I took the effort and "googled" for some 3rd party reference of Martin Perreault (was not hard to do):
* Eros Zine (mentioned many times but this is and article about him)
* Jaxon Jaganov's review - especially the 6th and 7th paragraph
* Flasbot
* Fetish Design
* Carbelle (in French)
* Club Sin
* X3Guide
* model Darenzia's web
* Crazy Rubber
* Chapitre étudiant École Polytechnique reunion (PDF in French).
More needed? Rikapt 15:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy's reasoning (notability is in no way established). Mr. Perrault, please find another place to promote your works. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. I've seen this sort of stuff before, but at least the Musikfabrik articles weren't so obviously promotion, this is grossly so. Vanity as well, at a guess, so we have WP:AUTO problems. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Martin Perreault is an accomplished photographer and his work impacts not only the fetish world, but the world of, say, gamers - as it was his photography and work with Bianca that allowed her to become the "living model" of Elexis Sinclair in promotion of Ritual's "Sin Episodes" game series. I believe his work has significance and he has credibility and esteem enough to warrant a wiki article, which is why I started an account, so I could add this article. I have been an anonymous contributor to Wiki for some time, and I am a little annoyed that simply because I was required to start an account in order to create a new article, it is assumed that I have not contributed before. Is it not clear from the layout of the page (there was help from others - this too, is evidence that Mr. Perreault has a fan following and deserves a Wiki page) that this is a serious attempt to start an informative, biographical article? How much space does this take from Wiki? Any move against this article is, to my mind, simply puritanical cleansing and censorship. Please reconsider. IchiAi 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a few reviews and mentions on websites but nothing above trivial in my mind. I could probably be talked out of this with more sources. But, everyone please read WP:COI and WP:V. - Aagtbdfoua 19:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no reliable sources. Reviews and interviews on different erotic or porn-related sites is not enough for establishing notability. MaxSem 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Perreault is clearly an excellent photographer, but one whose notability is not yet established. The article fails WP:V as it shows no independent verification of the details. It also fails WP:OR as the only references are to the sites maintained by Bianca Beauchamp and Mr. Perreault (and many of the details of Beauchamp's site require paid registration). Moreover, the article does not demonstrate a claim for notability, only a hallow claim that he is "an accomplished photographer (although I agree, the article does not demonstrate) . . . best known for his work with long time professional and personal partner, Bianca Beauchamp." As an aside (because this is not a fatal flaw), the article reads very much like an autobiography, full of details of interest primarily to one's self and, perhaps, one's mother. ["Perreault was excited by the fabric, but Bianca was a bit nervous about it. As a way of overcoming her fear and showing her affection for Perreault, she purchased the dress in secret and surprised him at a Halloween party. Eventually she posed for him for fun, wearing the latex dress. Although she was nervous at first, Beauchamp quickly came out of her shell and warmed up to the camera."] Delete and when Perreault does meet the standards by accumulating verifiable professional accolades by others, the article can be recreated. TheMindsEye 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe notability but also blatant self promotion. This is a common sort of thing to see in the AFD world: Little known artist creates a page about them self, it gets tagged for deletion and they raise a fuss citing some mention in semi reputable sources. Also pretty clear evidence of sock puppets: IchiAi, Rikapt and Martin Perreault all only edit pages related to Martin Perreault. I would recommend that these "users" take a look at WP:AUTO and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Daniel J. Leivick 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer Daniel J. Leivick. I have also looked at the edit history of the authors and these are mostly related to the subject and closely realted articles. It seems to be vanity/advertising --Kevin Murray 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Bianca Beauchamp, his model. IMO, his work is notable, but the notability mostly accrues to the model, the aforementioned Ms. Beauchamp, and Martin Perreault can be briefly mentioned in her article. I can see Mr. Perreault gaining sufficient notability in his own right in future, but he's not quite there yet, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with redirrect if Bianca Beauchamp was notable; however, there is cureently no documentation for that assertion at her article, which would probably not survive the AfD process. --Kevin Murray 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Kevin Murray. Purported sources all appear to fail WP:BIO. Perhaps could be added to his girlfriend's article. --Haemo 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to point out that if you look at the fetish photographer page on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetish_photographer ) several other fetish photographers have pages on wikipedia, pages that are no more (often less) well supported than this one. I will not deny the article about M. Perreault needs work, but no article is born perfect. Deleting it at this poing would be overly draconian. M. Perrault has also been inteviewed about his work in more mainstream media, including French and English Canadian TV chanels - Perhaps these should be added as references to the article. --Observer31 19:18, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Comment I see this argument here -- other articles are not notable, so why not let this one pass -- and must say that it is not persuasive to me. Following it to the natural conclusion would be a lowering of Wiki standards for all articles. Or perhaps you are suggesting that we just lower standards for Fetish Photographers? Rather than agreeing to lower standards, I would prefer to work on rooting out the articles that you think are less" well supported than this one."

Moreover, I also find the documentation to not fully support your point. A look at the list of photographers on the Fetish photographer page reveals that four of the articles -- Andru Chrisst, Edward Lee, Timothy Hughes, and Kristina Vassilieva were deleted through Wiki processes. Apparently other editors have chosen to maintain Wiki policies rather than weakening them. Other names on the list, such as Helmut Newton, have much greater documentation than Perreault. TheMindsEye 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Observer31's is a surprisingly new account (his/her contributions). -- Hoary 01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentObserver31 is another example of the possible sockpuppets involved in this discussion. We have established users saying Delete and four users who's only contributions so far involve the article in question saying Keep. It is not serious enough yet to check the IPs but it certainly doesn't help the articles case. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at this point I would urge you to please check the IP - it's not fun being called a sock pupet, and I think you will find that I'm not M. Perreault and that the others are most probably not either. --Observer31 01:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe Martin's notability should be for recruiting a record number of new editors to WP --Kevin Murray 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep, the condition being that proof is provided that Mr Perreault has contributed magazine covers. To my mind that would establish notability. Malla nox 03:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Magazine cover alone do not establish notability, we need third party reputable sources that give this person more than a passing mention. Daniel J. Leivick 03:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, an artist who achieves mass penetration with his works is notable regardless of the field. I did point out that this is an opinion. A magazine is a third party source, the titles mentioned a notable ones. Mallanox 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Magazines have different covers every month created by literally hundreds of thousands of commercial photographers, some are notable some are not. Wiki policy on photographers notability is as follows: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"(are considered notable). As far as I can tell no reputable reviews or awards can be cited. Just as an example I read the English car magazine evo they have 10-15 contributing photographers who have done covers none have Wikipedia articles because they are not notable just as Perreault is not. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That argument is a bit weak - Evo is a magazine about cars, not a magazine about car photography. Having one's photos on the cover of Skin Two is, within that field, a much greater achievement. Please give us the time to find the proper references to shore the article up. Observer31 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to state, for the record, that I am not a "sock puppet", nor is Observer or Rikapt. MartinPerreault is indeed the same man the article is about, and he has edited it to correct some small details about his life. Has it ever occured to anyone that perhaps casual wiki readers/anonymous contributors, when they see an article that is about someone whose work they admire marked for deletion, might come out of the woodwork, so to be speak, in order to speak out against it? I find this whole thing ridiculous and a bit disheartening, as I have been an avid supporter and reader of Wikipedia for years.IchiAi 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accused you of being a single purpose account, which you are. The practice of setting up and editing with multiple accounts is not prohibited, and is generally frowned upon by fellow editors, as it is often seen as an attempt to render the editorial responsibility less transparent. Ohconfucius 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment. I see no value in running a checkuser. My personal conjecture is at least some of you are well-intentioned friends of the subject. In any case, I hope you will read the link as it summarizes some of the concerns that are raised when a number of single-purpose accounts participate in a deletion discussion. I think further debate about sock/meatpuppets are unproductive. The identified users are single-purpose accounts, and there is no way to change this. There is, to my knowledge, no way of proving one is not a meatpuppet. However, there are editors with a longer tenure that support keeping this article. I suggest that supporters of this article spend their energies improving it. Everyone else, the point has been made about meat/socks. Tag any newly participating single-purpose accounts as spas, but leave it at that. - Aagtbdfoua 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As said above, fails WP:OR (full of way too much personal info) and WP:V to name a few. I suspect this also fails WP:BIO, and WP:COI, depending on who actually wrote this. The SPA behind it looks suspicious. KnightLago 05:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added references to the article. One is an interview held with Eros e-zine. The other shows that he is an established figure in the fetish community (hence the high number of Google hits) and has hosted events indluding the 2006 Latextavy ball. This guy in my opinion deserves a Wikipedia article. Malla nox 06:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the references, the first two don't mention Perreault, one is a blog, which along with another link merely mentions that Perreault is hosting the Latexstavy ball, and two, which I have been unable to connect to for the past half hour, are Perreault's own web site and that of his girlfriend. The only reference that does not utterly fail WP:RS is the interview in Eros magazine, and I don't think that is enough to establish notability. If this is the best that the supporters have been able to come up with in references, the article fails the requirements of WP:V. -- Donald Albury 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a career publicity service. Honbicot 14:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment

References, other than print: Interview on national TV Canada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKvK2mnBCqc | Interview on Life Channel, both with beauchamp and Perreault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoPZTvJAAf4 | Interview on Bianca Beauchamp, part interview with Perreault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H_CTZJUhhE | Interview with Beaucahmp, mention of Perreault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44tzzLWURdg | note: not all tv interviews are available online. I understand the importance of being careful with inclusion of articles on Wikipedia being a project about archiving knowledge and information. I would like to clarify a few things: I am not posting under multiple usernames like some above have been implying. I know how "first time posters" make it look like that. These first time posters are people that follow Bianca Beauchamp's career on her website. I am very much present on these websites, being that I do all the photography there and more. So these people are very much aware of my work, and notability in the fetish scene worldwide. The article was started by one of them as a matter of fact, which also explains the reason why I came here myself to make minor modifications to the article because some details were wrong. I understand how this may look to many. Further more, as if this didn't look bad enough, one of our server is down at the moment due to a DOS ATTACK. So biancabeauchamp.com and martinperreault.com are have been down for 24 hours and as I write this, they still are down. Sure enough, some might see this as a sign that we are phony. Personally, I question the very odd timing as well for such an attack, but for other reasons. That said, I can certainly only state once more that this whole Wikipedia Article was done with good intention and is not a promo scheme. I understand there are ways and guidelines to follow at Wikipedia, and I am certain they were created to make sure Wikipedia remains a reliable source of information. Therefore, I leave it up to the Wikipedia contributors to make the final decision, and to look at the situation factually and not through eyes of suspicion. I would like to take this opportunity to publically thank the original contributor who started this article. I think you did a very good job and I am honored you thought important to contribute my name to the online encyclopedia. Thank you for your time. Martin Perreault - www.martinperreault.com 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Both sides have major points which has lead to me abstain from voting. If I were to vote, I'd probably vote keep but with a major rewrite of his page. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Rikapt and Hoary. Wikipedia needs to be careful with contemporary art and artists, that's true. However, I see a large number of supports of notability, and the entire nom is written so as to be skewed against his particular subject matter and style of photography. Further, at least some of the voters on this particular AfD have an established history of trying to police WIkipedia and remove articles of a ...'prurient' nature. In part, this makes suspect, to me, this entire nom. I'd recommend tht anyone supporting this consider deletion review, should the article go for deletion.ThuranX 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???? Hoary is the nominator. ;-) Ohconfucius 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added references to M. Perreault's published work and have done some clean up of the text. While I do admit more work needs to be done, I believe the article has improved since its creation and will continue to do so. Observer31 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. --Folantin 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/References to support notability
Some printed publications not mentioned so far where M.Perreault is positively referenced at
* Fetish Anthology 4 (ISBN 09080770639) – Contributing photographer
Bizarre Magazine August 2006 (ISSN 1364 596X, UK) – Cover
Marquis Magazine 32 (Germany) – Cover & Article
Heavy Rubber magazine 11 (Germany) – Cover
Other supportive references
* Paul Bucceta - 3rd party reference
* Martin Perreault's report about a fetish event done on a request of an e-magazine
Also I reread the notability guide and would like to note the following: Martin Perreault has been published (a lot) in different international publications, has a reputation within the fetish world (however limited in scope that may be) and the fact that he mostly works together with Bianca Beauchamp is no argument at all (look at Helmut Newton with his muse). -- Rikapt 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in italics) on the references supplied above:

Youtube pages - all fail WP:RS. An interview on national television does not pass the bar of WP:BIO, which is generally accepted to be at least a half hour program on the subject
6th and 7th paragraph Jaxon Jaganov's review - fails WP:RS
Flasbot - valid reference from a high ranking website, but does the site satisft WP:RS?
Fetish Design - fails WP:RS
Carbelle - valid reference, but source may fail WP:RS
Club Sin - fails WP:SELF
X3Guide - fails WP:SELF
model Darenzia's web - some sort of myspace page, fails WP:RS
Crazy Rubber- fails WP:RS
Chapitre étudiant École Polytechnique reunion (PDF in French). fails WP:BIO (trivial); relevance of this alumnus action?
Fetish Anthology 4 (ISBN 09080770639) – Contributing photographer - fails WP:BIO (trivial)
Bizarre Magazine August 2006 (ISSN 1364 596X, UK) – Cover - fails WP:BIO (trivial)
Marquis Magazine 32 (Germany) – Cover & Article - fails WP:BIO (trivial)
Heavy Rubber magazine 11 (Germany) – Cover fails WP:BIO (trivial)
Paul Bucceta - 3rd party reference - fails WP:RS, (lacks independence); trivial mention per WP:BIO
Martin Perreault's report about a fetish event done on a request of an e-magazine - fails WP:SELF, and WP:BIO (MP is not the subject)
Skintwo - photo gallery posted by ball organisers, fails WP:BIO (trivial)

In summary, he does appear to be known within his realm, but the reliability of many sources is not sufficiently strong. Although there have been hits about him even in German, a lot of the detail in the article is very personal, and fails WP:V. My "week keep" vote change above is sustained by the articles in Fleshbot, Eros.com. We seem to be dredging the bottom of all available links to find articles to properly assert notability, and two articles does not equal "multiple" per WP:BIO. Furthermore, article is in desperate need of a cleanup to remove unsourced info and spam. Ohconfucius 03:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ohconfucius for the most part. The article will probably end up being kept because it is unlikely a delete consensus will be reached as the subject is near the very edge of notablity (IMO on the wrong side of it), but if that is the case it will need clean up to lessen the promotional tone and do away with information coming from autobiographical sources. If it were up to me I would merge with the Beauchamp article a section mentioning her primary photographer is all that is really necessary as there arn't really any good sources for the additional information. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all the respect I disagree how You have dismissed several reference as trivial and failing WP:RS. Especially in the case of Skin Two and Marquis magazines, that are worldwide sold magazines, whose main target of interest is fetish fashion and photography. Also repeated feature appearances in them (I have listed only the cover appearances, not the many inside features, and the ones I have access to; perhaps others could confirm the rest of apperances mentioned on MP's web), especially MP not being their employee, I don't find trivial.

Also the WP:SELF fails confuse me. I don't see what the mentioned references have to do with that policy/guideline (if I overlooked something I am sorry, this remark is not intended to debase anyhow your opinion).

Finally what exactly you find to be spam? The long list of references was added on request to support notability. -- Rikapt 11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about proving that Perreault exists or that he is a photographer, I think we all agree on those points. But there is no link to any article in Marquis, and the article in Skin Two says nothing of significance about him: he is a photographer, he shot 10 pages for the magazine, he was in Los Angeles. How is that notable? If you read a random sample of Wikipedia articles on other photographers to get a better idea of what makes a photographer notable. Here's a list of photographers to help.Pinkville 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issue here is not the subject matter of the photography, nor the subject matter or context of the few references/links provided, but rather that when you boil the article down to its facts we know only that a fetish/pin-up photographer named Martin Perreault was born in Montreal, possibly studied at Concordia University, has mostly photographed 1 model, has created two websites, and once hosted a fetish ball. How does that information suggest that Perreault is more notable than any of literally millions of photographers or artists around the world? Surely every editor on this page knows first-hand at least a few people with similarly illustrious CVs. I don't believe it's Wikipedia policy but it is common sense that the burden of proof for notablility ought to be on the editors proposing an article for inclusion and not on those who argue for deletion. People like Nan Goldin, Weegee and Robert Mapplethorpe have all photographed subjects belonging to various subcultures (usually with far more scandalous imagery than any of Perreault's images I've looked at) and they are included in Wikipedia because they have been exhibited, books and articles examinging their work have been published, and they have an easily traceable influence on society. The sources cited for Perreault, on the other hand, provide virtually no substantial information, certainly nothing to suggest that he is worthy of an article in a serious encyclopaedia. Pinkville 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much my opinion as well. Now, if any of these fetish magazines had published articles about him or interviews, I'd consider him a notable person within the fetish community - and I know they do publish such articles. Right now, I'd say the time for an article on him has not yet come, if nothing else because there are no good third party sources that say anything significant about him. So far, if anyone's notable, it's his model - she at least gets the recognisability of having been on these magazine covers. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pinkville. There simply isn't anything to suggest he is of encyclopaedic notability. GassyGuy 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why such oversimplification of M.Pereault's (MP) appearances in the magazines? It's not true he has appeared in magazines only once or twice. As I mentioned at the beginning of the list I included only the referenced material I have access to and also the most notable ones (e.g. covers) and skipped the almost regular feature appearance in them. Secondly, listing more influential photographers to be the reason why MP should not have an article is weird. (Does the fact that Albert Einstein has an article mean Roger Penrose can't have it? Hardly.) The argument MP lacks awards is also weak simply because there are no such awards in fetish photography. So to enrich the list of reference (either by new ones or by adding extended information):
* A photographer being included in the Fetish Anthology 4 (the last edition) book needs a great degree of notability. Being it a selection of few best artists in the genre is far from trivial
* In the last issue of Marquis magazine (#40) a (positive) review of the book MP created and published together with his muse Bianca Beauchamp can be found
* Secret magazine ( another fetish magazine, distributed worldwide) brings a color portfolio of MP’s photography. Quote from their webpage (first sentence): Secret Issue #30 has a special color portfolio with Martin Perreault and fetish star/model "Bianca"
* Two leading latex fashion producing companies, Vex and Polymorphe chose MP's work to advertise their creations
The whole latex fashion phenomenon is recently going mainstream. It influences game industry, music, movies, generally all pop-culture, but even haute-couture fashion. We are trying to show you Martin Perreault and his photography, of course in close collaboration with his muse and life partner Bianca, have a strong influence to the fetish movement in recent years and are its trendsetters. They created one of the very first fetish websites. And although there are many other fetish photographers, MP helped develop the "glamour" side of fetish, apart from the classic BDSM art. For that reasons he (also) deserves an article on Wikipedia. -- Rikapt 12:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claims you make here for Perreault's influence may be true, but you have not provided any evidence to support them. This is the first mention of a book by him... does it have a title? Is it readily available? so his photos have appeared in various magazines... that's fine but not in itself notable. There are thousands of stock photographers, thousands of perfectly competent or even excellent photographers whose work appears in magazines, yet who aren't notable in any sense that's meaningful for an encyclopaedia. You didn't like the comparison between Perreault and Goldin, Mapplethorpe and Weegee (though I hardly think your Einstein and Penrose comparison is analogous), well how about comparing Francesca Woodman or John Veltri or Francesco Scavullo with Perreault? Such comparisons are indeed apt, because the photographers I've mentioned do satisfy the criteria for notability, they constitute a basis to judge others. Let's take up your Einstein/Penrose comparison. First, Penrose is a hugely important physicist, so the ostensible contrast in notability between him and Eisntein doesn't actually exist. A more appropriate contrast would be between either Einstein or Penrose and a graduate student in physics. The latter may someday become a great physicist in her/his own right, but at the moment they're just building up a CV. If/when anything sustantive is written about Perreault's photography then a Wikipedia article will be appropriate, but not now. Pinkville 15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to a "graduate student" is inept - Mr. Perreault is already famous in his field and quite accomplished - he is by no means "starting out" in his career. His book is available at http://www.fetishsexsymbol.com/ IchiAi 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here follows an exhaustive list of contributions to and features in books, magazines, and the like:

BIZARRE #72: COVER + photo spread
BIZARRE #79: COVER + full feature for the special Annual Fetish Issue.
BIZARRE #92: 4 full page feature.
BIZARRE #100: COVER + full feature for the special GREATEST HITS Issue.
BIZARRE #105: photos.
BIZARRE #106: photos.
BIZARRE #107: photos.
BIZARRE #108: photos.
BIZARRE #109: photos.
BIZARRE #110: photos.
BIZARRE #111: photos.
BIZARRE #112: photos..
BIZARRE #113: COVER + 4 pages feature
BIZARRE #114: photos.
BIZARRE #115: photos.
BIZARRE #116: photos.
CORPS ET ÂME #29: Photos in article on latex fashion (+ direct mention of Perreault's involvment in the fetish scene
DERNIÈRE HEURE: COVER + feature + mention of Perreault's involvment in fetish photography
ECHO DES SAVANES #221: COVER + photos
ECHO DES SAVANES #223: 2 page spread
JEUX VIDEO: August 2006 (French Magazine)- 3 pages interview along with photos
HEAVY RUBBER #06: photos + article on Perreault.
HEAVY RUBBER #10: feature.
HEAVY RUBBER #11: COVER + photos
HEAVY RUBBER #15: feature.
HEAVY RUBBER #17: feature.
HEAVY RUBBER #18: feature.
HEAVY RUBBER #20: feature.
LOOKER #09: feature
MAKEUP ARTIST #: photos
MARQUIS #19: feature
MARQUIS #22: feature.
MARQUIS #23: feature.
MARQUIS #23: feature.
MARQUIS #30: photos.
MARQUIS #31: photos.
MARQUIS #32: COVER + 10 pages feature.
MARQUIS #33: photos
MARQUIS #34: photos.
MARQUIS #35: photos
MARQUIS #37: photos.
MARQUIS FETISH MODELS DIRECTORY 2004: feature.
MARQUIS FETISH MODELS DIRECTORY 2005: feature.
MARQUIS STYLE #01: COVER + feature.
MAX #192: photos.
NIGHTLIFE: (Montreal magazine) - 1 page interview.
NUGGET COVER + Feature.
PC PLAYER: photos.
PC PLAYER: photos
PENTHOUSE: 3 page feature, March.2005, Australian edition.
PENTHOUSE: COVER + Centerfold feature, June 2006.
PLAYBOY: photo.
PLAYBOY HOT SHOTS 2006: 2 pages feature, Oct.2005.
PLAYBOY WET & WILD: feature, August.2006.
SKIN TWO #39: article (p.39), apr.2002.
SKIN TWO #40: Photo + article (p.15), june.2002.
SKIN TWO #41: COVER + 5 pages, oct.2002.
SKIN TWO #42: photos (p.11,80,91,99); (p.52), oct.2002.
SKIN TWO #43: photos
SKIN TWO #44: news (p.22) on Perreault + Beauchamp; photos
SKIN TWO #45: photos
SKIN TWO #46: photos
SKIN TWO #47: photos
SKIN TWO #48: feature
SKIN TWO #49: COVER + 10 pages photos
SKIN TWO #50: photos
SKIN TWO #52: photos
SKIN TWO #54: photos
SKIN TWO #55: photos
SKIN TWO #56: p14 - news on Perreault's book.
SKIN TWO DIRECTORY 2005: photos
SKIN TWO DIRECTORY 2006: photos
SKIN TWO LATEXTRA: COVER, + photos
SKIN TWO LATEXTRA #16: COVER, + photos
TWENTY FOUR SEVEN LONDON: London Newspaper, Jan.2006 | 2 full pages interview + photos.
WHIPLASH #3: COVER + 8 pages feature + mentions of Perreault
WHIPLASH #5: COVER + 9 pages feature
WHIPLASH #7: 8 pages feature
WHIPLASH #8: photos.
WHIPLASH #9: photos
WHIPLASH #10 COVER + photos in feature on Martin Perreault fetish Photographer, Oct.2004.

BOOKS: COVERS shot by Perreault, all fully credited inside:

AN EDUCATION IN THE PRIVATE HOUSE: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
FEMININE WILES: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
SEX, TAKE A WALK ON THE WILD SIDE: Fetish Anthology; (review) ; two photos under photographer Martin Perreault.
SLAVE REVELATIONS: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing. (review)
SLAVE SENTENCE: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
THE BOND: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
THE CORRECTION OF AN ESSEX MAID: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
THE NEXUS LETTERS: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
THE SMARTING OF SELINA: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
WILD BY NATURE: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.

It is a shame that, rather than being allowed to grow this article slowly and naturally, with care, I must instead dump a list of credentials in order to stop the article from being deleted.

A shame? Frankly, that's a bizarre comment. Every article in Wikipedia is supposed to "dump a list of credentials" to support the subject's claim to notability. Pinkville 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credential do not always add up to notablity. All this list really shows is that Perreault is a moderately successful fetish photographer. Many many comercial photographers could post lists many times longer then this one without establishing any notablity. The only things that I can see on this list that might take a step towards being good sources are the two interviews but being the subject of a grand total of three pages of independent material doesn't do much for me. Daniel J. Leivick 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the evidence presented is compelling. I wonder if we may have an example of a commericial photographer who has a list of uses of their work many times longer who is not notable? Malla nox 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are plenty. I list several commercial photographers among my acquaintances. As far as I know they have never sought articles in Wikipedia and it hasn't crossed my mind to make articles for them. This is no criticism of them as photographers or as people: they're excellent photographers and good people. They have much longer lists; and lists that tend to be more varied, though it's true that commercial photographers tend to concentrate on certain areas (cars, interiors, etc.; one of the trickiest is visually compelling piping hot food, from which [genuine!] steam must rise according to popular expectations if not normal reality). -- Hoary 00:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer my question, I haven't been swayed by any arguments presented here. Four of the magazines in which he has contributed I could buy in my local newsagent off the shelf, his work has clearly been seen by an awful lot of people. Malla nox 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because many people have seen his work does not make him notable. In order to meet the notablity criteria we need multiple reputable sources asserting his notablity (ie articles about him), as it stands now all we really have is a list of times his photos have appeared in magazines, I want go back to my evo magazine example from above, many of the photographers who contribute to this magazine have much longer resumes, but since non of them have been written about (to my knowledge)none are notable, when some people write articles about Perreault then he can be included, until then he is just another comercial photographer. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis 40 (the printed edition) has reviewed his latest book - I can't be more substantial than that because I don't have it yet. As far as the Evo magazine argument, please see my reply to your prior comment above Observer31 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A review of a book by Perreault is a step in the right direction, as for the evo comparison I think it is valid, it is a magazine about cars, the magazines represented above are about fetishs. In both cases the photographer is seprate from the subject and is thus not notable merely for having there photographs on the cover of a magazine. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't be more substantial than that because I don't have it yet" See, I have a problem with this. I have worked on a number of articles about notable - if not well-known - photographers (try Pierre Rossier, Ueno Hikoma, Uchida Kuichi, et al) and I didn't start their articles until I could be "more substantial" by having their work in hand. It takes some effort to produce a worthy article for an encyclopaedia, and it shouldn't be otherwise. Pinkville 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Pinkville. Supplying material for magazine covers shouldn't blindly justify notability. I don't see anywhere else bios about this person. He is no Helmut Newton, possibly wouldn't meet standards of pro photography in other fields. Also, references that lure to membership solicitation aren't very cool and smack of soapbox. -MURGH ^disc. 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your delete position, but I do agree that, in an effort to shore up the article, the number of references going back to B. Beauchamp's and M. Perreault's site has gotten a bit out of hand. I will try to correct that when I have time. Observer31 00:57, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Gupta[edit]

Insufficiently notable. Was subjected to a prod after the article was created in July that was reversed with a minor degree of improvement at that time. Other than addition of maintenance tags and minor copyediting, no improvement since July. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; does not appear to even come close to meeting WP:BIO. Seventypercent 03:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:BIO. MER-C 05:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. Chairing your local IEEE chapter is hardly an assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability to meet WP:BIO. <3 Clamster 22:04, 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, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party for Socialism and Liberation[edit]

Repeatedly nominated for speedy deletion by an IP address, despite being removed. Arguments for deletion were "The PSL's New York City branch is based in Harlem. Just statements is self promotion and does not belong in wikipedia. It mentions that it has a branch in Harlem throughout the article.", CSD G11, and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. My opinion is Weak keep. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No vote yet, but unless they can come up with better sources than their own website and their own magazine, I would vote to delete. They need something to verify some notability as a viable party. Fan-1967 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I didn't consider that. I'll see if I can find anything. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PSL has since initiated a New York City branch based in Harlem, and has opened offices in Chicago. ...

It is published monthly and can be obtained from a variety of bookstores throughout the United States, as well as through PSL offices. ...

he Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) also maintains branches and centers in Baltimore, MD; Chicago; Los Angeles, CA; New Paltz and New York City, NY; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA; and West Chester, PA. The PSL's New York City branch is based in Harlem. ...

Plus the only citation is themselves... This neeeds to be deleted. 68.161.73.206 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition for reason for deletion is... Wikipedia states in the What Wiki is not page

"Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

This page fits that. 68.161.73.206 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm also having difficulty coming up with a good ref for notability. It does get 26,800 GHits but none of them are great... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- What are GHits??? 68.161.73.206 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, sorry. They're Google Hits. i.e. the number of entries www.google.com returns if you type the term into it... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not notable either. As the criteria states:

One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

68.161.73.206 03:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, at least its claim of being on ANSWER is true. Xiner (talk, email) 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sites such as http://www.broadleft.org/us.htm attest to their existence. They may be small and little-noticed by the press, but so are all the other socialist/communist parties in the U.S. Indeed the history of all these parties, and the fact that they spend 90% of their energy fighting in factional splits against each other rather than gaining new adherents, is a salient part of why socialism and communism have never gone anywhere in the U.S. Thus this article is relevant and notable. Wasted Time R 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, at the moment, the article's only sources are the party's own site & publication, so notability isn't established, and I think it's fair to say that not every splinter party in the U.S. needs a Wikipedia article. That said, if this article can be properly referenced and the party is shown to be more than just a fringe/splinter organization, I would suggest that the closing admin consider this a weak delete or even a neutral vote (depending on the strength of the evidence). | Mr. Darcy talk 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just existing does not satisfy WP:BIO notability requirements. We require political candidates to have held office and it's not even clear that this political group has accomplished anything of worth in its history...other than to distinguish itself as not the same as another communist group. Congrats to them, but I'm not seeing the notability. ju66l3r 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ju66l3r. Whilst there are enough Google hits to show that they exist and are slightly well-known, they haven't actually contributed anything to make them worthy of the encyclopaedia. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Notable group. Article could definately be expanded. WWP is one of the major left parties in the US, and plays a prominent role in anti-war movement etc.. The PSL split saw several high ranking leaders depart from WWP, including former presidential candidate. --Soman 12:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete does not meet the notability requirements - only source is their own websites. Also, is written in such a way for self-promotion and violates the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"

SetofFive 12:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Deleting a political party on non-notability seems very marginal reasoning. Unpopularity cannot be a reason not to have an article. Furthermore, this provides useful information to users. Though, this article is in serious need of rewrite. Nlsanand 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can verify that they exist, but not much more. Even among below-the-radar small political groups, nothing makes this one look significant.Fan-1967 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Advertisement: "It is published monthly and can be obtained from a variety of bookstores throughout the United States, as well as through PSL offices." Can this be any blatant? What does the article need to say? Call us at 1-900-555-5555 to get a copy of our mag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.242.153 (talk • contribs) at 00:27, 8 January 2007

Delete, without prejudice if notability can be established later. Right now, no evidence they pass WP:ORG. Seraphimblade 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Broadleft cite provided by User:Wasted Time R above. Also per Broadleft this is splinter of Workers World Party, a more substantial group withe an en:wikipedia article 3 yrs + without AfD Edivorce 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentYou don't expect that all the groups in that list gets a wiki article. Not all of those groups are notable. I would also dispute the website as a source of notability. This is not a reliable source and it is bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Non-scholarly_sources I don't see how being a group coming from another notable group is substantial to say it is notable. SetofFive 13:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, broadleft.org is highly reputable on this subject. It is probably the most comprehensive collection on information on left movements around the world. Regarding notability, broadleft.org does practice similiar notibility requirements as on wiki, i.e. not listing locally limited groups. --Soman 13:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable left group and significant in the antiwar movement. General Idea 06:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You just say that without siting really any sources. You just assert it without proof. SetofFive 13:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are the leading group in ANSWER which is the largest antiwar coalition in the US.[6] [7]. General Idea 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat significant as the group behind International ANSWER. Needs cleanup to guard against self-promotion and the like. Dragomiloff 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many websites, including the one mentioned here, are as authoritative as any printed source. The use of them as sources hasto be judged individually. The evidence here is certainly good enough.DGG 05:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Admin Closing this AfD I have placed some lengthy comments in the Discussion section of this AfD that I ask you to consider before closing.Edivorce 13:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Admin Closing this AfD I have also placed some comments summing up why I believe this article should be deleted (should had been a speedy one in my opinion) SetofFive 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Admin Closing this AfD none of the links provided meet WP:RS or WP:V SetofFive 15:03, 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 Delete (A7).--Hús ö nd 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australain christian art[edit]

Wrong spelling and grammar on title. Maybe a test page from a new user, suggest delete and notification on user's talk page to try again. Recurring dreams 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Seventypercent 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. MER-C 03:31, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New London Fire[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:V --Адам12901 ^Talk 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CyberAnth 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence from reliable sources that the subjects meet WP:MUSIC. Added their album to their nomination. MER-C 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails WP:MUSIC, unverifiable. Can't find any reliable sources. Terence Ong 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just falls short of requirements. Can't really see why WP:V comes into it, you can buy their record on Amazon, it's unverified rather than unverifiable. Malla nox 03:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). -- Donald Albury 14:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If they release one more album they'll fulfil criterion #4 of WP:MUSIC.--HisSpaceResearch 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment What? if you delete this article based on this then you'll have to trawl wikipedia and delete hundreds of bands! Being more popular than many trivial local bands you find on here, and having released on album and ep that are widely available, they are quite clearly noteable. Barbara Osgood 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that most of us agree with you, especially those that said delete. I thin kthat they are more notable than several garage type bands on here, and I think those should be deleted, too. It's just a question of getting the time to search through thousands of band articles trying to find the ones that fail WP:BAND. -Адам12901 ^Talk 21:39, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinson Bulldog[edit]

Prod tag removed, so bringing for consideration here. Similar to the now-deleted Winston Olde English Bulldogge and the still under consideration Olde English Bulldogge and British Bulldogge, this is a rather obscure sub-breed of the bulldog that appears to be produced by a single breeder. I get about 560 Google hits for Wilkinson Bulldog, many of them similar to one another and likely submitted to various pages; the article itself states that the breed "appears to be gaining popularity," and is not recognized by a major kennel club. The editor who removed the PROD tag added a link to the Animal Research Foundation as an indication of notability. I frankly can't see this being a notable breed, and feel the article should be deleted (or possibly merged gently into the bulldog article) unless someone else comes up with some solid sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The breed exists and is described in the "External Links" and referenced in the books of the "Further reading" section. The +tag the nominator should have placed on the article is {{{Keep}}} and {{{Expand}}} as the article has potential for expansion. Headphonos 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there a common breed standard? No. Is the breed recognized by any national groups? No. This isn't a breed; it's a line of dogs produced by one breeder. (Anyone interested in drafting Wikipedia:Notability (breeds)?) Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Obviously you haven't read the article as it cites the breed is registered with Animal Research Foundation. There are many Category:Dog breeds that do not have standards, yet they are a dog breed.

Actually, I have read the article and checked references. The "Animal Research Foundation" does not appear to be a nationally recognized registry. As far as I can tell, they're the breed-registry equivalent of a diploma mill. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have just qualified yourself as lacking knowledge about the ARF breed registry and dog breeds in general. Thank you for that. In addition, don't change my entries! Headphonos 20:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ARF's policies and guide for new breed development make it clear that the primary requirement to register a breed with them is a series of payments. The article on breed registries notes:

There are also entities which refer to themselves as registries, but which are thinly-veiled marketing devices for vendors of puppies and adult dogs, as well as a means of collecting registration fees from novice dog owners unfamiliar with reputable registries and breed clubs. Though these entities generally focus on dogs, particularly in relationship to the puppy mill industry, some are marketed as cat registries. At least one group claims to register wild species (held by private individuals rather than by legitimate zoological parks, which use the AZA.

This appears to be more or less what's going on here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless reliable secondary sources are added to make verifiable. CyberAnth 04:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are three "external links" including a well known dog registry and two reference books noted, which cite the breed, that is sufficient for an entry at wikipedia. Headphonos 12:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of advertisement: User:Headphonos has advertised this discussion on the talk pages of the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs. —Centrx→talk • 11:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not an anonymous user and I did not spam and I did not advertise, I advised members of the Wiki dog project of the deletion +tags so that they can participate in the proceedings. Headphonos 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Em? Surely that's the right thing to do. If anyone can advise us on the legitimacy of an article, it is going to be those interested in the relevant Wikiproject. If the article is crap, those people will most likely know it.--Doc^g 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The purpose of the message was to summon users to come and vote a certain way, and it was perceived as such by the recipients, e.g. [8]. In general, this is usually the reason for this sort of mass-messaging, and if spamming were necessary for the deletion process to function properly then every WikiProject should be notified anytime an article within its scope is deleted. That is not feasible and would skew the discussion (and it would be done on the WikiProject talk page, not spam to every participant). Anyone who has the article on his watchlist is already notified of the discussion, and the way to clarify the status of an article is not to ask people to come stack a vote, but to request people at the WikiProject talk page to find reliable sources. Anyway, this comment here is notice to the closing admin to understand what happened when suddenly a dozen users show up and make empty votes, and the {{afdanons}} notice was added at the top to inform those users, if they came, what exactly this is—that it is not some ballot manipulable by a partisan bloc as the mass message would make it seem. —Centrx→talk • 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, everyone. Please assume good faith. No personal attacks. Don't bite the newcomers. If Headphonos is an old user disguised as an old user, no one has pointed that out to me, even though I've said many times the logs show Headphonos has been a user since December 20, 2006. I can think for myself. I am not a puppet for Headphonos. In fact, if I had to say one way or another, putting words in his/her mouth, (which I should not do, and am not doing, but only providing an example,) I could even venture to say s/he may be sorry s/he contacted me about this topic in the first place. (i.e. I do not vote to keep all dog articles, only the ones that pass my research test.) From feedback I receive from people outside of bulldog debates, I gather that I am a relatively new yet fairly well respected editor. I do not own a bulldog, have never lived with a bulldog, do not like bulldogs, and never intend on having a bulldog. I am often quite good at conducting research. I feel this article should be deleted (maybe properly restored in the future, but currently deleted); I feel the one on Olde English Bulldogge should be kept. Keesiewonder 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not have the authority to tell them how to vote, I advised them of the process so they can participate. These people are the dog breed project participants and they are the best one's to consult. Surely you are not implying that they would vote to keep a dog breed that is not worthy of an article at Wikipedia. Take note that your template {{{afdanons}}} is referring to ANONymous canvassing, which I did not do. Headphonos 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am one of the editors who was informed of this discussion by the above editor and subsequently had that notice removed from my talk page, and I am thankful to him for informing me about this discussion. I regret to say that the sources indicated above do tend to be perhaps a bit less than we would like, as they do tend to uniformly seem to be basing their information on what they are supplied by the breeders themselves. However, verifiability can, and does, change over time, and so I would like to include the provision of reinstating the article if independent verification can be found. Also, I have notified another editor who seems to be better informed about rare breeds of this and the other discussions, and hope to hear from her soon. I reserve the right to change my opinion based on her input. Badbilltucker 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to justify its own article there would have to be meaningful secondary references. Addhoc 12:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Strong Delete - Personally, I have not found anything that convinces me about this bulldog - at least not yet. And, I am not the other editor about whom Badbilltucker refers above. I will pass through the article now, inserting {{fact}} where I would like to see a specific citation inserted. What I see in the 'See Also' and 'Reference List' is not adequate for my current discernment of verifiability. I'm looking for page numbers from specific journals or books that are published by major publishers. As I'm sure proponents of the article can understand, I want to tie the resources to the facts in the article. If the article should be kept, this should be a relatively easy task. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 16:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the external links on the article's page says the following: "The Original English Bulldogge came to North America in 1946 from the island Inchtavannach in Loch Loman, Scotland, where it had been in the Wilkinson family for generations." Source: [9]. We already have an article on several other bulldogs that cover the original English Bulldogge. (Please see my talk page at [10] where I am trying to sort through all the bulldog lineages.) Anyway, the sentence I quoted does not mean that there is a specific line of bulldogs called the Wilkinson Bulldog. It means, to me, that the Wilkinson family worked with a breed of dog called the Original English Bulldogge. If this particular line of dogs became noteworthy for some reason, please provide a complete (page numbers and all) reference that I can check. If proponents of the Wilkinson Bulldog cannot produce this, remember that we cannot have articles on all the other families who may have had bulldogs in or after 1946, such as Scott Bulldog, Smith Bulldog, Walter Bulldog, Brown Bulldog, Henry Bulldog, Phillips Bulldog, Lord Bulldog, etc. If the Wilkinson Bulldog is indeed noteworthy, like the Olde English Bulldogge is, then some good resources and complete citations should be forthcoming. Right? For the record, the Wilkinson Bulldog is not mentioned once in this book. Not in a caption; not in an 'also known as.' Keesiewonder 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As webmaster for the Original English Bulldogge site I see no reason for this article to be kept. As with many other articles on Wikipedia there definitely is not enough reference material to justify it. As for A.R.F., this registry was not even created originally as a dog registry. I think while you are looking at this article you should definitely look at the Crofton, British Columbia article because, being the Archivist for the local museum, I know that most of this article came from one, small, minor publication and local knowledge. Cowbonsai 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - So you created a full website on the "Wilkinson Bulldog" and you are advising Wikipedia that the breed is not worthy of an article ?! Somehow I think this delete vote is tainted or even bogus ! Headphonos 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I read Cowbonsai's input to mean 's/he was the webmaster for content focused on the Original English Bulldogge site.' We don't know whether as webmaster s/he was owner of or had an opinion on the dogs featured on the web site. S/he could have been hired as a webmaster to create a site for someone else who was a proponent of the Original English Bulldogge. A dog breed that we are not discussing here. We are discussing the Wilkinson Bulldog. From the information provided, Cowbonsai has not had anything to do with a website on the Wilkinson Bulldog. I trust Cowbonsai will correct my interpretation if I'm wrong. Keesiewonder 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Keesiewonder the Original English Bulldogge is the Wilkinson Bulldog this is simply another example of Ochlocracy and why Wikipedia is devolving into Wikiality, time for me to start an account at Wookiepedia -:) Headphonos 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Wikipedia has higher standards of verifiability and notability than any random website. —Centrx→talk • 15:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually I didn't create a whole website about the Wilkinson Bulldog and that's the problem. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a Wilkinson Bulldog. Lolly Wilkinson's dogs was how the breed was referred to in "The Story Of the Real Bulldog" on page 81. The breed is registered as the Original English Bulldogge with A.R.F. and that is how Lolly Wilkinson refers to them. My site is the only website dedicated to the Original English Bulldogge and it is authorized by Lolly. There are two other authorized pages, one on Kaare Konradsen's MolosserWorld and the other on A.R.F.'s site. All other references to this breed have been ripped from my site or the other two pages. As to whether I'm me or not, I came to this thread because of an e-mail I got addressed to my contact address on the Original English Bulldogge site. The reason I don't care one way or the other about whether the Original English Bulldogge is on Wikipedia is because of what I can tell from this thread. It is very obvious that the intent is to turn the dog section into a mirror for the A.K.C.. That became very clear when they started talking about major or national registries. I really don't see why what registry a breed belongs to should be a deciding factor of whether a breed gets into Wikipedia or not. Cowbonsai 21:18, 8 January 2007

Exactly, it doesn't matter, but because of [Wikiality] everybody and his dog has an opinion, ie. if it doesn't belong to a major kennel or the FCI, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. That is what I call ochlocracy, the mob-rule ! Headphonos 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read some guidelines, please, instead of referring to those of us who have a problem with the article as being mob rule or something. Notably, we need reliable sources that are verifiable indicating that this sub-breed of dog is notable. There is none of that at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the dog projects on WP, but am not the originator of them. Headphonos (and Cowbonsai), I have not ever said anything anywhere resembling this: "if it doesn't belong to a major kennel or the FCI, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia." I did suggest that Headphonos, and now anyone who is reading this, that if you have concerns about the dog projects, you should contact the projects directly. The response I received from Headphonos on this was that s/he was not interested in all the dog breeds, just certain ones ... and, I guess, with that reasoning, has chosen to not contact the dog projects. If you need me to provide links to my dialogs with Headphonos, I will. I do not feel that the dog projects are being portrayed accurately in this AfD. And, if there are concerns, if you do not raise them with the users who may be able to help, they cannot be addressed. Keesiewonder 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get on with Deleting Wilkinson Bulldog instead of discussing WP's censorship policies? Cowbonsai 00:42, 9 January 2007

I think we're done; where's the deciding admin? Keesiewonder 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as per a comment earlier, I have contacted the cat, dog, and horse breeds WikiProjects and asked them if they would be willing to assist in drafting guidelines for breed notability. Badbilltucker 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'm interested to hear how this goes. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So am I! I've followed up in the dog arena. Keesiewonder 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this continuing? If the variation has merit, you may consider merging with another article, but I have to admit that I see little support or evidence for a separate breed, or even a distinct variant. I would also caution that Animal Research Foundation, or ARF, is not a viable source on breeds or even those entries it has registered. Their entry lists traits such as speech (the dogs say "Mumma"?), and eating from a spoon? A personality trait is not "sleeping on a bed". CMacMillan 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This usually lasts 5 days. —Centrx→talk • 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so any time now ... Keesiewonder 10:58, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnu Panorama[edit]

No evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:SOFTWARE. Contested prod. MER-C 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even after reading the article, it isn't entirely clear what this program does. (It's a 3D renderer, more or less.) Development appears to have come to a standstill in 2003, the software never made a 1.0 release, and the current version is described as being pretty incomplete. Rest in peace. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to establish notability. CyberAnth 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with GNU Project. Or at least mention. Or delete. Bubba hot ep 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE, don't see what the software is actually about. Terence Ong 14:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be some sort of library, but has never been finished (abandoned) and never used by anybody else. In short, it has had no effect on anything. --Gwern (contribs) 19:36 11 January 2007 (GMT) 19:36, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25dates.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa ~ 1m: [11]. Unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. CyberAnth 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. advertisement for a non-notable entity --JWSchmidt 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originially contested the prod because the article does assert notability. While I do not believe it to be notable, I feel that it deserved a proper AFD. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement, fails WP:WEB. Terence Ong 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per advertisment Natl1 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently sourced, likely WP:SPAM.-- danntm ^T _C 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 02:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an ad, non-notable, and finally garden variety product lets delete and go home..-_-zzz VIRŮS•HOUSЕ 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no meaningful or important content. Nareklm 03:41, 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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Navy slang[edit]

Merely a list of dictdefs. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwikiied contested prod. MER-C 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep I have no problem with this list (though perhaps it should be titled "List of US Navy slang), as many of the entries are not dicdefs at all, but somewhat well-developed short paragraphs. I only feel strongly enough to !vote "week keep" because the entries are not verified with citations; however, I'm still !voting keep because I'd assume that most of the entries are covered by all of the external links. In addition to keeping the article, I would urge a trimming to eliminate any and all unverifiable terms. -- Kicking222 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very well referenced in terms of sources, and the result of a great deal of hard work. Ideally each entry would be footnoted to the sources, but this is not an enforced standard to which other WP articles are held, so why should this be singled out. It clearly goes beyond a dictionary as it is a collection of historic and contemporary slang not appropriate to a dictionary. It has potential as a valuable resource. --Kevin Murray 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prune, remove all of the single line and unreferenced entries; there are too many well-developed ones that could stand as stubs on their own for me to offer a blanket delete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs a vicious, vicious pruning, it's full of casual pov and joking prose. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's nothing wrong with having a list of Navy terms in an encyclopedia. Squidfryerchef 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has already been transwikied to Wiktionary, no need to keep it here. Redirect to Wiktionary if possible. -- Kesh 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - its style may to the casual user full of casual POV and joking prose but which is no worse than slang used in rapper articles and the like where the F word appears constantly. Military jargon, especially slang, reflects a distinct heritage. Ronbo76 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Wiktionary I have used this page in the past and it is useful, but on the other hand it is already at Wiktionary. If anything should be done, the page should be redirected to Wiktionary (in order to avoid redundancy). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Prior to this discussion, it had been tagged with the standard prod. I removed the prod and offered to improve the article. Navy and all slang are more than just a dictionary. It reflects military heritage which is not often considered by civilians. And, it can be linked to other articles where the jargon is being used without really being known what it fully means and came from.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 17:53, January 6, 2007

While I have the utmost respect for military personnel, a simple list of jargon is not encyclopedic. Perhaps articles could be created for individual terms, if they can be shown to be notable, but the list itself really doesn't belong as a seperate Wikipedia article. -- Kesh 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What really disappoints me about where this article is linked to (military slang is that no slang exists for the Air Force. I had a brother fly over Vietnam where Falcon Codes, a form of military slang, that evolved into OPSEC because abbreviated code words were used that the enemy did not know. Kind of like discovering what some knowledgeable Marines developed with Windtalkers. This is just a short history of military slang which goes back to our American Revolution and even when the second caveman raised a club. Ronbo76 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Military slang is a list of lists. That's not good. However, that sounds like a good project: rewrite that article to be about the history and use of military slang, rather than just a list of other articles that are, themselves, dictionary lists. I think such an article would be valuable to Wikipedia, more valuable than a simple dictionary list of the terms. -- Kesh 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With that rationale (and I am not attacking but posing a question), what about its overall category, Category:Military slang and jargon? We prune here; we might as attack the whole tree. (Please note: I am somewhat a new user here with six months experience; one as a registered contributor and do not know how to make the category show. There are 51 pages on that list.) Ronbo76 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Should be considered on an article-by-article basis. Some terms, like AWOL have become so well-known outside military circles they may warrant an article themselves. Others, not so much. It may be that the tree needs heavy pruning, to keep it healthy, but no need to kill it off. -- Kesh 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all users in this discussion Military slang is a topic that is huge. It isn't too big to be categorized, but it is tough. What I would suggest is a completely new template (not Wikipedia template, but rather writing outline) for this slang page. Maybe having slang listed by war or by first usage (those that were developed long ago but are still in use could be listed under contemporary). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable and useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps not all articles about )(some group of people's) Sland should be accepted, but the Navy is so noteworthy as a source for slang that this one is surely one of the ones that should be kept. Having the list is useful, per WP:LIST.DGG 05:13, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asbury Plaza[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:V Адам12901 ^Talk 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please say how it fails WP:V. Are you suggesting it is unverifiable? How have you tried to verify it and failed? I genuinely don't understand that? Is it unverifiable?--Doc^g 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have any verification on it. Even the website of the mall is not listed (not that it counts at all). It has not been backed up with independent sources. --Адам12901 ^Talk 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood policy. If an article lacks verification, then you should seek to verify it - or mark it as {{unverified}} that another might seek to do so. We only delete articles if they are unverifiABLE, that is they CANNOT be verified. Sure this article may currently be unverifiED, and is a concern we need to fix - but not by deletion. Ss it unverifiABLE? Unless it is, then it does not contravene WP:V.--Doc^g 17:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. CyberAnth 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet the proposed WP:MALL. MER-C 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MALL, as of this writing, is not a guideline. 1ne 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets cited often enough, it will become a guideline. That's apparently how it is done rather than having a vote somewhere. Edison 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not a guideline. 1ne 00:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Retail environment of Dubuque, Iowa and stop persecuting Malls.--Doc^g 12:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doc glasgow. 1ne 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Glasgow. Atom 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep perhaps - but there is no reason to speedy close this debate. Please don't use 'speedy' unless you are suggesting there are grounds for ending the discussion.--Doc^g 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per [12] it has 853,000 square feet of GLA, not enough to consider it a regional mall, per WP:MALL. I don't see other historic (too new) or architectural bases for keeping it. Edison 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the author of Asbury Plaza and a local living 1 mile away, I can say that Asbury Plaza is notable in that it has had an enormous impact on the local economy. It is the largest shopping center in Dubuque, a city of significant regional and historical importance, and is a fine example of major changes taking place in the city. Also, the center itself is merely one part of a much larger commercial expansion in its neighborhood, much of which is only recent, and has yet to be documented. (Example: Sam's Club in Dubuque opens next wk, yet is unlisted on their own website) As Asbury Plaza is a "power center" and not a traditional enclosed shopping mall, these types of complexes tend not to have significant press since they are generally much smaller than A.P. Also, contradicting [13], which says that A.P. is not actively under construction, I can say fairly that this is untrue as well. Last week, another announcement came that a 100,000+ sq. ft. building will be built this year at A.P., likely placing it >1 mil. sq. ft. if it is not there already. DBQer 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, it's just a big shopping center. The fact that it impacts the local economy doesn't make it distinct from any other shopping center of its size and in my mind is not enough of a claim of notability. delldot | talk 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Retail environment of Dubuque, Iowa. Oh, wait it already is. The only substantial difference is this lists some of the businesses renting space in the building (currently, I assume). How about a simple redirect? --maclean 07:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shifters (webcomic)[edit]

Article makes no claims to notability that would satisfy any of the 3 points in WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, borderline speedy. MER-C 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and agree with MER-C. Most of the pages on their website are 404s, by the way. Bubba hot ep 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much everything on free web hosts are non notable. - hahnch e n 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite how much I enjoy the comic, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Maybe some day, it will be, but this isn't that day. -- Kesh 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't suppose the starting time is any help? I thought not. --Kizor 07:25, 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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bean queen[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query What is the specific violation of WP:V in this case? Navou ^talk 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable" (from WP:N). Once notability is established through sourcing an article with "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable", a reader can then verify that the article's claims are supported by the sources. As this article stands, there is nothing to verify because no sources are cited to establish its notability. See? CyberAnth 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of these mass nominations are in good faith. What specifically does this article violate? You copied the same generic shit in every Afd. --- RockMFR 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Might that be because they are all on the same grounds? Also, if you read my comments here, I have quite clearly explained the grounds. CyberAnth
- Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep article quality is not a deletion criterion, the article asserts notability, but needs references. Consider tagging for cleanup or sourcing before reaching for the AfD subst. Wintermut3 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but WINAD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs).

It's rather more than a dic def already, since it's discussing how the term is used, by whom, and how it is received. That's social context; encyclopedic content rather than mere dic def. — coelacan talk — 05:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This scattershot name-every-policy business just won't do. Notability is asserted. Yes, it needs reference but quality of articles is not a ground for deletion whatever your objection to their content. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It is notable if you consider notable an un-sourced statement that "Bean queen is a term used in the English-speaking gay community to refer to a [white] person" who dates Hispanics. How is that notable? "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable" (from WP:N). Where are the sources? Without them, there is nothing to even verify. Moreover, how is Bean queen not a neologism? "Neologism are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (from WP:NEO). All the supposed assertion of notability in the article has done is assert it is a neologism. And WINAD. CyberAnth 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think it might help everyone if you calmed down. Your reason for nomination to which I responded was just a collection of links to policy with no discernible argument, which have cut and pasted from every one of these numerous AfDs. I'm sure you have an important point to make but, instead of presenting your rationale to objecting to the article in the first place, you seem to prefer to respond in an unnecessarily hostile manner to whoever opposes you. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or merge & redirect ~~Speedy Keep~~ Copy & paste nom. The concept of a "bean queen" is more than the definition of the term, so WP:WINAD doesn't apply. Notability is established and neologism is denied by its commonplace usage within media and popular culture (~20,000 Google hits). Verifiability is no reason to delete the article, and the prevalence of the concept outside the article denies allegations of original research. None of this information was difficult to come by, and the lack of due diligence in making this nomination concerns me. Are you trying to make a point? --Ssbohio 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, and after talking with JzG, I'm amending to show my support for either keeping the article or merging its content into gay slang with a redirect. If the text becomes large enough, it can always be broken back out into a separate article. --Ssbohio 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - keep per discussion, speedy per WP:SNOW. This goes a little farther than being a mere dicdef. If anything, it may be transwiki'd to wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added three sources, one from a "gay" publication, one from a fundamentalist Christian publication, and one from a Spanish language publication (to show that it's used there as well). Hope this takes care of the sources... I am going to add a paragraph about the 'straight' use, as I came across tons of Myspace gals using this word! SkierRMH 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - apologie, should have been references/external links, not sources, so marked. SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

http://www.unc.edu/glbtsa/lambda/articles/29/1/attraction.html - only mentions the term (once) as a slang word, does not discuss it, is not sufficient because the term must have been the subject of sources, not merely mentioned in it. WINAD.

Comment The article is about various attractions and the reasons one group may/may not be attracted to another, which does show some reasoning behind the term. How does Wiktionary is not a dictionary apply to the explanation of the term?SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.um.es/tonosdigital/znum10/estudios/O-Navarro.htm - is a glossary of slang terms for homosexuals. Does not discuss bean queen, only mentions it as a slang word. WINAD.

Commment is not just a glossary of slang terms, it is a discussion of the etymology and philology of the term from the Hispanic perspective. Again, how does Wiktionary is not a dictionary apply to giving an etymology & philology of a term in it's non-English uses (in English, OK, but cross-linguistically?) in relation to the subject at hand? SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.antipas.org/books/homo_revolution/hr_gloss.html - again just a glossary, and a source of clearly dubious reliability from a partisan source and thus cannot be used. WINAD.

Comment I have removed this one until I can get the correct link to the book itself, as it's discussed in-depth therein. SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia. Check the policies.CyberAnth 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, you might have looked at the article, I did not source Myspace, I mentioned it here only to show that the use of the term is broader than used here. A simple Google search [14] will show thousands of non-gay uses (not only in myspace) of the term. SkierRMH 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Johntex\^talk 11:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and warn nominator about being civil to other editors. There is no need for rudeness on WP; if anything, it makes one's arguments look weaker. --Charlene 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is a pending discussion about the nominator's behaviour ongoing at WP:ANI (just go Ctrl+F for the nominators name, there's a couple of threads). Rather than make a suggestion here which is unlikely to be carried out, you and everyone else is welcome to give their thoughts on this "AfD-spree" matter in an attempt to build concensus and to move forward. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Daniel. --Dennisthe2 18:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting. Atom 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced slang dicdef. The best reference I can find for this is Urban Dictionary - enough said. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [15] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [16]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator's history aside, this term does not appear to be the least bit notable. Google hits are useless as they bring up many (I'd say mostly) unrelated uses of the two words together (ex: "L.L. Bean Queen Size Bed," etc). Wavy G 18:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\^talk 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not even close to being a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. --JWSchmidt 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't an argument for keeping a dictionary definition article, it is just an ad hominem attack on the nominator. Please don't do this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Artw Albatross2147 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Artw has made no argument to agree with, but has just insulted the nominator. Is that what you're agreeing with? Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook dictionary definition. Transwiki to Wiktionary if they want it, or redirect to Gay slang, but there is no indication that we can build an encyclopedia article out of this. Jkelly 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral maybe it is best to put it in the Wiktionary and then get the article here later, if or when the word becomes more well known, for instance when there is an article with a headline that uses "Bean Queen" in it, or when there is movie where it is used, etc. etc... Pernambuco 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been around less than a month. The similar article Rice queen is fully sourced and goes well beyond a dicdef and there is no reasonable doubt that Bean queen will as well. An unsourced tag would do rather than deletion. Malla nox 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsure really there are no reliable sources so this one looks like original research to me Yuckfoo 10:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one 'source' seems to contradict the other. Is a "bean queen" a Mexican homosexual or a non-Hispanic homosexual who dates Hispanic homosexuals? The two uses appear to be separate and contradictory neologisms. -- Donald Albury 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--HisSpaceResearch 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (forgot to actually make a vote earlier). It's rather more than a dic def already, since it's discussing how the term is used, by whom, and how it is received. That's social context; encyclopedic content rather than mere dic def. — coelacan talk — 00:08, 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.

OK, I'll bite. What are the grounds for deletion for this one? HalJor 02:53, 6 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 Keep Eluchil404 11:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom (BDSM)[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 03:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notable and established concept in the BSDM community, which has been the subject of nontrivial external works in many places. BSDM subculture is notable, and submission is notable (referenced, reported on, etc.) Could use sourcing, but that's not a deletion reason. I'm going to attempt some cleanup, but this massive flood of noms is so overwhelming it will take longer than 5 days to look at all the articles in detail alone... Wintermut3 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are also no sources. TJ Spyke 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Wintermut3. HalJor 05:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concept is notable; article should be tagged. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wintermut3. Maxamegalon2000 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "More" references? The article has NO references. You also don't say how it establishes notability. So far none of the Keep votes have come up with a good reason to keep from what I can see. TJ Spyke 06:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dumb nom. Danny Lilithborne 08:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. --Dennisthe2 09:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Three sources/references have been added, and I could have added 20 more. Also removed OR & source tags. SkierRMH 09:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's getting harder and harder to AGF with these deletion nominations. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. --Charlene 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Bad faith nomination, but article needs work. Atom 13:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, sources have all been verified, the nomination is a bit dumb. I cannot assume good faith here, sorry. Everything is there, we can't deny anything. Terence Ong 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Wintermut3. Give it a chance to improve; and if your true concern is the quality of these please help out. Mass-AfDing of articles is not good faith. Akihabara 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not in good faith whatsoever. Mass AfD-ing and it's starting to look more like trolling than anything else Gretnagod 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Another of [[CyberAnth's AfDs towards an article about sexuality. The article does need updated for verifiability, but the term is notable and the article can be brought up to encyclopedic standards. -- Kesh 22:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albatross2147 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current version of article could use improvement, but definitely should stick around. --Haemo 00:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well established term.-- danntm ^T _C 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given, established term easily verifiable etc. Malla nox 03:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--HisSpaceResearch 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Clearly notable and verifyable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Everyone knows this one; I do not like to say a nominator is in bad faith, but in this instance... Well, I'll just say he should reread WP:SNOW. DGG 05:16, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cum rag[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V (ref is urban dictionary and an online catalog that sells "cum rags"), possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Article appears to have two references~~, can be expanded. Navou ^talk 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source since, like Wikipedia, anybody can edit it. TJ Spyke 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. Navou ^talk 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You say it establishes notability, HOW does it establish notability? TJ Spyke 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete mostly due to WP:WINAD. I don't really know how much can be said about the subject of cum rags other than simply definition so I have a hard time imagining this expanding beyond a definition. Then again, I suppose Toilet paper has a pretty robust article. --Jackhorkheimer 07:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Jackhorkheimer echoes my sentiments here, and I think CyberAnth actually has this one right. --Dennisthe2 09:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't like CyberAnth's actions, but I would prod this for deletion myself as a dicdef, so I think it's fair to vote delete. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a very good article, but it is notable, and could be improved given time. Atom 13:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, this doesn't meet any speedy keep criteria, so that's not even a valid option. Anyway, while I appreciate that most of this group of nominations is a tad ridiculous, this particular concept really couldn't expand beyond dicdef status. I also note with some irony that Mr. Norton's response to this appears to be one used for almost all of these noms and would request something specifically documenting how this meets notability guidelines and establishes itself as more than a definition. GassyGuy 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Masturbation - For once, Cyberanth actually submitted an article on a sexual topic that really does warrant action. -- Kesh 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unencyclopedic content. Although, I would love to be able to work a Cleanup joke in here somehow...Hmm, seems I did. But seriously, nothing worth keeping. Wavy G 23:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemo (talk • contribs)
Delete One of the valid nominations; per nom. Akihabara 01:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Malla nox 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef and self-explanatory term. Cum rag.. let me think.. an art movement? A new heavy metal album? Breed of pig? That someone has humourously produced a hand towel with that stitched in doesn't convince me that this needs an article. The uncooperatively sticky nature of semen can be covered in its own article or the article of a fetish/activity involving it. QuagmireDog 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's a real term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 08:42, 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 - It is clear there will not be a consensus for deletion, so no need for this to continue. VegaDark 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fag hag[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO, survived an AfD 1.5 years ago and has not improved. CyberAnth 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is clearly widely used and notable. It did not merely survive the previous Afd, all votes were keep bar the nomination. References are not going to be a problem. I've even read a fairly noted book [17] entitled 'fag hag' in which the central character is such a person. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better get to solving its problems. CyberAnth 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg your pardon? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This hostility seriously reveals much. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep CyberAnth, what exactly do you mean by that? The onus of proof is on the nomination, not on the people trying to fix and/or defend the articles. I am attempting to assume the best of your flood of very simular nominations, but it would be nice if we could work together to fix these articles before reaching for the delete blaster. This appears to be a notable concept, the article cites notability as well, could use cleanup, but we have a perfectly good tag for that, and it doesn't involve AfD debates. Wintermut3 05:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep As above, article can be expanded. Also very notable. Additionally WP:CIVIL. :) Navou ^talk 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or what? --Dennisthe2 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notability is easily established. Here it is in The Advocate. Should have done your homework. — coelacan talk — 05:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The concept of a "fag hag" is more than the definition of the term, so WP:WINAD doesn't apply. Notability is established and neologism is denied by its commonplace usage within media and popular culture (~200,000 Google hits). Verifiability is no reason to delete the article, and the prevalence of the concept outside the article denies allegations of original research. None of this information was difficult to come by, and the lack of due diligence in making this nomination appalls me. --Ssbohio 05:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concept is notable; article should be tagged. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --Dennisthe2 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep OK, there are a couple of sources/references added to the article from various nations. Also added an "other uses" to the book & movie. SkierRMH 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's getting harder and harder to AGF with these deletion nominations. Grutness...wha? 11:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. --Charlene 12:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.

Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. That's all. Terence Ong 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all reasons have been said before.... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Though I hate the term, it's well referenced and yet another bad faith submission of a sexual topic by CyberAnth.

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

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

The result was keep. John254 19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend experience[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable jargon --JWSchmidt 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I do agree this seems to be a jargon term and pure dictdef. Sourcing and a discussion of the sociological implication would help that, but a cursory Lexis-Nexis scan turned up nothing except a few trivial mentions not related to this usage. Wintermut3 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Keep per added sources. Wintermut3 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wintermut3. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep following the references that have been added. Article now appears to meet WP:N and WP:V. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I just got a spam today with a header that said "looking for a GFE?". I came here to look it up. Its odd that it would be deleted on the same day. I get 78,000 Ghits. You can't search one database and call it quits, Lexis-Nexis or Google Scholar are not ideal for sexual neologisms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concept is notable; article should be tagged. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Richard, per the WP:V requirement, however, non-trivial reputable/scholarly sources are needed, on many of the other sexual topics nominated today, there are those sources, on this one, there are not. I find Lexis to be a bit better than, say, google, at determining what's been studied in a serious context or mentioned in news sources, it is the premier database of news articles and journal articles. Wintermut3 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article currently has 3 non-trivial sources. One is the Villgae Voice article and another was written by a PhD researcher is Sexology. Johntex\^talk 08:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add the reference I found in the Village Voice, and someone just beat me to it. Bravo! Yes Lexis Nexis is a gentlemen's database, but not not one to use to find what a "gentlemen's club" is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable term and concept. Improve their articles references instead of deleting it. Johntex\^talk 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken Richard, sorry if I sounded a bit stuck up there, I'm just (rather justifiably in my opinion) tired of the "if it doesn't exist on 'google' it doesn't exist" bias. Wintermut3 07:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --Dennisthe2 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - sources added, and for Pete's sake, just open any newspaper (like the New York Times or Christian Science Monitor) personal ad's to see this ;o) SkierRMH 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to article having serious references. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. --Charlene 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.

Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. That's all. Terence Ong 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's something that goes on in the world, it has references, and the article is substantiative enough not to violate WINAD. Squidfryerchef 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\^talk 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't suppose explaining all over again is necessary in this case. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Weak references, but fixable. Yet another AfD in a pattern by CyberAnth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 17:52, January 6, 2007
Keep - This is a widely used term Albatross2147 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons stated previously and on other similar AfDs. Malla nox 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary usage guides or slang and idiom guides. TheMindsEye 03:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this listing useful, which prompts me to question whether the few objections are rooted in moral prespectives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.195.16 (talk) 06:30, 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 Speedy Keep. The response has been unanimous. I don't think this has any chance of reaching any consensus besides keep -- Samuel Wantman 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy girl[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article asserts notability and provides sources, it could stand improvement but article quality is not a reason for deletion. Sources provided speak to notability and verifability, not a neologism. Wintermut3 05:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concept is notable; article should be tagged. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Before nominating an AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep given that nomination is either in bad faith or at least the criteria given are clearly false. It just boggles my mind that WP:WINAD is given as a reason for deletion here when the page clearly includes material that goes beyond a definition. --Jackhorkheimer 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. Johntex\^talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --Dennisthe2 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am amazed at how people vote "Keep" in such apparent blatant disregard or ignorance of WP policies. The above "Speedy keep" vote by Johntex is particularly troubling. His vote may be in bad faith and worthy of an incident report because it evidences such apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies. Admins should know much better and are held to a higher standard.

He says, "There are multiple links from the article to supporting information" and is apparently content to let it go at that. But let's look at the links one by one:

Bar Girl Love (also see its root URL at [18]) - violates Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The site is a "community portal", primarily an Internet Forum. The article is an anonymously written "reader submission" (see here) and cannot be used per WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet.

description of a bar girl - an Internet Forum per WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet "should not be used as sources" and fails [Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources] because posts on Forums are clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"!

"Asia's sex trade is 'slavery'" - a BBC article that nowhere mentions the term "Juicy girl". Using it in the article is thus Synthesis. However, the article would be a great source in Trafficking in human beings.

South Korea Pages by ClarkRB - A bulletin board post that clearly falls under WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet that "should not be used as sources" and blatantly fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

CyberAnth 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel those external links are inappropriate, a better course of action would have been any of these (a) add better ones (b) discuss them on the talk page (c) prune the links you think are inappropriate. Johntex\^talk 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I "feel"' they are??? They blatantly violate WP policies. The point is your clearly erroneous and perhaps partisan and bad faith vote on this matter. If I prune the links, then the article will have no references--references you thought (or at least voted as if) were good. CyberAnth 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you provide evidence to back your inference that comments here may be in bad faith. BTW, I added two more verifiable, reliable sources to the article just now. Johntex\^talk 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Girl Love is a blatantly un-allowable. I request admins to know when sources they add to articles are not allowable per WP policies. I have not looked at the other two yet. CyberAnth 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that have to do with me? I didn't add that link. Johntex\^talk 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, admins do not, as a rule, insert themselves into content disputes. Also, the trouble with arguing bad faith is that what we're all supposed to be doing is assuming good faith. It makes it hard for me to assume the assumption of good faith on your part when you're describing another editor's contribution as bad faith. --Ssbohio 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - all of the concerns voiced by nom have been addressed (and a few typos fixed). SkierRMH 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The diff in the article between my nom and your making the above completely bogus statement is here. You fixed a few typos. Johntex added one ref, Bar Girl Love, which I already have shown above to be a non-usable ref in WP. So how this tabulates to "all of the concerns voiced by nom have been addressed" is utterly beyond me. CyberAnth 10:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, do I need to spell it out concern by concern:

*WP:WINAD clearly this is more than a simple dictionary definition.

*WP:N & WP:V & WP:OR - references have been added, and since your comment Johntex appears to have cited two more.

*WP:NEO Use by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Navy Times, & that little news agency, the BBC - don't think it is quite a neologism.

*And finally, all I admitted to doing is fixing a few typos! SkierRMH 23:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - You are mistaken. The diff you provide shows I added two refs. One in-line, one not in-line. Also, the BBC article is relevant. The two sources I added make clear that the term "juicy girl" is associated with human trafficking to brothels. The BBC article discusses human traffic to brothels. The BBC article does not need to mention the term "juicy girls". All that matters is that it is relevant to the content. Johntex\^talk 10:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And here are two more references: UNITED STATES, Appellee V. Shannon R. BULLMAN, Captain, U.S. Air Force, Appellant and Sex slaves * How women are lured into South Korea's flesh trade * How top U.S. commanders turn a blind eye even as troops are the racket's best customers - Navy Times Johntex\^talk 10:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. (And yes, I am cutting and pasting this; if it's good enough for the nom, it's good enough for me.) --Charlene 12:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.
Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. We are not a children's encyclopedia, WP:NOT censorship for minors. Terence Ong 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [19] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [20]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has previously denied that motivation at AN/I. In good faith, I believe it, though the choice of noms raised the same questions in my mind. --Ssbohio 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:POINT, WP:SNOW, and administrators' noticeboard discussion of this spate of noms. --Ssbohio 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\^talk 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. If I were an admin, i'd do it, but for now. Somebody go get one here. Just H 22:13, 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 regular keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mama-san[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Term appears notable:

It is used in a cover story about Child Slavery on TIMEasia.com [21].
It can also be founder here [22].
It also appears to be used in the paper, "Adolescent prostitution in Canada and the Philippines: Statistical comparisons, an ethnographic account and policy options" by Christopher Bagley of Department of Social Work, University of Southampton, UK [23] (unfortunately the text is subscription only).

Use seems wider than a mere neologism and has a culturally irony given the use of a honourific. It is not presently a dicdef and can in any event be expanded. Quality of article is no reason for deletion. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, external links now added, including Time magazine's, also wikified & copyedited a bit now. SkierRMH 10:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.

Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. That's all. Terence Ong 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep References have been added; certainly not a neologism. Akihabara 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [24] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [25]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a dicdef. Current version meets accetability criteria. Malla nox 03:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator's rubberstamping. ThuranX 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, of which I have not seen a clearer case. Bad faith nom. Article is encyclopaedic. Very well known term. Looking at the other articles being put up, it appears that CyberAnth may be a member of the moral majority. Ohconfucius 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Edited Ohconfucius 01:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mama-san has got to be one of the first three sociological terms any researcher of modern Japanese culture stumbles across. Definitely notable, definitely not a neo-logism, and definitely plenty of other things I wont even go into. The only comment I have regarding this article is that it is surprisingly short given the sheer sociological importance and wide usage of the word. TomorrowTime 12:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Tomorrowtime. skip (t / c) 16:28, 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 Keep as valid diasambiguation page. Eluchil404 12:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nookie[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page is actually a disambig page. I tried to clean up the article to make the disambiguation more prominent (further cleanup may be needed). If this page ends up being deleted, Nookie (song) should be redirected/moved here. Tinlinkin 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - may need more references?? It contains NO references. How then can it be verified when there is nothing to verify? I will take your assertion of it not violating anything else with equal (non-)seriousness. CyberAnth 10:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - it now reads like more standardized disambig page. Redundancies also removed. SkierRMH 10:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - article is fine as a disambig page. Johntex\^talk 10:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another stupid nomination from CyberAnth. How will people find Nookie Bear witnout this disambig page? Jooler 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, lets not start that. Keep to the subject at hand; any "stupidity" or otherwise can be dealt with at WP:ANI, which it currently is. For that matter, speedy keep as a disambig. page which is exempt from WP:V in this case. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. --Charlene 12:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting. Atom 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef usage guide = delete. Wiktionary is thataway ----> Guy (Help!) 13:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. That's all. Terence Ong 15:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [26] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [27]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fine disambiguation page. Akihabara 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's a disambig page, and I'm calling WP:SNOW. --Dennisthe2 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to Delete. It's been reformatted, looks more like a dicdef. --Dennisthe2 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever I think of this block of nominations, I don't think this one's wirth keeping even as a disambig page. It appears there is only one article on Wiki other than this with 'Nookie' in the title and that is Nookie (song). A redirect will do. Also, its new content is absurd: "In American English, the slang word 'fuck' is used instead". Yeah, as a Brit I confirm that I always use the word 'nookie' where Americans would use 'fuck'. Dicdef entries are not saved by listing all known uses of the word- it must have some relevant social context to justify an article. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nookie Bear Jooler 11:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\^talk 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SNOW (although, I'd like to go on record saying that I don't think this was a bad faith nom. There is surprisingly little content, and it does appear like a dictdef, although it clearly is not.) Wavy G 23:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt WP:WINAD is meant to eliminate disambig pages?-- danntm ^T _C 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a rather rambling and disjointed disambig. I have shortened the top entry to match the Wiktionary entry. Any elaboration on that needs to be sourced. Most of the other entries were not sourced here or in the articles they link to, and I have requested citations for them. Just because it's a disambig does not mean that WP:V gets thrown out the window. -- Donald Albury 12:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well said. In its current state, it stops being a disambig page, and becomes a sort of soft-redirect with some trivia. I don't think this sort of thing belongs here.... --Dennisthe2 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Without all the pop culture mambo-jumbo, there is the dicdef, a song title, a puppet and a company name. The page now has simply those things. (I've also removed an entry for a possibly non-notable artist/deejay in the process, but is linked from other pages.) Those who did not see past the dicdef have not analyzed the content for what it is properly. Tinlinkin 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Looking at it again, the page is not a disambig page. I have removed the disambig tag. This page is nothing but a dicdef with trivia. -- Donald Albury 04:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Ah, never mind, its a disambig. At least now it's lost that leering tone. -- Donald Albury 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- How does it look now? Tinlinkin 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should the sports equip company be mentioned if not notable enough for own article? Seems like advertising... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I am not sure why this is even nominated. Wikipediarul e s 2221 23:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Because it looked like this when it was nominated. -- Donald Albury 23:22, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rice queen[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this article could be expanded beyobd dicdef. WP:NOT WP:WINAD may be the guiding principle here. Navou ^talk 05:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather more than a dic def already, since it's discussing how the term is applied, by whom, and how it is received. That's social context; encyclopedic content rather than mere dic def. — coelacan talk — 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidictionary does define context and how the term is applied -- that's what a dictionary description does. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, Encyclopedia, social context. Please do not incorrectly use terms. Davumaya 11:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think its too small, merge into Asian fetish. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of data is not in question, it is notability that is in question. For example WP:CATGRS states:

"a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders. (For example, labels such as "AIDS victim" for an HIV+ person.]"

This clearly violates neutrality. And WP:NEO states

"Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities"

Meaning even if rice queen is widely used, it is very recent and does not appear in records. "Rice queen" clearly violates many of the Wikipedia:Notability and inclusion guidelines of Wikipedia. Sure, peoples' individual opinions may say otherwise but for Wikipedia, this is not an acceptable article. This article's fate should have been deletion upon its very creation based off of Wikipedia's own rules. If we ignore Wikipedia's own Wikipedia:policies_and_guidelines and allow this article to persevere somehow, I have very little faith we understand why there are policies in the first place. This is not a question of improvement, this is a question of the integrity of Wikipedia and our world society. A term that is born out of racism internationally should not be allowed to prosper.

And please read User:Daduzi/Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions the Google Test is not what we base our judgements on. Davumaya 11:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep or merge with redirect~~Speedy keep~~ A copy & paste nom deserves a copy & paste response. The concept of a "rice queen" is more than the definition of the term, so WP:WINAD doesn't apply. Notability is established and neologism is denied by its commonplace usage within media and popular culture (~50,000 Google hits). Verifiability is no reason to delete the article, and the prevalence of the concept outside the article denies allegations of original research. None of this information was difficult to come by, and the lack of due diligence in making this nomination concerns me. Are you trying to make a point? --Ssbohio 06:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, and after talking with JzG, I'm amending to show my support for either keeping the article or merging its content into gay slang with a redirect. If the text becomes large enough, it can always be broken back out into a separate article. --Ssbohio 18:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of "commonplace usage within media." Davumaya 11:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - not dicdef, see Wiktionary, sourced & now has "other uses", including one of the only non-touristy Asian restaurants in Berlin! SkierRMH 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Wiktionary entry for "Rice Queen" includes the template "It has been suggested that this entry does not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion", yet it is much better referenced than the Wikipedia ~~article~~ WINAD entry for it. CyberAnth 10:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply- I think you'll find that half those references were added after the entry was tagged [28]. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply 2 - Thanks to whomever referenced these correctly, and the disambig page, which works much better! And to CyberAnth, remember that part of the point of AfD is not only to get articles deleted, but to bring questionable ones to the attention of editors who could possibly bring them into compliance with WP standards - just read the template "Please improve the article if possible". You will find that most people working on the AfD board will try to work together to get articles to the point of reasonable inclusion... even on subjects they don't like! SkierRMH 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable term. Article has multiple references. There is even a book called Diaries of a Rice Queen which deals with this topic. Johntex\^talk 11:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting. Atom 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks decent sources. Minor neologism at best. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my reasons in previous AFDs. Terence Ong 15:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [29] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [30]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slang dictionary term; not a topic that an encyclopedia article can by built on. --JWSchmidt 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability cannot be established under current notability guidelines. Article lacks citation. It is also a term and should be incorporated into the wiki dictionary project. In terms of substance, the subject matter is a derogatory term that was propagated by a very small minority of the white population of the United States and only continues to be propagated through white influence. Davumaya 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\^talk 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion should be used immediately for libelous statements." The term "rice queen" is libel, it defames all people who unwillingly may be given such a description -- through no fault of their own. Sourced scholar work determines it to be offensive and undergoing an elimination. This could technically be a class-action suit based on preferences. Second, "rice queen" is a neologism and that has no place here in Wikipedia, it is an invented term, socially constructed, made up one day by some gay men. It is only the internet that has propagated a term, it has no formal grounds within communities other than evidence of racism. This term is not on par with established derogatory slurs such as chink or faggot. Davumaya 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a dicdef, referenced, 50,000+ google hits term has been in use for at least 8 years. Malla nox 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this term is notable and is sourced very well too erasing it would make no sense at all Yuckfoo 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (forgot to actually make a vote earlier). It's rather more than a dic def already, since it's discussing how the term is used, by whom, and how it is received. That's social context; encyclopedic content rather than mere dic def. — coelacan talk — 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean Delete, the talk rules for "Dicdef" is shorthand for "This is a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary". So if Wikipedia is not dictionary, why are you suggesting we keep? Davumaya 11:26, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quim (slang)[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this bad faith nom isn't closed, then Speedy Keep - The nom is inaccurate as quim isn't a neologism, the article isn't unreferenced, it DOES meet verifiability requirements, and it's NOT original research. Anchoress 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a reference pointing to a slang dictionary means WP:WINAD, sorry. Moreover, a slang dicdef does not establish that the word has been the subject of (not merely mentioned in) multiple, non-trivial published works" WP:N. Moreover, the examples of Uses are unreferenced. And, IF the ability to merely point to uses of a slang word is sufficient to make it notable (and it is not), THEN that means that every single entry in a slang dictionary for which examples of the word-in-use can be found is worthy of an article. Hardly, because WP:WINAD. Dictionaries already contain examples of words in use. CyberAnth 05:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable term, heavily documented, dating back to Chaucer. -- Fan-1967 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Speedy Keep and Close Article looks good, seems to meet requirements posted in nom. Navou ^talk 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The nominator seems to be on somethng of a crusade at the moment. Sigh. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...and a claim of WP:NEO on an article that specifically cites The Canterbury Tales makes it quite clear nominator's just boilerplating the nominations, without even bothering to see if they apply. Fan-1967 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Chaucer's language is not notable, then we should delete Nunnery references in all Shakspeare articles, and Then get on to Dante Aligheri, Milton, and so on... ThuranX 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is fine. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --Dennisthe2 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...except for that it's "Shakespeare". =) --Dennisthe2 09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as another in a series of this nominator's attempts to remove sexual slang from WP. Tarinth 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep unless we put up every word before 1343 (Chaucer's birth) as a neologism. I'd also heard this used in southern Scotland as an insult, but the final consonant more of an 'mn' than an 'm'. SkierRMH 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.

Speedy keep, sorry but I cannot assume good faith any further. Sources, notability are all there, everything is there, what else can I say? This is violating WP:POINT. Terence Ong 15:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Per defective nomination. This is about a person not a slang def for a body part.~~ Please read the articles before nominating for deletion. Edison 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Restored keep vote previously blanked by nominator CyberAnth. He nominated the article Quim, then seeing my Keep vote and reason, rather than notifying me on my talk page to take another look after changing the nomination to the present article for the slang term, just deleted my vote. This clearly violates Wikipedia policy and is unacceptable. Now the vote is still keep because the term dates back to Shakespeare, Chaucer et al. Further such actions should be examined for appropriate sanctions. Edison 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Slang dictionary definition - no more no less. No basic encyclopaedic content. - fchd 17:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being in dictionary of modern slang refutes the WP:N WP:V and WP:NEO claims. The article in its current form is not a dicdef, nor is it original research. Not one claim of the deletion proposal holds. Akihabara 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slang dicdef plus trivial list of usage examples (so if I create an article for any other word and include a list of uses in pop[ culture it won't be a dicdef? I don't think so). It's a dictionary definition. That's what Wiktionary is for. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speeedy keep - irresponsible or bad faith nomintion in violation of WP:POINT, just like all these other bad nominations Johntex\^talk 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [31] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [32]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN. --- RockMFR 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And this is getting very tiresome. Gretnagod 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albatross2147 23:48, 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 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty trombone[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO, has not improved since last AfD. CyberAnth 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, can be expanded. Article needs more time. Navou ^talk 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't disagree with your keep opinion, the article has been around for a full year. It certainly does not "need more time". -- Kicking222 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You get no argument here, I need to be more clear instead of expecting the group to read my mind. To clarify what I meant by time, I was including effort also, but I should have just said that. Regards, Navou ^talk 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Offensive, but does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. --Strait 07:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for me it's TMI! But it is not a neologism, is used in pop media (therefore not WP:N) & has improved a bit. Could use a bit more work, but not worthy of deletion. SkierRMH 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, nominator mentions that it "has not improved since last AfD". The last AfD resulted in keep, and it improving was not a stipulation for it to stay, so this is an invalid reason for deletion. VegaDark 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obscure but well documented term, not a neologism. Atom 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is notable, verifiable, and definitely not a dicdef, and I also support VegaDark's reasons for inclusion of this article in WP re: the last discussion. -- Kicking222 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Common term in pop culture. About 6 months ago I heard it and wondered the exact meaning - I found the answer on wikipedia. Some may consider the term vulgar, but I wasn't expecting an article about Mother Theresa. Dlodge 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the nominator is just trying to rid Wikipedia of sex-related articles. In the case of another recent AfD, he switched arguments after two days when nobody agreed [33] and is not even trying to see if references for these articles exist before nominating as became clear in yet another of his AfDs [34]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article doesn't need to have improved since last time as it was a keep result. Surely this is a WP:SNOW case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mallanox (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep seems verifiable, Wikipedia is not censored.--RWR8189 10:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it just me, or am I sensing a pattern here. Silensor 03:38, 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 and salting per WP:CSD#G4, substantially identical recreation of content deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space docking (sex act). Sandstein 19:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Docking[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references except to urban dictionary and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Coprophilia. This would seem appropiate here. Thoughts? Navou ^talk 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt Space docking, Space Docking and Space docking (sex act). Repost, previous afd here. So tagged. MER-C 06:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per MER-C. This is trash. Danny Lilithborne 08:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per MER-C. --Dennisthe2 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt as unverifiable, NN NEO that has been recreated. Tarinth 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, G4. Terence Ong 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable slang --JWSchmidt 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slang term used in one movie, and Urbandictionary is the only source? Come on. Wavy G 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to [Coprophilia]]. If more/better sources are found later, the information can be split out into its own article again. Johntex\^talk 19:04, 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. Jinian 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Sailboat Hall of Fame[edit]

Non-notable. I've been involved with sailboats for 20 or so years and never heard of this. I know "I've never heard of it" is a pretty weak argument for non-notability, so I did a google search. The top four hits are 1) this article, 2) the SailAmerica website (i.e. the people who invented it), 3) a wikipedia mirror, and 4) a yacht broker who sells a brand of boat on the list. It's not until you get down to the 5th entry that you get an independent source, and that's an article in a trade magazine which only mentions it in passing. In short, it fails WP:N -- RoySmith (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient reliable sources have been added to the article since I nominated it to convince me I should withdraw my nomination. Thank you to the people (especially Kevin Murray) who put the work into improving the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to establish notability or verifiability of notability. CyberAnth 04:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, unverifiable. Terence Ong 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is verifiable that the list exists and which boats are on it. But verifiability is not enough. It must also pass WP:N, which this does not. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After further research and rewritting verifiability is bolstered and notability is established (see discussions below) --Kevin Murray 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Nomination:

I'm not sure how the order of google hits is relevant to the quality of the independent reference?
Why is an award less credible because manufacturers and dealers reference it in their advertising?
I agree that the nominator's personal experience is irrelevant to an AfD nomination, so why prattle on about it?

True enough, I've struck out that part. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Kevin Murray 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "I've never heard of it", and a quick Google search shouldn't serve as criteria for deletion. I know that the nominator withdrew his nomination, and struck out his statement, but I'm just writing this in for future reference. RiseRobotRise 06:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for the Award (2004)

Guided by the Hall of Fame Standard, Sail America has selected 26 boats (in 2004) for induction into the American Sailboat Hall of Fame. These Hall of Fame boats are true American classics, exemplars of the extraordinary skill and ingenuity of American boat builders. They range in size from 8 to 41 feet. Several date to the dawn of the fiberglass era and are considered collector’s items; others are still in production, selling briskly. All have profoundly influenced the sport of sailing. By their sheer excellence, they have made sailing better.

Selections for the Hall of Fame were made by a committee of magazine editors comprised of Bill Schanen, Sailing Magazine, chairman; John Burnham, Sailing World; and Charles Mason, SAIL.

--Kevin Murray 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This award is not some marketing ploy; a significant number of winning boats were out of production when nominated. It has been awarded by independent panels of editors from recognized sailing journals for 12 years (e.g., Sail Magazine, Sailing Magazine, Sailing World). It is referenced by many online articles which range from advertising to articles in respected journals (e.g., Practical Sailor, Boat US, Yacht World, Sail Magazine, Sailing Magazine, Sailing World etc.) It is clearly independent and notable within the world of sailing. --Kevin Murray 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines Quote from WP:N "Notable here means "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice"[3] , not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness".

This award is clearly "attracting notice"[3] within the sailing world as demonstrated by the number of references to the award in journals, webpages, etc, as evidenced by over 400 g-hits. This is a lot of search engine recognition for a sport which is hardly recognized on the web. --Kevin Murray 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the only real policy at stake is WP:V, which does not appear to be an issue. I'm not aware of any guidelines that are specific to award-programs. Since this award doesn't appear to be indiscriminate, and because it has gained usage and recognition (as evidenced by usage within the relavent media), I see no reason not to keep it. And ironically, if a particular boat was given this award I think they'd probably be able to use it as an argument for their own notability... Tarinth 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after good rewrite by Kevin Murray. It now has reliable sources, notability has been established and everything's there. Don't see a problem yet, but I really hope it can be expanded further. Terence Ong 10:07, 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 No consensus, default to keep. Yes there were SPAs but also enough keeps from established users to muddy the consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electracy[edit]

Neologism. Retroactive objection to PROD. ➥the Epopt 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit to the talk page for further evidence of original research, conflict of interest, and self-referentiality: As the person who introduced the term "electracy" I found it helpful, when people asked me for a quick definition. to point to Wikipedia. ➥the Epopt 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest here. I am the one who wrote this entry, not Ulmer, and I did it for the same reason. When preparing to teach a workshop to high school teachers about new media technologies, I turned to Wikipedia for a concise definition of the term and, when I didn't find one, I created the entry myself. This is supposed to be the purpose of the wiki form--collaborative encyclopedia composition. Shortly after creating the entry, I delivered a conference presentation [35] with reference to the term and to the wikipedia entry. And I have recently had an essay accepted for publication in the organization's journal, on Cue [36], in its Winter 2007 issue (forthcoming), in which I reference the term and the wikipedia article as well. A google search on the term yields 22,000+ hits, yet there is no one place to get a concise definition of the term. That was my purpose in writing this entry. Rsmyth 20:30, 6 January 2007 (EST)

To the closing admin: beware of sockpuppets and single-purpose accounts attempting to stack the !vote. ➥the Epopt 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin:There is no conspiracy here, no stacking of the vote. This is a forum for community discussion. There is a community of scholars who employ this term and work with the underlying theoretical concepts. Just because some of these scholars, now becoming active in Wikipedia due to the challenge to this entry, have never commented or posted entries or created user pages yet doesn't mean that their input should be invalidated or their identity questioned. i.e. Please do not bite the newcomers. Rsmyth 20:35, 6 January 2007 (EST)

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}}.

Merge into Gregory Ulmer but AfD that page if better refs are not found. CyberAnth 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn neologism. MER-C 07:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete per nom. Non-notable neologism, self referenced article, and serving only as an vehicle to lend credibility to the author's theories. Ohconfucius 08:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Article needs significant work, or merge. Neologism without any references may be deletable, but Neologism that has one or more references just means it is a new term. Atom 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, did you read the article and/or the nom? Note that the nominator is an ex-arbitrator. MER-C 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF Edited: It is not a neologism because it it not original research and it is verifiable. However, the 'Electracy and Pedagogy' section is not neutral point of view. Recommend removal of that section and warning that entry be reworded to be impartial. Finicky 02:13, 7 January 2007 (EST) — Finicky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article disagrees with you. You say "It is not a neologism," but the first words of the article are "Electracy is a neologism...." I suggest that this apparent failure to read the article you're expressing an opinion on invalidates that opinion. ➥the Epopt 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect The Epopt, WP does not exclude neologisms. NEO clearly states that they can be included if they conform to the two policies of: OR and verifiable. I personally have seen hundreds, if not thousands of neologisms in WP, it is impractical to say that any neologism should not be in WP. Finicky 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC) (newcomer, not a sockpuppet, if that is what you thought)[reply]
I want to add too, in case you didn't get my meaning The Epopt. I said the article was not a 'neologism' as per the qualities set out in the POL. Of course I read the article. Finicky 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF Edited: I don't understand why the fact that it is a "neologism" is such a problem. "Blog" is a neologism but doesn't say that it is a neologism in the article. Should we remove "Blog" because it is a neologism? The article can easily be edited to remove the term neologism if that is the problem. Finicky's comment is not invalidated because she makes the point that it is not original research and it is verifiable. Citations can be added to show that the term has been used by writers other than the author. The entry itself cites a source published by a reliable publisher as well as other scholarly work mentioning the term. For this reason, it is also "verifiable." Do a google search on electracy and you get 22,000+ hits, demonstrating its broad usage. Rsmyth 15:20, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Keep: The new knowledge that Ulmer and others have been developing on this topic has wide application and value. Published references can be documented of its usage. C dog taylor 15:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Citations of peer reviewed pubications with reference to topic. User:John Craig Freeman 3:21, 6 January 2007.

Rhizomes, Place and the Electrate Situation? [37].

2004 John Craig Freeman, chapter 20 "Imaging Florida: A Model Interdisciplinary Collaboration by the Florida Research Ensemble", Edited by James Inman, Electronic Collaboration in the Humanities: Issues and Options. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Mahwah, New Jersey.

July 2003 Gregory Ulmer, Barbara Jo Revelle, William Tilson and John Craig Freeman, "Image Emergency: A Psychogeography of Miami," Prague Literary Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 17.

2003 Gregory Ulmer, Barbara Jo Revelle, William Tilson and John Craig Freeman, "Image Emergency: A Psychogeography of Miami," Leonardo, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 197 - 198.

2002 Florida Research Ensemble: Gregory Ulmer, William Tilson, John Craig Freeman, Barbara Jo Revelle, and Will Pappenheimer, "Miami Miatre; mapping the virtual city (a preview)," Journal of Visual Culture, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 341 - 357.

1999 Florida Research Ensemble: Gregory Ulmer, Barbara Jo Revelle, Gordon Bleach and John Craig Freeman, "Imaging Florida: A Research Initiative conducted by the Florida Research Ensemble", Exposure, Vol. 32, No. 1. pp. 35 - 43.

note that everything from "Keep: Citations of peer reviewed pubications..." through the citations to this point was added by User:72.209.71.192, despite the manually created signature "User:John Craig Freeman 3:21, 6 January 2007" — "John Craig Freeman" is not a registered user, and has made no contributions whatsoever, not even the above. ➥the Epopt 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Electracy," like Derrida's "differance" or Aristotle's "entelechy," began as a neologism or coinage but has been adopted by other scholars (eg Andrew Morrison, in the book he edite with Gunnar Liestol for MIT Press in 2003, Digital Media Revisited. My seminar at the European Graduate school (www.egs.edu) has as its title "issues in electracy (assigned not by me but by the Dean, Wolfgang Schirmacher. G. Ulmer

g —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.71.192 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Another peer-reviewed source that discusses electracy: Sarah J. Arroyo, "Playing to the Tune of Electracy: From Post-Process to a Pedagogy Otherwise," JAC 25:4 (2005): pp. 683-715. csteen — csteen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete insufficient sources that discuess the usage of the term "electracy" itself, as required by WP:NEO, note also possible conflict of interest concerns.-- danntm ^T _C 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: This is a general question as I'm still learning the process here. If an article is deleted according to certain conditions set out here, what is the process of getting the article submitted again, with changes made? In other words, the way an article is worded in the initial version does not necessarily mean the content is inadmissable. Should the article be changed whilst it is being debated or after? Let me know if I'm supposed to post these query elsewhere. Thanks. Finicky 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOW is the time to improve the article if possible. Otherwise, move it to userspace, improve it there, and repost. CyberAnth 10:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In over 25 years of IT, I have never come across this term, and would see that terms such as digital divide and digerati can be used in appropriate ways to convey the concepts described here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ringbark (talk •

contribs) 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is not a term from the IT world but the humanities and literary theory. Do a search in Amazon for "electracy" and find at least 15 printed books (only one of which by Ulmer) that reference the term with such titles as Electronic Collaboration in the Humanities; ICT, Pedagogy, and the Curriculum; Critical Power Tools; and E-Crit: Digital Media, Critical Theory, and the Humanities. This should be considered in light of the claims that this is "original research." Rsmyth 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not in favor of such a vague sounding word to describe electronic media literacy, but there doesn't seem to be an alternative word with a scope as broad as this. Oicumayberight 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep" I can't say I like the word myself, but that is not the criterion. That someone hasn't seen it in the past 20 yrs not show that it isnt notable today.DGG 05:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term is not a neologism anymore it is broadly used and has made a significant understanding to literacy studies. it's notable. --Buridan 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Ry Jones 17:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that perhaps the article requires some editing or alteration, but I feel that the term is an important one as there is no other term that carries the same connotations as this. I have come to use it in my own work and the arguments against it's status as a neologism are moot, in my opinion, considering that all words were at one time neologisms until they became widely used. That someone has not come across this word in the past 25 years is a ludicrous argument considering that 25 years ago, the word "blog" did not exist either, but no one questions its validity.
Keep Not just "blog" - "wiki" didn't exist either. This discussion about neologisms is really putting me off using wikipedia and recommending it to my students. I want an up-to-date encyclopedia, not one which is embedded in old-fashioned thinking. Who makes these decisions about neologisms? How well read are they? Which disciplines do they come from? The first time I heard the term electracy was 1999. It is commonly used in the digital humanities. I will watch this discussion with interest because if electracy goes, so, probably, will I. Sunlight40 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Random th e Scrambled ^(?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 15:46, 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 Keep. Nom. withdrawn. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Sokol[edit]

~~Does not appear to pass the professor test. Less than 1,000 Ghits, mostly relating to his one published book. I am also nominating the page for his book:~~

Lyrl ^Talk _C 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability established per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). CyberAnth 04:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of meeting WP:PROF. MER-C 07:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One published book is good enough for me. Article needs more detail. Atom 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF, unverifiable. Terence Ong 15:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the author, delete the book. WaPo's Yardley called it one of the ten best of 2006. [38], and it did receive a full-size (though not as favorable) review in the NYT.[39] --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More online reviews in major media: [40][41][42][43] --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep ~~Bad faith~~ Confusing nomination proposal! Where in the world did the nominator get the 1000 G-hit criterion? --Kevin Murray 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a quote from Wikipedia:Search engine test: Hence the list of unique results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms. The nominator should read the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section Kevin Murray quoted was about "unique hits", and gave as an example the 827 "unique hits" Google identifies with the search term "microsoft" [44]. Note, however, that there are 534,000,000 total hits for the search term "microsoft".

For the search term "Jason Sokol", there are 846 total hits, of which Google deems 263 to be unique [45]. Which is certainly not a criteria for deletion, and I did not intend it that way. My reason for the deletion nomination is non-notability, which I stated in my first sentence, with a link to the relevant notability guideline. My reference to search engine results was intended to show that I have not just nominated the article for not asserting notability, but have myself tried to find sources that would establish him as notable. I further explain that I do not find the search engine results to establish notability for the author because they are mostly publicity for his one book, thus failing the "multiple, independent, non-trivial" sources criterion.

I agree that the term "bad faith" was inappropriate. I should have said confusing or inaccurate. However, your further explanation makes your intent much clearer. Proposing another authors work for deletion is serious business and the grounds should be clearly stated. It can be inferred from your nomination that 1000 g-hits is some type of critical threshold, and this can be misinterpreted by newer editors seeking easy to understand precedents. --Kevin Murray 01:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Dhartung's arguments to be persuasive and something I can learn from, and that would possibly change my mind. I'm confused about the assertations of a bad-faith nomination, though. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as bad-faith, either. The assertion was a failure of the WP:PROF notability guideline, certainly reasonable under the circumstances. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Dhartung. --Haemo 00:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Dhartung has established notability of the book (subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews per WP:BK). To me, this would mean the book article should be kept, but the author still seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF. But Dhartung voted for the opposite - to keep the author, but delete the book. Any clarification of what would be the correct course of action? Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book article is stubby, in other words, may be easily merged with the author article. It's more normal for us to have articles on authors than on their books (I would argue that the book is not an exceptional case, more important than its author). If he writes another book, we only have to expand the article. If the book article were a researched article on the book's impact and responses to it and so on and so forth, then it would be appropriate for the book to have its own article (see Guns, Germs, and Steel, for example). --Dhartung | Talk 12:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could put it in music terms: We don't have articles on albums where we don't have articles on the musicians. They're treated as subarticles of the musician article. The works establish the notability of the authors in both cases. --Dhartung | Talk 12:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added (in the article about the book) links to reviews of the book in three major American newspapers (New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Washington Post), which does set the book somewhat above the crowd of published books. I think that the book is at least borderline notable. I'm not sure that the notability is enough to justify an article about the author, however. -- Donald Albury 14:45, 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 band and album article, No consensus for the band member article. Further discussion is encouraged about merging the member's article but AFD is not the place unless deletion is an option. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Point[edit]

WP:NOTE No assertion of notability. I am also nominating the following related pages:

--Sigma 7 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I´m a member of the Burning Point band and writing pure fact -jj- 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All, no notability asserted. Jujokiko, please note you can change our minds. Read up on this article, and also pay special attention to WP:MUSIC as this applies to a band - this is what we're looking for. That it's the truth is a start, and that it's evidently verifiable is a plus, but we're not looking for mere truth, we're looking for notability. If you can follow through with that, I for one will happily change my mind. --Dennisthe2 09:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Burning Point and Burned Down the Enemy per WP:MUSIC and redirect Jukka Jokikokko to Burning Point. The band has released three albums through notable labels; Limb Music, SPV GmbH (list), Soundholic and Metal Heaven. One band member is in Dolorian and an ex-member in Catamenia. [46] That's two of the criteria on WP:MUSIC and more notability can probably be found from the 134,000 Google hits. Prolog 11:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – two albums on SPV (meets WP:MUSIC) and plenty of web notability (see links I added to article). Allmusic is also a good guide to notability (although not nailed on, admittedly). Bubba hot ep 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also considered notable enough for entries in both Italian and Polish Wikipedias. Sorry, forgot to mention that. Bubba hot ep 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should been read first articles about Dennisthe2 mentioned but I was little to eager when I noticed Burning Point article in wikipedia. I immediately noticed that there were missing information (one member missing and discography). My meaning was noble and I just add correct facts. I Did that too in my "personal" Article, I didn´t write autograph, just time of birth, place of birth and reason, why I was already mentioned in wikipedia Burning Point article (bassist, and I add studio engineer) This is already say in above, it should be easy to check links (or google) and noticed notability of Burning Point. I don say anything more about notability of me, that I have been bassist, co producer or studio engineer in several records (released world wide) and I hope, that you evaluate my notability by facts, google and links what I mentioned and do your decision. Thats fine and I´m happy what ever decision are, I´m humble person. Oh, and if decision is keep, I hope, that someone add Burning Point article formal members of band: Jukka Kyrö (1999-2005) Guitar and Toni "Jöpe" Kansanoja (1999-2006) bass -jj- 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could it be possible that the article be kept until a certain deadline for more information to be added? If the article is better after that deadline, the article shall be kept. But if the article is still as mediocre, then it should be deleted... What do you other people think? --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD debates are known to be relisted in order to get a better discussion - there are other reasons available as well. There's a few other ways of doing it as well - you could check with the Wikipedia:Help Desk for alternate methods. --Sigma 7 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD process is to decide whether an article's subject is notable enough to be kept, not whether it is mediocre enough to be deleted. We are here to continuously expand and improve articles, not to delete them because they are stubs. If that was the case, Wikipedia would be empty. There is no time limit on improving a notable article. Bubba hot ep 19:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To augment, I'd also suggest keeping a "backup" copy in your userspace somewhere. We're certainly not prejudiced against deletion, but it should be improved before being reposted. Thusly the prompt to change our minds. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band seems to be notable enough, though the article should obviously be expanded at least at little bit. Murderbike 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand all three articles. Mushroom (Talk) 15:05, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French accent[edit]

This article reads like an essay, and would take a fair bit of work to bring it up to standards. I'm not sure, but it seems a likely copyvio, from the tone. Yuser31415 04:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: In my opinion, it seems to be WP:OR as it does not cite references. As it stands, the page isn't encyclopediatic and takes a shotgun approach rather than attempting to define the content. While it does seem to be a copy-paste (or created within a fixed-pitch font), some indicators indicate that there's no intent for copyvio (e.g. writing in first-person). However, unless it can address concerns, I'm okay with delete. --Sigma 7 07:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per above, and per Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. Ohconfucius 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Original research indeed. And not very good OR either. Bubba hot ep 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, without prejudice. What this seems to be about now is reflections on French phonology, for which we already have a better article. I was hoping to find an article on cultural or comedic stereotypes for actors, instructing us in how to talk like Inspector Clouseau or some such thing. There is a good subject there, and an article waiting to be written. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supprimer, recherches originales. (Delete, OR). Andrew Levine 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise some parts are good. The subject is notable. Anomo 17:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to one of the articles it is redundant to: Dialects of the French language, French phonology and French language. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just wish we could add French e contraction, created by the same user, to this AfD. It's in the same essay OR format. AuburnPilot^talk 06:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete French e contraction too. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR essay, French e contraction as well. Sandstein 23:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John and Jackie Knill[edit]

nn-people Mayumashu 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nomination. (Caniago 05:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment, it was a well-known series of photographs of the tsunami, and there were several articles about the backstory.[47] Certainly meets WP:V and WP:RS, but possibly should be at a different title and about the photographs rather than the couple, as Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than a memorial and does not meet WP:BIO. If there's anything worth salvaging, merge to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Agent 86 00:56, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Montgomery[edit]

Subject clearly fails WP:PROF; nn professor. Eusebeus 05:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article was the subject of AfD earlier in the year at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_D._Montgomery Why are we rehashing this? --Kevin Murray 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep --Kevin Murray 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The WP:PROF problems in the previous AFD appear to have been addressed. The article could stand a copyedit and cleanup per the MOS, but nothing warrants deletion. Serpent's Choice 03:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The articles cited are every one of them in the very highest quality journals in their fields, as can be judged either from JCReports or knowing the subjects or by looking at the journals. This is actually a very notable career indeed, and his CV will be useful as an illustration of the career of a very successful social science professor at a premier research university. (Wisconsin). I wonder if I am beginning to detect some sort of bias against truly notable academic figures?DGG 05:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless the nominator can come up with reasons beyond "nn professor", an argument that was rejected in the last AFD. In other words, explain why the award is insignificant and does not confer notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 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 merge to bass drum. Opabinia regalis 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double bass drumming[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a how-to guide, even to obscure drumming techniques. ➥the Epopt 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite. It's an encyclopedic topic; the technique is used by a lot of metal musicians. Other drumming beats/techniques used in metal, such as blast beat, also have articles here. More sources/research would be good for double bass drumming; I think it's a topic that deserves to be covered here. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It should most certainly be rewritten. The Mob Rules 10:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ – well-known technqiue. Needs sourcing and rewriting though. I've done some provisional work on wikifying to make the article easier to read. Bubba hot ep 12:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – actually, merge to Bass drum as most of it is covered there in more detail. Bubba hot ep 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bubba hotep. Oldelpaso 12:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – just read all the section on double bass drumming at Bass drum and it is pretty comprehensive. There may not be anything to merge here. Maybe Redirect is more apt, but I don't want to change again! Bubba hot ep 12:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as long as someone can find good references and prove it's a notable phenomenon (sp). Patstuart^talk|edits 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge — depending on what references can be found. If it can be rewritten well, then keep, otherwise merge to Bass drum Wizardman 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT. Jinian 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man track controversy[edit]

This is a POV fork from Glen Rose Formation. The article makes crazy claims from non-scientists who are pushing a creationist agenda. I have cleaned up and sourced the claims at the proper article so there is no need for this one. PatriotBible 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was a POV fork and should be covered in Glen Rose Formation anyway. Demiurge 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Non Notable Conspiracy Theory - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although this forked article also seems to have been cleaned up from the original. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; included in User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep POV forks are created to support a particular POV. I don't see any POV in this article. You claim there's a creationist agenda, but the article clearly shows how the creationists believed this way then were disproved. Unless the "creationist agenda" is to show how they backtracked, I don't really see why this is nominated. .V. 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly Merge some information with related articles. This is nowhere near notable enough for its own article. The terms "Glen Rose Man" and "Man Track Controversy" together total less than 500 google results, few of which appear to be from websites or news services of note. On the other hand, I do not believe this to be a POV fork per .V.'s above comments. --Wildnox (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anything useful can go in the Glen Rose Formation article if it isn't already there. Vsmith 02:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additional reason for deletion is that it's an extremly unlikely search term. Glen Rose Formation is at least a meaningful search term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back into Glen Rose Formation, per nom. — coelacan talk — 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glen Rose Formation. At best redundant. JoshuaZ 04:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back into Glen Rose Formation per nom GabrielF 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge No need for a separate page regarding the tracks. Jinxmchue 18:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glen Rose Formation and if there is anything worth saving move there. MichaelSH 01:31, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicerosaurus[edit]

A made up name from want-to be scientist Carl Baugh who has no scientific education and states dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth while claiming it is only 6000 years old. This has no place of wikipedia. Someone whose pseudoscience is rejected even by creationists should not have an article on every made up term he wishes people to repeat. PatriotBible 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. MER-C 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While "Unicerosaurus" is an invalid dinosaur, the name does appear frequently on various lists of dinosaurs. Wikipedia:Complete bollocks does not apply, as this information is verifiable. Didn't anyone even check the reference which is listed!? Here are some professional paleontological sites, examples where this dinosaur genera is listed:here, here, here, more can be listed if needed. Please don't nominate an article for deletion when the material can be verified by clicking a simple link already in the article. Also, I'll note deleting this article would leave a red link on Wikipedia's List of dinosaurs, which is a Featured List, representing "what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia [...] reviewed [...] for usefulness, completeness, accuracy, [and] neutrality. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your examples aren't good. The AOL member page is hardly a WP:RS and more interestingly this link and this link call it a nomen nudum. (I'll spare you quoting what's on the nomen nudum page.) Hardly a reason for keeping it. As it is a nomen nudum, once deleted via afd it should also be unlinked from the List of dinosaurs (which notes it is a fish not a dinosaur). Please provide a definition cited by a scientific journal. PatriotBible 08:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My examples are just fine. The "AOL Members Page" just happens to be the web site of noted paleontologist and nomenclature expert George Olshevsky. The fact that "Unicerosaurus" is a nomen nudum is already noted in the article. Also, where is the policy which states an article must have "a definition cited in a scientific journal"?Firsfron of Ronchester 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have three lists that tell us the term is hollow of a definition. Read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, which states "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." A list saying the term is hollow of value does not cut it. Please give use books and papers about the terms as the policy states.PatriotBible 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hate to say it, but an AOL page is going to be frowned upon for the same reason a Myspace page is frowned upon - largely because AOL's reputation precedes it. --Dennisthe2 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is a guideline, not a policy, actually. Additionally, Wikipedia's article on neologism indicates it's for "newly coined" words. As the name "Unicerosaurus" has existed for at least 20 years (see links above), it's hardly a neologism. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's "hardly a neologism" and yet you can't provide any books or journal mentions. Follow the guideline and get a source about the term. Get a source taht tells us what it is. PatriotBible 11:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I think that's enough. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        While I'm sure Olshevsky has done his research, it would be nice if he'd provide some actual citations, especially for the nomina nuda. As I mentioned below, a lot of the nomina nuda he lists on that page should probably not be considered as such, having been named in things like newspapers, etc. which the ICZN does not consider valid sources, and having not been properly named in the first place with something along the lines of gen. nov., or anything showing clear intent to erect a scientific name. Dinoguy2 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my !vote below. Yes, his examples don't work, but work even better given circumstances. Trust me: read the article. --Dennisthe2 09:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go against the religion my Christian faith falls under, and say Strong Delete with prejudice. Not only does otherwise acceptable research state this doesn't exist, the dinosaurla.com URL also declares this as having been removed from the list in the first place, per the reasons listed from PatriotBible. AOL is about as reliable a resource as MySpace - that is, absolutely not. I too call WP:BOLLOCKS. Please make this go away. --Dennisthe2 09:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Strong Keep, and throwing in an apology for my comments - I should know better than to do this when tired. This article should be kept for the same reason it is being deleted, paradoxically: the article explains the name as utter balls! --Dennisthe2 09:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The article clearly states the animal is invalid and undescribed. It clearly states the it has been rejected by mainstream science. We have an article which discusses Flat Earth; this article is in many ways quite similar: both present a now-discredited view. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good example. Flat Earth has serious scientific sources (journals/books). This does not. Keep Flat Earth-- with good sources and scholarly mentions and delete those that don't. PatriotBible 10:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article stating the term is devoid of a definition and usage? How is that relevant? If its not used or has no value why care/keep it? PatriotBible 10:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be kept, in my opinion, to demonstrate precisely why it is not used - or at least, considered harmful by mainstream science. The article does precisely this. --Dennisthe2 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia is here to inform, which also means to highlight non-valid terms too. See Brontosaurus, which was actually a chimera. Similarly Piltdown man and Flat earth too. Cas Liber 11:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just to nitpick, Brontosaurus was not a chimera, it was a junior subjective synonym of Apatosaurus. The whole "wrong head" story has nothing to do with the naming issue, and is very misleading, since 99% of dinosaur mounts to this day invent speculative body parts (especially skulls) based on known relatives to fill in the gaps of incomplete skeletons. Dinoguy2 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're comparing Piltdown man fake, an event that triggered several academic inquires to a term never used in any academic work or by any academic? Also the flat earth article has several academic refutations and sources. What about this one where are the "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" — not books and papers that use the term"? PatriotBible 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is all relative; sure the others caused a much bigger stir but in the end the basic issue is the same; a term which has no validity but there still lies a small story behind it and on the net the term snuck into lists of valid creatures. I have seen rumours and bits of knowledge get blown out of proportion before (I have looked into some other issues with Banksias and fungi - read Tom Volk's page on Hygrocybe conica to see how one small event of quetionable validity in 1930s china sent ripples through modern texts on fungi. This is why I'm all for keeping the info. Wikipedia is a reference body on everything not just valid things. Cas Liber 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense, and non-notable. Edison 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. which part of the article is nonsense? 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Edison, Science is a process and many the value of much is increased by showing the false leads. To ignore these is to reduce science to dogma. Sure, two years ago this may have been deleted but the dinosaur section is pretty well developed now and can't be said to give undue weight to this given the thoroughness of what else is around. Maybe some of these other articles need to be discussed again.Cas Liber 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Science is a process. The examples/analogies you gave are notable. This on the other hand is not notable. For example, give a WP:RS for the Baugh claim. I get 14 hits at yahoo and none meet WP:RS. PatriotBible 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All nomina nuda are hollow of definition. By definition, a nomem nudum is any old name that's been made up and/or bandied about carelessly in the literature. Technically, I believe a name has to be followed by gen et sp. nov. to indicate the author is trying to coin a new name, and then if that name is not described properly, it becomes a nomen nudum. A lot of nomina nuda listed on the List of Dinosaurs are not real nomina nuda, they're nicknames that have been picked up by the press and included carelessly in genera lists. That said, Wikiproject dinosaurs has agreed to include both formal and informal nomina nuda in its lists, and this decision means any old name included by any old lunatic in any old list. Including this one. Dinoguy2 23:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide WP:RS of the term and its creator, and show notability. PatriotBible 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my belief that fossils which have been preserved for 65+ million years are notable. You are free to disagree, but I sure hope this article isn't deleted, because the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team has worked hard to prepare articles for all dinosaur genera, as dinosaurs are perhaps more encyclopedic than the list of Pokemon characters or whatever which proliferate on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Instead of a false dichotomy name the scientists has asserted it is a fossil 65+ million years old. PatriotBible 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced in the literature, appropriate citations in the article. The validity of the term is adequately explained. Tevildo 23:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations of it referenced are where? Specifically, name the places it appears in literature.PatriotBible 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's really no valid reason for deletion, plus we need the article for clarification of the term which it describes. --Dudo2 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a made up term by a creationist! It doesn't have a definition! Scientists DO NOT use the term! PatriotBible 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, this is exactly why it should be kept - it explains it as utter balls, and declares it accordingly as something that should be rejected. Wikipedia should also be for explaining bogosity - e.g., this article - and why it is bogus. Science, after all, requires the incorrect findings and unsuccessful experiments to be proven and documented just as much as the correct findings and successful experiments. --Dennisthe2 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Avgodectes is a made up term by a person who espouses extreme minority theories, though non-religious. Other scientists have not used the name in serious literature so far. There are literally hundreds of cases like this. Just because the person who named this particular dubious, undescribed specimen is a creationist should have no bearing on the situation unless the article itself espouses creationist beliefs. If the guy who made up the term Tyrannosaurus had been a creationist, it would not make that term any less valid, only the interpretation of it. Dinoguy2 06:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same could be said for Baramin. I'm as opposed to creationism as anybody, but I don't think that trying to expunge creationist terms from Wikipedia is the right way to fight it. Tevildo 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all above. Mgiganteus1 01:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the arguments against this boil down to: it hasn't been used scientifically, and it was named by a creationist. The second point is more easily dealt with: it's always better to expose errors than to cover them up. The first point has some merit, in that as a nomen nudum there's not much that has been said or can be said. Paleontology is littered with names that aren't in use (at least half of what Bob Bakker has coined and all of the Stephen Pickering names), misidentifications (Shuvosaurus, anyone?), and combinations (Aachenosaurus, Succinodon). I think that the merits of showing Unicerosaurus as an error outweigh its uselessness as a pointless name. J. Spencer 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it was just a name made-up by a pseudoscientist and included in some fringe newsletters, that wouldn't be good enough; but the terms seems to have been used in other places as well, and was important enough that a geologist wrote a paper to expose it as a mistake. While it is obviously not piltdown man on the importance scale, it does seem to establish notability, and it would be helpful to inform people that it does not actually exist. Tarinth 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nominator - To explain my vote, I'm maintaining keep for the exact reason you are requesting a deletion. Right now, the problem I'm having is that it's a bit deceptive: whereas your nomination states that it is by all effects a bogus term created under pseudoscience and thusly you assert it should be deleted as such, the article states pretty much the same thing, except that it asserts that it should be kept as such. I honestly fail to see the logic in deleting a term for the exact same reasons it states it should be kept. Care to explain? --Dennisthe2 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a made up term without any sources. The article is much different than it was before. There was no scholarly comments on his "dinosaur fossil." As such without proper academic sourcing it should be removed. Review the article in the state it was when I made the nomination; two personal webpages and a "journal?" without page numbers nor properly footnoted. Hence, a highly suspect article. If you fail to "see the logic" then be sure to "see" how the article was and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. PatriotBible 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then consider this: right now, it's less important to consider how the article was, and very important to consider what the article is as of now - and will note the range you cite is covering a period of time ranging about a month and a half with twelve intermediate changes bypassed by the article history link. Just because it was bad doesn't mean it can't change. In its current state, it is, in short, not deletable in my opinion: as I write this, there is a link to Dinosauria.com, two published works referencing ISBN numbers, and two pending such numbers, coming up to five reliable sources. I'm certainly in agreement that personal web pages and blogs in particular are downright horrible for sources (and certainly aren't reliable sources. My vote, however, remains as Keep however, and even more so, as the article, in its current state, has been improved, and at least in my opinion more than meets WP standards. --Dennisthe2 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think PatriotBible's acknowledging (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the article has been improved since the Deletion tag. At the time, there wasn't much to it. J. Spencer 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. PatriotBible 04:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But even simple "citation needed" tags could have been placed on the article, if all that was needed was proper citation and a little formatting. There didn't need to be an AFD. I'll note "citation needed" templates were placed, but only well after the AFD was in progress. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Carl Baugh article. This doesn't need its own article. "Nomen nudum," by the way, doesn't mean its bogus, it just means it is not attached to a taxon. I'm having a hard time understanding why dinosaur folks want to keep this, as it may eventually lead to having to include articles on all the creationist creatures imagined not to be ancient. KP Botany 17:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have recently e-mailed some folks for further info and further primary sources on this animal, and am planning a major expansion. No sense in merging this article into another and then having to bud it off again in a couple of weeks, right? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Comment-Sorta Now be good Firsfron and stop calling it an animal. Are there really that many sources outside of creationist "literature?" Or is it in code you've uncovered with OR? Peudo-Real Comment I would appreciate if people would stop nominating articles on fake topics for deletion because they are about fakes, well, at least until Piltdown Man is deleted, at least. I bet my neighborhood Bigfoot has an article already, Abominable Snowman, Lochness Monster, too. And, actually, doesn't Lochy have its own nomen nudum? That's taxonomically tricky, though, should its article be titled by its nomen nudum? PS It was nice to be able to post without previewing on the names of all these pseudo articles, apparently my cryptozoology is still up to snuff. KP Botany 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has improved since the nomination. The popularity of Carl Baugh's paper shows the notability of this subject. --RebSkii 19:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - call it bullocks, but if it's notable bullocks, it stays (as long as it's noted as such, which it is). Does that mean we can't have Hobbit or Leviathan anymore on here (one is fictional, the other religious). -Patstuart^talk|edits 22:30, 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 both. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fantasy war[edit]

Unpublished series (first book due out in March). non-notable at this time. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, extremely likely this was created by the author himself in a conflict of interest, as he has linked this article to his freewebs site. Also nominating the author's article itself, for the same reasons

Delete both: Jeffrey Johnston fails WP:BIO. The book fails WP:N, and maybe WP:NOT#CBALL. I'd personally have liked to have seen these nominated separately as the reasons for deletion are different. Chovain 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as unverifiable, having no reliable sources, and representing a probable conflict of interest. Antandrus (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both No independent sources to establish notability, and this doesn't have them. (It does seem as if lulu.com, as well as other POD or vanity publishers, are directing their authors here to promote themselves or their books.) Fan-1967 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom Stephenb (Talk) 11:43, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Red Light Cameras in Toronto[edit]

It's exactly what the title suggests; it's about intersection traffic cameras, which are found in pretty much every North American city with more than a couple thousand people. I consider myself an inclusionist, but this is far beyond "roadcruft", and may have been intended as a bad joke. Read it if you don't believe me. — CharlotteWebb 06:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This wouldn't even come close to passing WP:N. --Адам12901 ^Talk 06:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Really. C'mon. Please? Pretty please? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 08:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:WTH. MER-C 08:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WP:BJAODN. This is about as indiscriminate as it can possibly get. Ohconfucius 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N, collection of indis. info., perchance someone got a ticket and wanted to publicize all of those nasty cameras, eh? ;)
Delete and WP:DAFT. Grutness...wha? 11:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what Wikipedia isn't about. Budgiekiller 13:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a directory, an indiscriminate collection of information, wrong place if you want to post such information. Terence Ong 15:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't police forces move the red light cameras around every few weeks anyway? WP:DAFT. Editing because (to my surprise) there really is a WP:WTF. --Charlene 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Impossible to keep up-to-date, and way too specific for any possible use as research. 23skidoo 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate information at its finest. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not indiscriminate info. This is useful info on a local level as per WP:LOCAL. Who does it hurt having this article? Furthermore, it useful to see where the provincial government has implemented such an important program. Nlsanand 22:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what next? post boxes and telephone booths??? Please give us a break! Ohconfucius 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "not a collection of indiscriminate information". Hmm... but if I ever have to drive around Toronto, I just might make a quick stop at DRV first :-) LOL, j/k... (Off topic, but do they really move around red light cameras in Canada every few weeks, or just the speed cameras?) Quack 688 09:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useful information to be sure. Probably something that somebody might search for on the web. But Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Dragomiloff 01:07, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meowth's Party[edit]

Has not passed WP:V --Адам12901 ^Talk 06:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability reasons. Chrisch 06:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game was real and planned for release, the article just needs to be cleaned-up. Here are some sources (which took about 5 seconds to find with Google): [48], [49], [50]. TJ Spyke 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Game received heavy coverage in game magazines (Nintendo Power, etc). --- RockMFR 07:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJ's evidence Chovain 12:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources are present, notability established. Terence Ong 15:40, 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) 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric mirror[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:N. --Адам12901 ^Talk 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that WP:CORP is met. MER-C 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an advertisement.Proabivouac 10:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per advert. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into some historical data on the company and other stuff, and should have something soon. I've been a little busy. thanks Squidge37 00:35, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22nd century warfare[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, asserts no claim to notability and has no reliable sources. BJ^Talk 06:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Proabivouac 10:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Terence Ong 15:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slugger9066 20:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sidonuke 00:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 209.60.226.207 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Dell970 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are voting to keep because of all the reasons I said it should be deleted? BJ^Talk 03:29, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya[edit]

A list of exactly one person. Should be merged into HIV Trial in Libya. If there are a few notable victims they can be discussed in the main article, but a list of 426+ non-notable people is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a memorial. GabrielF 07:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a tendentious memorial created by the sockpuppet of a disruptive user.Proabivouac 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Which user?~~ Never mind, found it... -- Scientizzle 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does appear that the notable victims are discussed in HIV trial in Libya. SkierRMH 10:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "List of Libyan child in HIV trial in Libya"? Come on! Plus the other reasons mentioned by users above. --Folantin 11:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete covered in HIV trial in Libya and per Proabivouac. Budgiekiller 13:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, covered in HIV trial in Libya. Terence Ong 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination is solid. The article was created as a comprimise with Islampedia (talk · contribs) (before (s)he became really disruptive) who insisted that the current 2-person list be at the top of the HIV trial in Libya page. -- Scientizzle 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Admittedly, the notability argument is complicated by the example of Jack the Ripper, where we have his alleged victims listed, and even entire articles dedicated to them, even though not a single one of them is independently notable. This is example is pretty compelling as it is similarly a case where there is no consensus on the alleged perpetrator's guilt, or even existence. Nevertheless, common sense prevails, 426+ non-notable alleged victims should not be listed in full or in part. AlexeiSeptimus 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are notable on the other hand Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis Islampedia 02:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Islampedia (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete out of thoughtfulness to any living victims. Living victims are often not listed in newspapers out of ethical consideration for the victim's sense of privacy. Goldenrowley 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a compromise attempt on my part that failed, as it is now apparent there was no hope of completing the list. I see now that privacy issues also apply. Simesa 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See for reference: Journalism ethics and standards: "Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of "limitation of harm." This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims' names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone's reputation." Goldenrowley 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do u think that this list also should be deleted Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis ? .If not then we have to call this site westpedia Islampedia 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if that list does have living people on it I'd AFD it as well. Goldenrowley 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The List of the libyan children is ment for the 52 dead not all of them would u accept this then ??. I guess no one can delete the list called Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis . I think it is fair to keep both lists both victims were coverd by Media all over the world Islampedia 18:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think both lists should be deleted. Is there a list of WTC/Pentagon casualties? If so, that should be deleted also. We might as well add "List of Hiroshima casualties", "List of 2006 Tsunami victims" and "List of Hurricane Katrina victims". None of those lists, if they exist, should be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a directory nor an indiscriminate repository of information. Nor is it a memorial. --Richard 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

' You are right It is fair to delete all similar lists . It is not fair that tens agree to delete this list and no single one is thinking about deleting similar lists. Wikipedia admins whatsup ?? Islampedia 18:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Proabivouac 01:53, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo (operating system)[edit]

possibly a hoax. unverifed since august. a search of cairo in microsoft site returns nothing about this. [51] KaiFei 08:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added 3 links to reliable sources. I can remember gossips it back in nineties even though I was a kid:) As for lack of information on MS website, don't forget - it was a long ago and it's the part of history Bill would like to forget. MaxSem 09:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a hoax. This was a big deal in the desktop software industry in the early 90's (I was a developer at a major software corp. at the time.) Thanks for the references, MaxSem! FreplySpang 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and verifiable. Tarinth 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So well known that this AFD almost seems like a hoax. If only KaiFei had searched for "Cairo operating system" at microsoft.com. AlistairMcMillan 10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced now, notable & verified. SkierRMH 11:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent post-sourcing. Bubba hot ep 11:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable. Good job sourcing. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable, sourced, notable software in the past. Terence Ong 14:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's verified, sourced, and notable, and most certainly not a hoax. Good work finding sources.-- danntm ^T _C 16:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all above; not a hoax, easily referenced from WP:RS, does not violate WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly not a hoax. Maxamegalon2000 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, excellent post-sourcing, and vertifiable. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourcing makes it clear this isn't a hoax. Jjacobsmeyer 17:48, 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, nonsensical and positively asserts lack of notability. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geovictwardianism[edit]

According to the article, this is a "small movement" appearing in blogs. Google search for Geovictwardianism -wikipedia turns up about five uses (plus some unacknowledged Wikipedia mirrors). Let's wait until it's a larger movement appearing in reliable sources. FreplySpang 09:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get 40 ghits, including Wikipedia and mirrors - isn't that a rum turn? Not up to snuff; England expects, you know, old chap? --Brianyoumans 09:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not exist to promote marginal strains of madness.Proabivouac 10:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proper mainstream sources, and who is this "Albion" mentioned as its progenitor? Sam Blacketer 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 10:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article describes itself as non-notable! SkierRMH 10:57, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of loving and hating[edit]

The conception and organization of this poorly sourced article constitutes original research. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a pulpit. This article should be deleted. Proabivouac 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources given for the balance of the conclusions in this pro-Shia POV essay. --Charlene 16:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see where this is POV. Sure it's still substandard like many Islam related articles, especially on Hadith, but this can be recitified. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The text isn't stridently POV, but the topicality of this strangely-titled article appears to constitute original research. Consider this Google seach for "Hadith of loving and hating"[52] - all results point back here or to Sahih Muslim, where the creator of this article added it himself[53] (the other listed sistes merely drawing content from Wikipedia.) The two sources used here (e.g. www.answering-ansar.org) mention only the verses, but not the phrase "hadith of loving and hating" or any similar concept. Perhaps there is a notable concept here, for which the creator has chosen an unusual translation. If so, it should be sourced and renamed. As it is, I see no evidence that the concept of "Hadith of loving and hating" exists outside Wikipedia.Proabivouac 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Maybe I should explain that I created this title only yesterday. Previously, the article was titled "Hadith of the equality of love and hatred" which is both misleading and horrid English. I merged the article "Hadith of loving and hating Ali" into the article and changed the title into the current one, which is at least a bit better linguistically. However, the title of Ali article seems uncommon as well, if you haven't found anything by that name (with or without Ali). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep concept is very real and the hadith of Loving Ali is frequently referenced by Shi'as. And the article gives examples of the same for Umar and there are the same for the Ahl al-Bayt. --Striver - talk 19:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May be you are right. I do not know it because I am sunni. But you should provide strong references (of secondary sources, not primary sources) in the start of the article. Otherwise, it looks like an original research based on some primary sources only. Also I do not understand that why you have to create so many partisan articles? These article are small enough to be merge as section in some other article. --- ALM 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Striver creating partisan articles? Should we all make articles about stuff that bores us instead? — coelacan talk — 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article do not have enough material to be justified as stand alone article. I do not support articles that are so small and also have no future to extend. Secondly without some secondary sources it is an original research. How you justify that article opening is not an original research?. These two are my reason for marking it for DELETE.

Now there is nothing wrong in term of wikipedia to create partisan article. I will NOT vote delete because they divide Muslims and I dislike them. However, yes I do dislike those articles. --- ALM 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of source material: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources." There are primary sources being used here, but there is no interpretation of their meaning going on. So claims of Wikipedia:No original research do not apply. There is some uncited commentary on how Sunnis and Shi'a view these Hadith, but that should be easy enough to cite, and it is a separate issue from the quotations of Hadith themselves. — coelacan talk — 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The start of the article is an original research. It says There are various Hadith that talk about loving or hating someone or something being equal to hating someone or something else. The most famous are the Hadith of loving and Ali. That is the base of the article. Do not you find it an orginal research without good references? One CANNOT have an article only on the bases of primary sources. Secondly we should not create article by grouping some Hadiths. Many hadiths are already group in seperate chapter in their original books. An article should be on real topics instead of topic created by collecting hadiths. --- ALM 03:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Otherwise, someone might create articles, Hadith of passing wind during prayer, Hadith of urinating towards Syria (they're in there), etc. We must establish that the subject of the article is notable and that the title is appropriate to the subject.Proabivouac 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's perfectly silly, but that's the way it goes. The notability and verifiability seem to be in place. A renaming might be in order? — coelacan talk — 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. It looks like an original research. We cannot use primary sources (of Hadith) to justify something without using some secondary sources. The first paragraph of the article is the base of the article and it looks like pure original research without any references. --- ALM 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Because on the sources provided by Striver. However, I will still prefer if we have one detailed article instead of so many small ones and we do NOT create articles by cherry picking some hadith. I will still not vote for keep. --- ALM 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week Delete~~ Comment Having an article on Primary source is not wrong but this article lacks secondary sources badly. The problem is that we can find heaps of Shia sources for this article, but almost no source from Sunni side, and hence article will always be imbalanced. (Note: giving a quote from Suyuti is not using his source. His source will be used properly if he comments on this hadith). TruthSpreader^reply 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drivel. There's no requirement of balance. The requirement of WP:NPOV is that we cite what sources there are. If there's no Sunni sources, too bad, should have thought of that before the Internet was invented. There's no Islamic sources on the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh) so the article may indeed be unbalanced but what are you going to do? Her Pinkness still reigns. We can't cite Sunni sources that don't exist, and we can't be beholden to the fact that Sunnis didn't bother. You really ought to have run that argument through your hogwash filter one more time. — coelacan talk — 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please have Good faith for others. No doubt your argument is convincing. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for being late, i had other issues to take care of. Thanks Coelacan for holding the stance, so that i wouldn't need to face the usualy bach of "delete" before starting.

Long hadith from Sunni source quoted by Shi'as + secondary source comments on al-islam.org' Shi'a encyclopedia. Al-Islam.org is the Shi'a site that Google have given the highest page rank. [54]
See above [55]
"Both tawalla and tabarra have to be reflected in the way of life as obedience of the Holy Prophet and his Ahlul Bayt. Repeated utterances of expressions of love or hate do not constitute tawalla or tabarra unless such repeated utterances are intended as declaration of commitment. " [56]
Al-Mamoon once asked him why the Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (A.S.) is called the divider of Paradise and of Hell, and how that attribute came to be applied to him. The Imam (A.S.) in turn asked him, "O commander of the faithful! Have you not narrated from your father from his forefathers quoting Abdullah ibn Abbas saying that he had heard the Messenger of God (S.A.W.) saying, `Loving Ali (A.S.) is iman, and hating him is kufr?'" Al-Mamoon answered in the affirmative, so the Imam (A.S.) said, "If the distribution of Paradise and of Hell is done according to loving or hating him, then he is the distributor of Paradise and of Hell." Al-Mamoon then said, "May God never permit me to live after your demise, O father of al-Hassan! I testify that you are the heir of the knowledge of the Messenger of God (S.A.W.)." from a Shi'a book about Ali al-Rida [57], [58], again on Al-Islam.org
Muhammad al-Tijani quoting "Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him" and following up with a long commentary on his book Then I was Guided, again on Al-Islam.org [59].
Peshawar Nights, chapter "AUTHORS WHO NARRATE HOLY PROPHET'S HADITH ABOUT HYPOCRITES' HATRED OF ALI", again on al-Islam.org [60]
"So, those who love us cannot hate us and those who hate us cannot love us; and our love can never be combined with the love of our adversaries in one heart."... [61] in a book by Mulla Asgharali M. M. Jaffer [62], the former head of the World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities

I hope this will suffice to show that the concept is prominent in Shi'a literature and argumentation. --Striver - talk 12:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It could use improvement and references, but it's got the basics of a good article showing Shia and Sunni perspectives on the issue. Seems notable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Look closely, there are several different traditions referenced here, some of which have no direct relation to the others besides the juxtaposition of "love" against "hate" in relation to Ali. The organization and labelling of them as "Hadith of love and hatred" is a dubious basis for an article. Apparently, Striver has created a number of articles consisting of a single Hadith, e.g. Hadith of Uthman's modesty. The trouble is that Striver becomes Wikipedia's de facto interpreter and labeller of Islamic scripture. Because the articles are so short and distributed all over the place, it is difficult for other editors to exercize any oversight, or for readers to find the informtion they're looking for. I was going to suggest merging this one into Shi'a veneration for Ali, only to discover to my amazement that no such article exists. I am also amazed that there is no category for Shi'a Islam. It's desirable that this information is presented, but this method of (dis-)organization is appalling.Proabivouac 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - i really don't like having any of these "Hadith of..." articles, if there is a concept meriting discussion then surely it can be done in a manner other than this. i feel that almost all of these "Hadith of..." articles are simply proxies of Succession to Muhammad: extensions of sunni vs. shia internet polemics (used to 'prove' one set of beliefs over another) which we can do without. it wouldn't be fair, however, to opine "Delete" here whilst dozens of other similar articles currently exist and serve as a precedence for this one. the wider issue of such articles in general must be addressed. ITAQALLAH 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that we've a significant problem on our hands: [63] (please do follow this link.) How can we delete any of them, if the existence of others is the defense for any particular one? Most (if not all) of these are attributable to one particularly energetic editor. The question is, how can we re-channel this energy into a policy-compliant direction? Deleting these articles must be a component of the solution. It's simply unacceptable for Wikipedia to serve as the platform for any one user's exegeses, however good-faith and worthy these might be.

While I personally have sympathies with the Shi'a perspective, it does seem that Itaqallah's "proxies" charge has validity. Articles which promote, implicitly or otherwise, any particular religion or religious faction are unacceptable.

The author seems well-intended and mostly fair-minded, but it is not up to any of us to designate the Shi'a view vs. the Sunni view, or the Muslim view vs. the non-Muslim view; this is an inherently and needlessly divisive way of structuring articles. Most of these are mostly uncited, and suffer from the same problems noted here.Proabivouac 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isnt all hot Shi'a - Sunni topics in one way or another an extension of the Succession to Muhammad? I mean, even the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin are extension of it, even the succession to Abu Bakr is a extension to that. Why is the list of hadith being addressed as an unaccaptable extension, while all the battle and other controversies are viewed as acceptable? Isn't the point to show notable controvesies? I have already shown with ample evidence that this hadith is notable, and i can do the same with most other hadith i have created. And btw, please do remeber that i am not just "an energetic editor", i am the only active Shi'a editor, and i have the support of every single Shi'a editor on wikipedia. -Striver —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.64.242.133 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I mean, somebody pointed out above that non-notable hadith are not worth having here on wikipedia, and i agree. So why is there anyone surprised that the notable hadith are the controversial, and that the controverisal are those that Shi'a and Sunnis do not agree on`?- striver

DeletePer nominationSefringle 03:48, 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 WP:SNOW. 1ne 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Person (British English) and Person (American English)[edit]

I am also nominating for deletion: Person (American English)

In the original article Person, now redirected to Person (American English),User:Lucy-marie globally altered every occurence of the word 'persons' to 'people' and every occurence of 'personhood' to 'being a people', making nonsense of a sensible article. Her grounds for doing this were: "(persosns is an icorrect grammar pluralisation it is people or a person or a person's rights and carried out a clean up)". I pointed out the error, and reverted. Lucy-marie refused to accept she was wrong and reverted. On the discussion page (now at Talk:Person (American English)) I started a Request for Comment. ~~The only supporter of Lucy-marie has been a friend of hers.~~ One contributor suggested, jokingly, that two separate pages be made, one for American English and one for British English. Lucy-marie has now unilaterally declared the Request for Comment process closed and has totally unnecessarily created these two pages, blanked the original Person page and turned it into a Redirect. At the top of the Discussion page for each article, she has written "This page was created entirley to resolve a dispute over persons or poeple". The dispute has not been resolved. I am proposing the deletion of these two pages and the restoration of Person until the Request for Comment discusssion is properly concluded. Emeraude 10:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: User:Lucy-marie made an alteration to my entry above by striking through a sentence which I have changed back. She says that it was not a friend of hers, but that is no reason to edit another user's contribution in discussion.) Emeraude 15:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: please note the sentence i struckthrough is an untruth and do not want untrths written concerning me.--Lucy-marie 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced nonsense. I quote: "The most obvious examples of people are human beings...Beings from other planets could also be regarded as people."Proabivouac 10:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both of these versions; restore Person to the version of 3 January 2007. There is no evidence that the word person has significantly different meanings in British and American English. —An gr 11:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, POV fork, per creator "Created this page to resolve a dispute" --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, baffling POV fork. Return Person and Person (disambiguation) to their correct places.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think tis should be kept as an ugly revert war has been avoided by creating these pages and in depth discussion on the talk page of person has come to the conclusion that this was the best way forewards.--Lucy-marie 12:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both as clear POV forks. Content disputes should be resolved through the dispute resolution process instead of creating two different versions of the same article, but with different points of view. --Farix (Talk) 13:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to me like these two articles are very different. if there is a difference between the term "person" there is no reason it can't be part of the article entitled "person". --Tainter 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to add that if this is all about a difference in grammar, then we should follow WP:MOS and go with the version used by the first major contributor to the article. --Farix (Talk) 13:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Philosophical concepts are not divided into separate articles for separate nations! The term "persons" is correct in both Brirish and US English. Paul B 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical POV fork. Eusebeus 14:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, POV fork. Terence Ong 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both This is crazy. The UK has the "National Missing Persons Helpline" - a well-known institution - and the phrase "person or persons unknown" is common usage in Britain. This fork fails virtually every relevant WP policy: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. Update: My God, we even have an article on this: National Missing Persons Helpline.--Folantin 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I'm at a loss for words. GassyGuy 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We also have an official policy entitled biographies of living persons. It's clearly a spelling that most editors approve of, and from the evidence presented, dictionaries too. Seraphimblade 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV forks over grammar??? Also caution User:Lucy-marie that alteration of another user's comments is heavily frowned upon and may be considered disruptive-you're welcome to dispute assertions you disagree with, but not to strike or remove them. Seraphimblade 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May it be noted that User:Lucy-marie has struck through my comments again. Emeraude

Just a reminder to readers that this is not, strictly speaking, a fork over grammar but more basically whether there is or is not such a word as persons in British or any other form of English. I have provided dictionary quotes before on the relevant Discussion page, but here is a direct quote from Chambers Online Dictionary, about as British as it gets. I think this clinches it:

"person noun (persons or in sense 1 also people) 1 an individual human being. 2 the body, often including clothes • A knife was found hidden on his person. 3 grammar each of the three classes into which pronouns and verb forms fall, first person denoting the speaker (or the speaker and others, eg I and we), second person the person addressed (with or without others, eg you) and third person the person(s) or thing(s) spoken of (eg she, he, it or they). 4 (Person) Christianity any of the three forms or manifestations of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that together form the Trinity (sense 2). 5 in compounds used instead of -man, -woman, etc, to denote a specified activity or office, avoiding illegal or unnecessary discrimination on grounds of sex, eg in job advertisements • chairperson • spokesperson. Compare chairman, chairwoman, etc. be no respecter of persons to make no allowances for rank or status. in person 1 actually present oneself • was there in person. 2 doing something oneself, not asking or allowing others to do it for one."

Source: Chambers Reference Online. Note that it says the plural of 'person' is 'persons', with 'people' also allowed in sense 1. Emeraude 19:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a definition from the online dictionary of the word people.
1.persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.
5. the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople.
6. the ordinary persons, as distinguished from those who have wealth, rank, influence, etc.: a man of the people.
7. the subjects, followers, or subordinates of a ruler, leader, employer, etc.: the king and his people.
8. the body of enfranchised citizens of a state: representatives chosen by the people.
9. a person's family or relatives: My grandmother's people came from Iowa.
10. (used in the possessive in Communist or left-wing countries to indicate that an institution operates under the control of or for the benefit of the people, esp. under Communist leadership): people's republic; people's army.
11. animals of a specified kind: the monkey people of the forest. –verb (used with object)
12. to furnish with people; populate
13. to supply or stock as if with people: a meadow peopled with flowers.
So according to the above definition it can be used to represent a collective and according to the first defintion it can be used to represnt individuals so therefore it can be used to reprersnt both.--Lucy-marie 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't the place to argue over which to use. That is a content dispute that doesn't belong on WP:AFD and should go to WP:DR. --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've decided to be bold and restore ~~People~~ (Person) to the last version before it was turned into a redirect so that the RFC may continue. However, this is not an endorsement of that version. --Farix (Talk) 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original article created too much work and hassle..now its two they can be developed in sync but to each articles own stance Fethroesforia 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, restore Person. Very poor form to short-circuit an RFC like this, and AFD is not for content disputes. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both This is absolutely ridiculous. Also strongly suggest that User:Lucy-marie be blocked for flagrant violation of WP:POINT. Danny Lilithborne 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doc^g 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, restore Person. This is totally unacceptable behavior from an editor, and I concur with Danny on the WP:POINT comment. --Haemo 00:32, 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. Majorly 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teaneck Circle[edit]

Completely unremarkable roundabout. Contested prod. MER-C 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Simply unimportant.Proabivouac 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article admits it was a 'minor traffic circle' which doesn't even exist any more. SkierRMH 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability and none can be found on Google either. Prolog 12:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable road feature, not exactly a Spaghetti Junction by the sounds of it. Budgiekiller 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I object to the deletion of this article, my first contribution. Article is accurate, short, and concise, written in a neutral tone. The category into which it falls is entitled List of NJ Traffic Circles. That an included circle be significant or important is neither required nor implied. List does not purport to contain only "remarkable or notable" circles. Cf: the other NJ Traffic Circles in list. Is the nominator a native of NJ? I am. I am also familiar with all of the traffic circles on the list, some of which are/were comparable in size and importance to this one. Those advocating deletion should first consult the list and note the large number of circles there which no longer exist. Existence of circle in present day is not a criterion for inclusion judging by the entries to which the word "defunct" is appended. To those for whom "Highway Jerseyana" is a subject of interest, my contribution adds accurate information by expanding the list. Finally, enlarging the list of NJ Traffic Circles as completely as possible helps to illustrates the initial rapid popularity and subsequent demise of this type of traffic control as posited in the main article about traffic circles. Thanks to the Wikipedia community for helping me learn how the inclusion of articles is debated and resolved.Jeff.schwartz 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain This is definitely a true and noteworthy fact. The Teaneck Circle at Teaneck Rd. and Cedar Lane/E. Cedar Lane in Teaneck, NJ was something very memorable to many people who lived in that area and remember it well - including myself. This fact should be retained for purposes of completeness and accuracy. — Spmny2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Being a 'fact' or 'noteworthy' does not make a topic encyclopedic. While the article is a nice read, there is no assertion of notability or any encyclopedic content in the article. So that is why it will probably be deleted. It simply does not assert any notability. The best guideline is probably WP:LOCAL and I'm sure that it does not meet that guidelines for keeping. My suggestion would be to merge. If there are other articles that should be deleted for similar reasons, then list them on AfD. Their existence does not justify keeping similar articles. For the record, I had to rack my brain to see if I ever heard of this. In the end I had, but that does not make it notable for me as a New Jersey native. Vegaswikian 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and do not keep per WP:LOCAL. I guess that the merge target should be Teaneck, New Jersey. Vegaswikian 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. highlunder 14:58, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Feast of Alvis[edit]

This is trivial non-encylopedic detail of the sort which is called cruft. It is so non notable it can't be expressed. 3rd party external sources have never described. A merge and redirect makes no sense since this cruft would ruin the main article Sealab 2021. DeleteObina 11:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Proabivouac 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up on television one day. Demiurge 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unreferenced fancruft. MER-C 11:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete canonical fancruft, only sources are direct observation of the show itself, including a large quote. A redirect would be perfectly sufficient. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close This is definite fancruft (albeit of one of my favorite TV shows ever), but I could imagine somebody searching for it, especially as the episode of the show regarding the holiday was called "Feast of Alvis". Thus, I'm going to be bold and redirect this to Sealab 2021. -- Kicking222 16:45, 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 under WP:CSD#A7/WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Home Products[edit]

Advertising/directory entry. Emeraude 11:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 as above. Prolog 12:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - advert. Budgiekiller 13:25, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identity Intelligence[edit]

(Note: article was restored from being speedy deleted twice after discussion with the author User:Carmaz, to be put through the regular AfD process. See User talk:Chris 73#Identity Intelligence and User talk:Carmaz)
Seems to be a non-notable topic, with about 500 google hits, the first one being the link to the book website by Carmaz. The text is an excerpt from the book, of which Carmaz claims copyright (which i believe). Chris 73 | Talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first person original research. MER-C 11:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Chovain 12:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like like a philosophical agenda (if that exists) which would violate NPOV.--Tainter 13:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established in peer reviewed journals. --Jcbutler 16:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author has added a few refs on my talk site for your info:

Singapore Staits Times Article "Reason before you react" –Feb 4, 2004 was about Identiy Intelligence. http://carmazzi.net/st_recruit.htm
Singapore News Radio 93.8 posititve business minute series for May 2003 was about Identity Intelligence http://carmazzi.net/Resources_radio.htm
SMART FM Malaysia and Singapore News Radio 93.8 did interviews on Identity Intelligence. (no on-line references)
China Youth Daly 3/4 page article on Identity Intelligence August 26, 2002 http://carmazzi.net/news%20china.htm
Leadership Intelligence (sub-catagory) in HR Magazine, Vietnam 2003 http://carmazzi.net/pdf%20files/Leadership%20Intelligence%20in%20an%20up%20and%20coming%20Economy.pdf

Chris 73 | Talk 15:39, 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 keep, stated reason for deletion (hoax) has been conclusively demonstrated as not applying. Non-admin closure not exactly per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAC-11[edit]

The MAC-11 is not a real weapon manufactured by the Military Armament Corporation. Momo Hemo 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "not real"? What do you mean? This article has enough sources, and if it's not enough for you, you can search for more. Of course, MAC-11 isn't as famous as its brother MAC-10, but it's perfectly notable and verifiable anyway. MaxSem 11:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly exists. Article needs improvement though Chovain 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real enough - appears in several police articles (e.g. here) about real robberies, you can get a nice paint job for one like this and it was even featured in The Matrix. Budgiekiller 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but of course it needs improvement. added cleanup tag.--Tainter 13:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close nom - this is a nonsense nomination. Georgewilliamherbert 19:57, 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 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Z,Z)-3,13-octadecadien-1-ol acetate (ODDA)[edit]

Nothing but a reference table and external links. Onorem 12:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Prod removed by vandal. I replaced text that was listed for the prod, and have no opinion either way at this time. --Onorem 12:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A1/A3. So tagged. MER-C 13:26, 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. Majorly 16:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DLSU Mathematics Circle[edit]

Almost a duplicate of Math circle.

Comment - Prod removed by vandal. I replaced text that was listed for the prod, and have no opinion either way at this time. --Onorem 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a copy of Math circle which itself needs some more work and improvement--Tainter 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate content. --Polaron | Talk 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Charlene 16:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate, per nom. Budgiekiller 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Math circle and provide redirect to Math circle - Merging is appropriate where "there are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." Also, merging will create a redirect to prevent people from accidentally creating a new page under the old DLSU Mathematics Circle title. -- Jreferee 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Dupe. --Gwern (contribs) 20:27 11 January 2007 (GMT) 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. As far as I can tell "DLSU" here stands for "De La Salle University", host to one of the circles described in math circle but not especially notable among the other ones. And I see nothing of interest to merge. —David Eppstein 18:44, 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 keep. This is articles for deletion, please go to WP:RFD for redirects. Thanks. MER-C 13:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4649[edit]

Term doesn't appear on redirect page. Doesn't appear in any of the sources used on that page. No idea what it's supposed to stand for. Onorem 12:54, 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 Keep and cleanup. Agent 86 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragutin Novak[edit]

Article seems to be made up of mostly nonsense. CJ 12:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Rolling back before what appears to be vandalism, the article is a Croatian bio-stub, with Novak being the first Croatian flyer, which can be seen here (according to my limited Croatian). While he struggles to meet WP:BIO (how widely recognised is the first Croatian to fly?), he also has an article in Croatian Wikipedia. Budgiekiller 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite a fine article exists on the croatian wiki concerning this man. if someone knows both languages it could be a better article. til then i will do some cleanup. no need to delete. seems to me like a person of note from croatia.--Tainter 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yahoo turns up many sites on him, although most are non-english. What I can find list him as the first graduated pilot of croatia. I would assume croatians would find him notable. JN322 13:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears from the well-sourced Croatian article that Novak may be almost as notable among Croatians as the Wright Brothers are among Americans. If he's notable in Croatia, he's notable enough for the English language Wikipedia. This should be sent to cleanup but should not be deleted. --Charlene 13:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears as if the entry (as it is now) is written in somewhat broken english. That is probably the reason for it sounding a bit nonsensical. JN322 14:38, 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. Agent 86 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACT (Nasdaq)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Onorem 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Prod removed by vandal. I replaced text that was listed for the prod, and have no opinion either way at this time. --Onorem 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A software system that is used for transactions on a major stock exchange is notable and has the potential to be more than a dictionary definition. --Matthew 04:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Matthew. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Dragomiloff 22:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Extremely important mechanism that affects billions of dollars on Nasdaq daily. --Oakshade 00:40, 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. Herostratus 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Barum F.C.[edit]

non-notable English non-league football club, several levels below the accepted criteria of Level 10 or above. fchd 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perhaps all red links in leagues at levels below 10 should be removed unless they're "A", "B", "Reserve" etc teams of clubs at levels 10 and above? Budgiekiller 13:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's actually no link to this page on the league's article, in fact no pages link to it at all.... ChrisTheDude 08:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A problem I tried to tackle a few months ago, to no avail. Bubba hot ep 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per fchd - clearly doesn't meet established guidelines on club notability ChrisTheDude 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and fchd. Qwghlm 09:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stay - the club is real , so it can have a place in wikipedia . I don't care if the club is small or not , just sometimes it is interesting to read about such a small teams . Football isn't only Arsenal FC or FC Barcelona , but also such a club like Sporting Barum F.C Bartekos 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is claiming that the club isn't real, but unfortunately it isn't the case that it "is real , so it can have a place in wikipedia" - after all, my son plays for a Sunday morning kids' park team which is indisputedly real but I certainly wouldn't create a Wikipedia article on them. Wikipedia has notability guidelines which have to be satisfied in order to have an article, and in the case of English football clubs the guidelines state that the club has to have played in the top ten levels of the English football league system at some point in their existence - this club has not done so. The guideline can be found here. Hope this helps ChrisTheDude 08:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - below the accepted level for team notability (i.e. Level 10 or above of the English football league system). Possible vanity page? Robotforaday 16:48, 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. Majorly 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SmackDown! Sprint[edit]

This is a non-notable series of matches that began on Smackdown this week and will end on Smackdown next week. This fails the notability policy, amounts to fancruft and random information, and thus far WP:PW has unanimously decided that this page doesn't deserve to exist. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but nothing applies to it. -- The Hyb rid 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Fancruft like this should be moved to a wrestling wiki. --- Paulley
Delete, if those who know (WP:PW) say no, it must be no. Budgiekiller 13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If your vote is not based on what you think then you shouldn't be voting at all. --Aaru Bui ^DII 13:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is already a description of the Beat the Clock match at List of professional wrestling match types and is not notable or unique enough to warrant it's own article. TJ Spyke 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 13:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep Just to reply, I should point out that I read the discussion and it was not "unanimous" as implied by the nominator. At least one person seemed to disagree, and only three or four people commented. Second, I'll point out that I'm not sure there's a big distinction between tournaments on Smackdown and individual episodes of other television series. How are the Smackdown tournament episodes any less notable than the the episode The Blind Bandit of the series Avatar: The Last Airbender, or the episode Motivation (episode) in Category:I Pity the Fool episodes, both of which have articles? Basically, if being an episode of a major television series is notable enough to allow that episode to have an article, then why aren't multi-week tournaments on Smackdown or RAW or TNA:Impact likewise notable enough to have articles? Basically these are the equivalent of episodes. Dugwiki 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who disagreed? It was, and still is, unanimous. If you were talking about Govvy, he disagreed that it had been done on Raw before, but he still agreed that this article didn't deserve to exist. -- The Hyb rid 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I stand corrected on Govy's point. Still, that leaves the rest of what I said unaddressed. Namely a) that there doesn't seem to be a fundamental difference between this tournament and an episode or episodes of a television series; and b) that the "unanimous" consent of WP:PW consisted of exactly three editors (Paulley, Hybrid, Govvy). I didn't post there, but obviously I would have posted the same comments there as I did here. Dugwiki 17:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode lists and synopses of wrestling episodes have been deleted as unencyclopedic. And yes, I chose to skip over the fact that only three people voted. However, that still leaves the rest of my nomination unaddressed. -- The Hyb rid 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your nomination, "Cruft" is not a reason for deletion. As far as notability, I gave examples above of a couple of other television series I pulled out of the air that are less notable in terms of viewership than Smackdown episodes but which are apparently considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. So again, to rephrase, my question comes down to this - why are Smackdown episode articles held to a different standard than either reality television episode articles or less popular scripted television episode articles? If Smackdown is at least as popular, if not more, than other shows that have complete articles about every episode, then why shouldn't there likewise be articles about main Smackdown episodes or story arcs? Dugwiki 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that cruft was a reason for deletion; I was simply driving home the non-notability point. Anyway, there are precedents for deleting synopses of wrestling episodes. They are held to a different standard due to the quantity of them in my opinion. Raw has over 700 episodes, and Smackdown has been going on for a long time now. A summary of every episode is an incredibly large amount of articles to have on any subject. For comparison, more than double the total number of articles on the infamous Pokémon. -- The Hyb rid 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely correct that there are many more episodes in a season of Smackdown or RAW than a typical television, because the shows air once a week every week with no repeats. However, storylines and multi-episode tournaments such as this one take multiple weeks to resolve, so the total number of story- or tourny-related articles wouldn't be any greater than the number of episodes for a scripted series or reality show.

In fact, though, this brings up a broader question about how to organize pro-wrestling television show articles in general. Let's assume for the moment that we don't want to include specific articles for individual wrestling show episodes due to the sheer number of episodes involved. What if you were to compact that information into, say, multi-week storyline specific articles (like this one) or month-by-month synopsis timeline articles for a series? Doing that would reduce the number of articles to a more manageable 10-20 articles per year per show.

Since it's looking to me like I'm getting into the realm of broader overall discussion of wrestling show articles in general, I'll leave this particular afd nomination up to consensus and instead pose the above questions over at WP:PW. Who knows, maybe in the broader review it'll turn out that there is a way to present episodic-style information about wrestling in a compact enough form to be managable? Dugwiki 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article isn't needed if you ask me. Govvy 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is still useful at the moment. It can be deleted at a later time. Big Boss 0 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is just a Beat the Clock competition, which as already covered at List of professional wrestling match types. TJ Spyke 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True but it will be useful to me until January 16th 2007 and then it can be deleted but until then I suggest we keep it. Big Boss 0 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The 16th? The Sprint ends this week (there are 8 men left, and all 4 matches are at tonight's tapings). Besides, this is the kind of stuff a wrestling news site is for. TJ Spyke 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just read the results at wrestlingobserver.com. Wikipedia isn't here for this. -- The Hyb rid 10:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Match results are not notable. Croctotheface 08:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only notable thing is the ultimate outcome (i.e. who wins) and that can be recorded on the PPV page and the wrestler pages. --Dave. 23:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and See. I think the nomination for deletion was far too quick as the significance of the tournament has yet to ultimately be revealed. Even now (as the second set of matches is over and Kennedy is the victor), the sprint may be incorporated into a major plotline. The creation of this page may have been hasty, but at least have the decency to wait and see how it all plays out before you destroy it. Even in the very long term, this may be a multi-year thing. How long does a tournament have to go on, or how many times does it have to happen for it to be significant? Aren't all PPVs fancruft, since realistically a title COULD (and has) changed hands at any time, feuds could (and have) been resolved without a PPV, and DVDs also highlight normal matches? I disagree with fancruft. I agree with the fact of the Beat the Clock match article. I agree partially with the point of less significant episodes in a series, but disagree as well because professional wrestling really bears more a comparison to a soap opera, as there are no repeats, multiple feuds, and people that should be dead after getting hit with something aren't. Just WAIT... the article doesn't have that much size to it (yet) anyway, so wikipedia won't be bogged down terribly if this isn't deleted immediately. Enhanceddownloadbird 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a response to all keep votes, we don't keep things because they could become notable someday. We only keep things after they have already become notable. -- The Hyb rid 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Star911, if you want to tell us why we are wrong we are listening, but just saying it does nothing. -- The Hyb rid 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, it's irrelevant to anything and we'll all forget about it by Royal Rumble. Eye Are Ess 16:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed out of the voting (Can't see but I bet this is all the same person.)[edit]

Don't Delete. There is no evidence that SmackDown won't hold another "Sprint" the next time they need a #1 contender. So, why delete it if we might just have to make it again? --User:Ae.com17 8:30, 12 January 2007 (CMT)
Don't Delete. Let's not delete it guys. I agree with Ae.com17, he/she makes a good point. What if they do need another #1 contender for the SmackDown! World Heavyweight Championship. We're just wasting our time. --User:D-doggy face 8:40 (CMT)
Don't Delete. Just because it's 2 weeks long, doesnt mean you have to delete it. If you guys want to delete it you're wrong. So don't do it, please! --User:Star911 8:46 (CMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capstar Radio Tower Middlesex[edit]

cleanup of stubs of non-notable masts per AfD precedent (per WP:NN, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO). There are an excessive number of stub articles in this category, see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts for further rationale

Comment - Prod removed by vandal. I replaced text that was listed for the prod, and have no opinion either way at this time. --Onorem 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent, this is similar to the other one-liners that have been deleted en-masse. SkierRMH 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A normal non-notable mast. I'm sure it is a very nice mast...Obina 01:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. I will do a group AfD of all those whose prods have been removed without improvement once the obligatory 5 days have expired. Ohconfucius 06:10, 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. If someone wants the content in order to pursue this, let me know and I'll put it in their user space. Otherwise, just being a positive influence is not sufficient to establish notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Baines[edit]

A long-serving and worthy police officer. However, he is only even slightly notable in a local context and holds a relatively junior rank (inspector is approximately equivalent to lieutenant in police forces in the United States and elsewhere and every force has at least dozens of them). He has been awarded the QPM, but this is not a particularly unusual decoration for a long-serving officer and we would not expect entries for every police officer who had been awarded it for meritorious service (although those who were awarded it in the past for bravery may be more notable). As for his international contributions, many British police officers make visits to foreign forces - they don't make him stand out in any great way. Neither do a few appearances on television current affairs programmes to talk about local issues. All in all, an officer who is probably fairly prominent in his local community, but is not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article (meaning no disrespect to the man whatsoever). Necrothesp 13:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline speedy. Makes no plausioble assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't actually think it is a candidate to be speedied (which is why I didn't). The assertion of notability is plausible enough to disqualify it under the speedy deletion rules and the creator obviously genuinely considers the subject to be notable (as opposed to creating it for advertising or fancruft purposes). I don't consider it meets WP notability criteria, but neither do I think it meets speedy deletion criteria. -- Necrothesp 15:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Delete. I somehow feel we're missing something here. Universities generally don't hand out honorary doctorates that freely, so I wonder if his position and his works are actually more notable than his rank would otherwise say. After all, Audie Murphy was only a lieutenant in the US Army. However, as the article stands it doesn't describe the individual as being notable enough for Wikipedia. --Charlene 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Rank is of course irrelevant if one has done something particularly significant (like win the Medal of Honor), but if one just does one's job, however well, then it does have a bearing. British universities usually give a fair proportion of their honorary doctorates to people who are significant locally, not nationally, largely in order to curry favour with the local community - trust me, most people wouldn't have heard of most of the recipients. It is notable that despite the QPM and the honorary doctorate, Baines has not received a national non-police-specific honour, not even an MBE (and I would generally consider a CBE to be a minimum requirement for notability based on one's honours alone). -- Necrothesp 16:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion the article should not be deleted, but heavily overhauled, and only for the reason that he set a precedent for others to follow in the role of community race relations and his work is now followed nationwide as best practice by other Police Forces, and the QPM and honourary doctorate should have been given as examples to illustrate this, not just listed on their own. Unfortunately the creator of the article doesn't really seem to have mentioned this, and just given the impression that the work he did was typical of that done by an ordinary officer at the rank of Inspector 81.178.88.91 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Not exactly a quorum, but nobody spoke up for it. We can't relist everything. Herostratus 07:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Sword[edit]

No reliable sources. Seems to fail WP:WEB as currently written. Will probably be a good candidate for an article once more sources are available. --Onorem 13:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no reliable sources on Google. Little notability is asserted, and the game was only released six weeks ago. -- Kicking222 17:05, 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. 7-2 in favor of deletion and no strong Keep arguments or 3rd-party evidence of notability provided. Herostratus 07:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EvoWiki[edit]

Speedy kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EvoWiki, arguments like "keep and improve". We kept it, it hasn't improved. The article has no external sources (external link to itself and a spam link for a creationist wiki), no evidence of being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources, no evidence of meeting the criteria of WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unsourced and I don't find any reliable third party sources talking about it. It appears that it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:WEB, unfortunately. --Charlene 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 152 unique Google hits for EvoWiki, none of which present reliable sources. -- Kicking222 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB GassyGuy 17:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rampant freeriderism in the last AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 09:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website is regularly cited for it's information on the evolution vs. creationism debates (It is cited several times by the Wikipedia for that purpose). The fact that the creationists feel that they have to maintain a response to the wiki with their CreationWiki should be enough evidence that the website is important. Yes, it is currently a really crappy article, but that is NOT a reason for deleting the article. ^Blank ^Verse 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case a mention in Creation-evolution controversy might be in order if evidence of their notability is not forthcoming. Note there is no article for CreationWiki. ~ trialsanderrors 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Creationwiki hardly maintains a response to EvoWiki. According to it's stats page, it has over 2,700 article pages. Creationwiki has directly responded to only ten of those, all of which were added more than six months ago. If they did maintain constant responses to EvoWiki, it still wouldn't matter unless CreationWiki was considered important, which it isn't. Prometheus^-X303- 08:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree that really crappy is not a reason for deletion, why is it always used? Crappy articles are supposed to be tagged and repaired, aren't they? What if Seattle, Washington had a really crappy article, would it be up for deletion, then again if not repaired in a timely fashion? Still, Blank, could you give me a citation outside of Wikipedia for this, that's not a blog, wikimirror or response to the creation of EvoWiki?KP Botany 22:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BlankVerse. Unique google hits are completely useless. Microsoft only gets 700 unique google hits. Silensor 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need to list every wiki out there just because we're a wiki. Lovelac7 07:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. -Silence 03:15, 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.--Hús ö nd 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ProductWiki[edit]

A Wiki. No evidence that it's a significant wiki, though. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB either. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A wiki made up completely of spam? Say it isn't so, Joe. Website is new and does not meet any of the criteria necessary for WP:WEB yet. --Charlene 15:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, SpamWiki! (now I want lunch) This doesn't meet WP:WEB from the stats on its own main page. SkierRMH 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:48, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essoin[edit]

Page has existed for two and a half years, tagged as a stub soon after creation, with no development. Original author has made no contributions since July 2004, so seems to be totally abandoned. Probably capable of no more than a dicdef in any case. Emeraude 14:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can verify it and produce some credible evidence it might ever be more than a single sentence. Stubs are fine, if there's potential for an Actual Article^TM but this does not seem to show that possibility. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Although it is a valid legal term under English law[64][65], I don't think the article can be expanded much past what it is. As a dictionary definition it should be sent to Wiktionary. --Charlene 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - it's just a dicdef as it stands. SkierRMH 22:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - vote changed due to UncleG's work, much beyond a dicdef now! SkierRMH 02:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - User:Uncle G has been busy. Take a look at it now and you may want to change your "vote"s. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done User:Uncle G - very interesting. I nominated the article thinking nothing could be done with it and I'm now happy to be proved wrong, so I withdraw the nomination and vote Keep. (And I've corrected the misspelling ession that has been there since creation.) Emeraude 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after improvement _SUBWAYguy 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now a short article of good quality. Choess 23:42, 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 by Merging to Cheating (video games). Cbrown1023 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trainer (games)[edit]

Unreferenced article seems to serve mainly as a locus for lame edit wars over links to editors' own game hacking sites. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no references whatsoever, let alone references to verifiable reliable sources. Article title too generic for Ghits to be a useful marker. Sounds like they're talking about some form of cheat code (or the mirror of cheat codes, whatever those are). The article itself isn't terribly coherent as is. --Charlene 15:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to find some references for the article, but it's impossible to find any that don't just advertise a site. None provide any meaningful information on how trainers work, which is what the article needs. And as we've seen, it's a magnet for people wanting to advertise. The Kinslayer 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Yes, the article as it stands now is crap. I dunno if it can be fixed, but from my viewpoint, it's a concept that's worthwhile having an article on. That people have searched and not found anything is saddening -- perhaps Merge some of the info into some other article, perhaps a general game hacking one (that could cover everything from direct hacking to trainers to 'enhancement devices'). Not sure if there is such an article, at the moment though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible mergeto page is Cheating (video games). Marasmusine 17:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you dropped a link to show how things are made as in a trainer , what if i do just that link it to a trainer tutorial ? then it has source Apache- 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Apache- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Just as a note, this user...well I'll let the contribs linked above speak for themselves. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An external link will improve the article providing it follows the guidelines at WP:EL. Marasmusine 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with complete rewrite The subject really should have an article, as it is a very common thing to see, but the current version is horrible. Exarion 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and others. Deizio talk 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheating (video games) and delete. This stub's been around since May 05, there's nothing there which can't be shortened to fit in the cheating article and have done with it. QuagmireDog 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice versus recreation as a properly sourced article. Trainers are a fairly notable cheat program which do spring up with regularity in pretty much any game. However, the current article appears to have been abandoned and would have to be rewritten from scratch to be viable. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a section of cheating (video games); I agree that trainers are quite notable but this article isn't very good. — brighterorange (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge but watch out for spammish links. Asterion^talk 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cheating (video games); the topic is noteworthy and should not be obliterated, but this article will probably remain a stub. Kurrupt3d 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable kind of software, but remove the spam. --Carioca 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cheating (video games). Its definately a notable topic that needs coverage (and references!)... but the article as it stands now is crap. Clean it up, merge whats worthwhile, and give us 1 decent article! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:00, 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. Majorly 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Diplomacy Wiki[edit]

Unreferenced article about a Wiki specific to a pretty small professional grouping. No evidence that it meets WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom without prejudice. This is the kind of wiki that some day very well might meet WP:WEB due to its importance in its field, but it doesn't meet any of the criteria just yet. --Charlene 15:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe someday it will warrant a page. Almost all of the info on the web about it is from mirrors of WP. - Peregrine Fisher 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; article fails WP:WEB and does not assert notability. Yuser31415 04:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StrategyWiki[edit]

Sole source is a brief mention (probably based on a press release) asying how this project is out tto beat GameFAQs. Hasn't happened yet, as far as I can tell, and the article itself is a borderline A7 speedy. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. No third-party reliable sources. Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria set out in WP:WEB. --Charlene 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, only one reference, maybe someday will meet WP:WEB, but not yet. SkierRMH 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best of luck to the site, but currently does not assert notability and the single reference is hardly useful. Can and will change to keep if good references are found. QuagmireDog 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StrategyWiki was the response to Jimbo's statement that video game strategy guides shouldn't appear on WikiBooks, but that is hardly qualification for notability. Delete. Axem Titanium 00:35, 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. Jinian 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spike (film)[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article itself indicates that this project very likely won't get made. Otto4711 15:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crystal-balling at its finest. --Charlene 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, intro says it all "The existence of such a project is currently in question." Budgiekiller 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is phenomenally well referenced given what it has to go with, and the article does not indicate that it will not be made. Quite the opposite. It's just taking a while because Joss is a very busy man. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources come from the same fansite, and all that's here is speculation, a few "we hope to do this soon"-like comments, and unsourced speculation as to cast and crew. Fails WP:NOT. If and when such a film production is actually officially announced, then the article can be recreated. 23skidoo 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nomination. It didn't happen and it never will happen now. Web Warlock 19:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as this gets picked up by some production company, go with it, otherwise it's just well-organized fancruft/hope. SkierRMH 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because references made thus far to the crystal ball policy seem to ignore the fact that the cited crystal ball policy makes it pretty clear that this article is acceptable. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable"? Check. "The subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred"? Check. "Provided that discussion is properly referenced"? Check. "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented"? Check. Wikipedia policy does not forbid articles about anticipated events, as long as that anticipated event is held to the same standards of verifiability and notability that other articles are held to. — Whedonette (ping) 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 12 sources listed for the article, six of them are from Whedonesque.com which is "a community weblog discussing the work of TV maker Joss Whedon. Anyone can post a story or comment to this site, as long as it pertains to Joss Whedon's work." These are not reliable sources. Another is claimed to be from TV Guide but is in fact another post from Whedonesque.com. The Wizarduniverse.com source doesn't mention this project specifically, merely that "certain [unnamed] characters" are being "saved." The TVguide.com source is apparently dead. The few remaining sources all say in one way or another that this film will not be made. This isn't well-documented, this isn't properly referenced and it's not expected ever to happen by the people who would be directly involved so it's not legitimately an "anticipated" event. Otto4711 05:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequately sourced article about film that will not be made. Doczilla 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If all the references out there were secondary and there was no primary source to be had, this would merely be speculation, and mere speculation is deletable. That the Whedonesque.com sources are secondary, quoting primary sources, knocks them down a notch in reliable source standards. It does not, however, prevent one from traversing out to the primary sources and verifying that a movie, of this topic and proposed name, has been in discussion and planning by Whedon and crew. This clearly and easily passes the "Is it real or not?" credibility test once those sources are reviewed, which is the most important part of the speculation / crystal ball policies. Georgewilliamherbert 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." Pretty clear-cut. A message on a blog to the effect of "I heard Amy Acker say this at a con" is worthless as a source. Stripped of the material that's sourced with non-sources and the speculation, the article would read that there was a movie suggested about Spike, that James Marsters said in passing in an interview he'd play it if it happened within five years and that no one who would be primarily involved in the film thinks it's going to be made. Not even remotely close to meeting basic standards of inclusion. Otto4711 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it would be better to source some of those Whedonesque posts (where Joss and company are known to post and comment anyway) to their actual sources, this doesn't meet the crystal ball standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Part of the crystal ball policy says "notable and almost certain to take place" the article itself says the project now will not get made, and speculation is not notable. Thousands of projects "alomost" get done, only ones in process or complete should be noted. Web Warlock 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the crytal ball standard not because it likely won't get made, but rather because it was a well-reported film that never quite took off, and has a fairly important addition to the larger Buffyverse because of that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — It's referenced well, but that lead basically asks for a deletion. Wizardman 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Addhoc 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Hornet Replacement Controversy[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement for the F-14 combined with a conspiracy theory, and it utterly fails WP:POV. I have no particular investment in the Tomcat-vs-Super Hornet controversy at all, but the article does not fairly present it in any sense of the word. Improve at dead bottom minimum, but deletion may well be better. Iceberg3k 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - as per Iceberg3k, this is disgruntled editor placing an advert for the F14 Tomcat. The gist is correct but the article fails WP:POV miserably and would only survive with a neutral re-write. Budgiekiller 16:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A further problem with the article is that there is no "controversy," at least not on any level that matters. A "controversy" indicates that there is significant debate about it in the real world, which there has not been since before the Super Hornet entered service. Iceberg3k 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. This was a POV fork from the main F-14 article, written in essay form and mostly uncited. Mostly WP:OR even the name is WP:POV. --Dual Freq 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment? This seems to be a pretty straightforward case here, it's POV, badly formatted and uncited. Iceberg3k 19:37, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publish a page[edit]

Not notable enough. This article is actually about an underpass! Also, the title makes no sense. Jvhertum 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable road-feature with nonsensical title. Probably should have been in the Sandbox. Budgiekiller 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...Yeah. It's an underpass. -- Kicking222 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ah yes, the famous "Publish a Page" underpass in Delaware. My best educated deduction would be that this was an accident. And judging from the text, whatever it was supposed to be about does not appear to be anything encyclopedic. Wavy G 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - title doesn't match the article; probably a test page went amok, as this was the sole edit by User:Woogiewoogie. SkierRMH 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Whoops, looks like it. --Haemo 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's at the wrong title but I don't think it meets any of the speedy criteria. Certainly it should be deleted as non-notable, though. Eluchil404 12:30, 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 No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Roxx[edit]

As a professional wrestler, I'm afraid the young lady has not yet acheived sufficient note to pass WP:BIO. Xoloz 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; if the Professional Girl Wrestling Association is notable enough to have an article, than so is its current champion. —Chowbok ☠ 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bush league wrestler, non-notable. One Night In Hackney 02:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In agreement with Chowbok, I think she should stay. After all, aren't the previous PGWA champions notable, like Leilani Kai? Fanficgurl 1:42 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment There's actually nothing to suggest the PGWA itself is notable. It asserts vague notability by claiming to have promoted in more than one country, but I can't verify this from reliable sources. Unless the notability of the PGWA itself can be demonstrated, then all champions can't be assumed to be notable. Leilani Kai is definitely notable, but not for her work in the PGWA. One Night In Hackney 10:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Looks to pass WP:BIO to me. I'd like references though. Wizardman 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studentbid[edit]

Non-notable web site with tall claims but only 15 items listed Skapur 03:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB, and reads (with four links to the website, count them) as spam. Budgiekiller 17:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Budgiekiller. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the site itself [66] and low ghits. SkierRMH 23:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! The article is a total advertisement; every mention of the website's name is a link to the site. Verkhovensky 00:24, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prophetical Tyre siege[edit]

Prod was removed so I bring it here. This whole article is devoid of context. It is a mess. It is also filled with personal commentary and original research. IrishGuy ^talk 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsalvageable ramble with plenty of WP:OR. Budgiekiller 17:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slash his tyres, per Budgiekiller. Nothing worth saving here. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tyresome mess. Anything that makes sense is available elsewhere. Hopeless original research ("research" is being generous).--Folantin 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been several of these nonsense/rant/OR pages Speedied in the last couple of months, this is pretty typical. SkierRMH 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - clarification, the pages weren't from this user. SkierRMH 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encylopedic ramblings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Safemariner (talk • contribs) 06:55, 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 no consensus to delete but clean-up the article to adhere to WP:NPOV and use independent sources.

Ozhiker nailed the relevant notability criteria - WP:CORP.

There is a subtle, but key difference, between Inc.'s list of the 500 fastest growing companies and a list of the top 500 companies in some field. The article asserts, without sourcing, that the company made the list of fastest growing companies two years in a row. Had it asserted making a list of top companies, that would have met WP:CORP, but still needed sourcing.
There are no independent sources cited in the article, although some are mentioned in the text that could potentially be used to write the article.
The only sources here are those introdiced by Budgiekiller. So the discussion boils down to evaluating those two sources. On inspection, each is non-trivial, and we can assume they are independent. But are they reliable? Nobody other than this user discussed these sources, so
1. I find the second, from Australian PC World, to be reliable. They show an editorial staff, publish corrections, and generally look like an online magazine.
2. The first is about.com. I'm not aware of any prior discussion as to whether they are a reliable source. However, when I look at their recruiting for guides; I find that they do want people with topical expertise. Although owned by the New York Times company, they certainly aren't the New York Times. I'm not sure whether this is reliable to our standards, and nobody discussed it, so I can't say the discussion produced consensus on this point.

That said, there was clear consensus that the article needs to be cleaned up to adhere to WP:NPOV. It probably needs a near total rewrite by someone who goes out, finds, and uses independent sources. GRBerry 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectorsoft[edit]

Delete - this article provides no references that establish notability with respect to the WP:CORP criteria for companies and corporations or criteria for products and services. Its prose is promotional in nature and the article requires a complete rewrite to insure neutrality. The only significant contributor is a single purpose account, Techie guru (talk · contribs). This editor's attempts to link the article to other articles have been mostly reverted as spamming. The editor removed an {{ad}} notice with no attempt to remedy or discuss the article's obvious problems. The article was previously deleted with the notation "advert". It was recreated the next day and one edit summary stated: For some reason this page was deleted. I will watch it going forward as I am not sure what the issue was. This article is arguably speediable, but the contribution history of the editor suggests a full discussion would be most helpful in order to determine consensus. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & rewrite. Spectorsoft are big all over the web (+220k Ghits) and although this article doesn't establish notability re:WP:CORP, their products are reviewed a few times [67], [68].Budgiekiller 17:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Number of Google listings is not a measure of notability - my webhost provider (lunarpages) has well over 2 million but doesn't have an wikipedia article - and it probably doesn't deserve one either. --Ozhiker 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ammendment: According to WP:CORP, a company article must assert notability of the company as follows:

Providing evidence of any of the following:

1) That the company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.

2) That the company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3

3) That the company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.

As far as I can see, this article lists no references, hence does not provide this evidence, and hence is not currently a valid article. --Ozhiker 11:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appearing in the Inc. 500 is quite notable--that alone should be enough for WP:CORP, in my opinion--and the article lists a number of strong sources, although they need to be edited for specificity. The article could use some reorganization to sound less ad-like, but the company overall sounds like it deserves an article. Tarinth 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello All, I wanted to join in this discussion before any action was taken as I am the person that maintains this page. I guess I would like to start off with the entire concept of the article being a promotional issue. I see companies constantly being added to wikipedia and do not see how this would be any different. It is hard when you write about any specific company as many would see it as a bias, or promotional article because it is about one specific thing, a company. With regards to the link spamming that is being labeled for the article please allow me to explain my position. At some point a member read the article and indicated that I should link from other relevant articles to this article. I was following the direction of someone who I suspected to have been "in the know" longer than I, so i followed the suggestions. I do not spam, in fact, I have filed an AMA request so I could have someone mediate an issue about that exact thing. I do not think a link spammer would go through the effort of that and also responding to a deletion discussion either. With regards to deleting the "clean up" message, it was form an IP address. Just because someone says "hey it's me" and they are not logged in does not mean that some person that has mal content is not responsible for adding that message. In addition, I think it is only fair to note that I have done more than simply write an article and linked it everywhere. I have taken the time to review each article that I visit with regards to this one and in some instance I have edited other links, added more content that would be relevant to the article and so on. I have joined in on discussions and as you have stated, I have asked for help. I have received very little in the way of help and to be quite honest, why is it that I have not received any follow up's to the AMA i filed, and on the Spectorsoft article discussion? What i receive instead is a label to being a spammer or nomination to delete an article that I put a great deal of time and research in to. I have stated this in the AMA, and also to other people that I have had discussions with, if you can find, or help me find a better solution I am more than willing to discuss it. For example, I have been contemplating adding more content to the article and adding images. When I start to move forward with this, I end up pausing until I can clear up, or discuss any matters regarding the issue. I guess in closing that I would like to say that I am more than willing to work on the article under the guise of specific direction so the article would seem less "promotional", but please understand that bias is going to happen to a certain extent when you are writing about a specific company. I welcome responses. Thank you for your time Techie guru 14:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note on the spamming, it is also fair to note that the reverts were done by one specific person, not a group of different people. It’s also important to note that the person that was reverting was also in heated debates with other members for being the self appointed final word on a few articles. I encourage everyone to read up on that and you will see this is the case. Inadvertently because of that, i have been labeled a spammer by that person.Techie guru 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with JonHarder's comments above. The Spectorsoft page looks to have been created purely for promotional internal and external link-spam purposes. --Fedia 09:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Addhoc 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article looks entirely promotional and lacks NPOV. A product like this is expected to be controversial, but there is no outside commentary on the wisdom of the monitoring it provides. Also, while outside reviews are alluded to, they are not cited, so there's no way to judge if the statements are correct. There's no way to to tally the 'multiple non-trivial published works' that would be required to establish notability. EdJohnston 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but should probably be transwiki'd if it can't be expanded beyond the current dictionary definition. W.marsh 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katsap[edit]

Sory, delete. Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary of all possible foreign slang. Unlike, say, gringo, the term "katsap" is absent in English language. `'mikka 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notabile usage in English. This was probably created to fill out a redlink in List of ethnic slurs. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if sourced better, Delete otherwise: it doesn't belong on any language Wikipedia because WP:NOT a dictionary. However, the term's being absent in the English language is not a valid reason for deletion. I keep seeing this argument on AfD and it's wrong. If there were multiple sources written in any language about the term (rather than just using the term), and these provided a basis to write an article that was more than a dicdef, then the subject would be notable and an article on it would be encyclopedic, regardless of the fact that the term is not used in English. There's no such thing as "notable in Ukrainian but not notable in English"; enwiki is an encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of English. cab 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument is not wrong. It is not a term, i.e. a thing that refers to some object of notion, possibly unknown in English-speaking world. In your case it is a slang word, i.e., a vulgar synonym and does not introduce a new notion. We have redirects for English synonyms, unless a synonym has a significant text to write about. But to have articles for all possible slang in all possible languages is quite ridiculous. `'mikka 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - notability: Notability is not subjective. Multiple non-trivial instances of coverage = notability. Period. Regardless of language. I guess WP:NEO might be the best way to judge it by; if there are sources which discuss the word (instead of just mentioning the word), then it's notable. In this case, I don't see multiple non-trivial sources which discuss the word; so I agree it's not a notable word; famous authors using the word in their works are just examples of non-trivial coverage. But the fact that it's unknown in English-speaking world doesn't matter. Plenty of articles in enwiki talk about stuff which is otherwise unknown or close to unknown in the English-speaking world, but have sources in other languages proving they're notable. If you applied the same standard to other language, "if this thing is unknown in the Russian/Chinese/Tamil-speaking world, then it's not notable for ruwiki/zhwiki/tawiki", you'd have to delete huge numbers of sourced articles. cab 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To sum up: I don't see how this is any different than Nigger vs. African-American. cab 14:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Care to notify the Ukrainian Wikipedia community at the notice board. Even Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias have articles about this. If we expand it, it might be a pretty good article. Anyway, this article does not only speak about ethnic slur... see section Other uses of the word Even famous Ukrainian writers Mykola Gogol and Taras Shevchenko use this word, which asserts notability (see here) —dima/s-ko/ 02:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DDIma. For a word not in the english language, it sure gets around alot.--tufkaa 03:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently POV. Maybe appropriate for Ukrainian or Russian wikipedia. Not for English wikipedia. --- Safemariner 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know whether this merits an article here (I suspect it was introduced to balance khokhol) but it certainly needs cleaning up and sourcing. The exact same word, kacap, is an insult for Russians in Polish. So what came first, the Ukrainian or the Polish term? Or do they have a common source? Unfortunately, the unreferenced etymologies given in this article just look like guessing. If this term is as notable as is claimed, there should be some reliable sources out there to decide this issue and provide this page with the references it lacks. --Folantin 11:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or let's delete Khokhol as "Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary of all possible foreign slang" and "the term "Khokhol" is absent in English language" using your own argumentation.--Bryndza 13:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would agree that if this goes, then Khokhol (another undersourced article about an ethnic slur) should go too. By the looks of things, the Ukrainian article has sources (though some of them are pretty old) and makes a distinction between the folk etymology of the word and scholarly attempts to find its origin. Bring in more info from the Ukrainian wikipedia and you'll have a stronger case for keeping this page. --Folantin 14:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the Khokhol article should be deleted too. --- Safemariner 14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, Khokhol might just qualify for inclusion as borderline notable. I've come across references to that term being used by Russian WWII officers to denigrate their Ukranian underlings. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, however, but without prejudice against recreation. No reliable sources. If anyone provides reliable sources during this AFD, then keep. If you find them later, then just recreate. But we cannot have articles that so completely fail WP:V, even for a second. WP:V is non-negotiable. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added two sources in article. --Yakudza 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus read this carefuly: [69]. (Eng.) This reference is already in the article. Good reason to take the word seriously redardless it's origins.

Keep per dima and Bryndza --Yakudza 19:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is satisfactorily more than a dicdef and does not appear to fall afoul of WP:V. GassyGuy 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Riurik ^(discuss) 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Needs a huge amount of expansion though, . Perhaps check the Russian or Ukranian wikis to see what the definitions there are? Just barely passes WP:V. I can't say keep or delete on this one really Wizardman 17:56, 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 db-author apparently. If anyone wants the content let me know and I'll make it available to you. W.marsh 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MKULTRA Pop Culture[edit]

WP:NOT who wants to babysit this unreferenced list? PopPop PopMusic 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the page history, this list was created today by User:PopPop PopMusic, who has now nominated it for deletion. I now see the nominator moved the list from a section on an another page, namely Project MKULTRA. --Folantin 18:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm sorry for being so sloppy. I put this comment in the wrong place[70], it should have been here. --PopPop PopMusic 12:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a bizarre use of AFD, PPPM. If you did not believe it was appropriate in the article it should have been deleted and/or worked out with other editors. Creating a subarticle specifically to nominate for AFD is a misuse of process and a drag on our time and attention resources. Please don't do this. {{db-author}} may be used to speedy delete articles you have created. --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the {{db-author}} method, but I think others should have a chance to comment first. --PopPop PopMusic 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge back to Project MKULTRA. I don't see why this was done in the first place. Wyatt Riot 23:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be merged back to Project MKULTRA. --PopPop PopMusic 13:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list that belongs in another article --- Safemariner 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The content of this article was removed from Project MKULTRA and made into its own article by User:PopPop PopMusic, and then immediate AfDed by that same user. Just so you know the background. Wyatt Riot 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all done in my best faith possible to clean up the Project MKULTRA article. --PopPop PopMusic 12:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project MKULTRA (government) is not the appropriate place for this pop culture list. --PopPop PopMusic 12:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see how this is causing a problem. How do I withdraw the nomination? --PopPop PopMusic 12:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Seeing as how it's your list and want it deleted, why not just add a speedy tag on it (db-author). Then again, I'm not positive what you were asking... Wizardman 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 12:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Musharraf[edit]

This is a procedural nomination - an anon added the afd tag, but most likely stopped part way through because he/she was incapable of creating this page. I believe Bilal is notable enough for inclusion, seeing as he has been featured in a several news stories in both India and Pakistan; therefore, my opinion is that the article should be kept. But I'll complete the afd for him/her anyways. Picaroon 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Picaroon 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as regional media attention makes him notable. The article doesn't mention the Pakistani scandal over his father-in-law's business dealings with the government.[71] --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its ok. --Falcon007 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable by blood and press coverage only, but meets the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 02:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable --- Safemariner 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reasons to keep besides news attention - (1) Presence of a president/dictator's son in USA has political overtones, intensified by venture-funded start-up involvement (2) Region has ample history of family dynastic politics overlaid on democratic and/or authoritarian power arrangements - this is at least as significant as european hereditary title bios. --KTyson 03:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superdudes.nl[edit]

Questionably notable social networking site seems to fail WP:WEB. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect to prevent recreation This article was created a few times yesterday, and speedily deleted as many (well, obviously minus one). --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Not under this name, I would like to take a look, if this has had a AfD before I can speedy it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have an AfD. It was speedy deleted. The title may have been SuperDudes.nl or something along the lines of that, but the author was trying to create it, even though it kept getting speedy'd. --Адам12901 ^Talk 02:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Adam12901. Danny Lilithborne 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like an advertisement --- Safemariner 07:12, 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. (Note: I am NOT an admin. My closing action is authorized by this policy section) Bwithh 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Reffin Smith[edit]

Looks like an autobiography. Is the guy notable? -- RHaworth 18:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well - Criteria apparently satisfied: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field."

"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries"

"Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LWHero (talk • contribs) author of the article

Dear god : I thought it would be "signed" automatically. Terribly sorry. Hardly anonymous though, since you could easily trace it. And yes, I am the author and subject - nothing to hide - several people asked why I wasn't in the English version of Wikipedia when I was in the French (and no I didn't instigate the French article) so I wrote something. Those in the relevant fields are obviously able to change any false information, to add critical reviews or views, etc. What on earth is the problem? Do you dispute that I fulfill one or more of the criteria for "notable"? On what grounds? LWHero 21:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Being a winner of the Prix Ars Electronica is probably sufficient for notability. The article needs to be cleaned up, with the references in standard form (see the various citation templates) and the reviews removed, but I think the subject is notable. Tevildo 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Smith has written "prominently" about computer art since before there was much of it at all. e.g. Satisfies the "enduring historical record" criterion in that respect. LWHero, if you are Prof. Smith, please make yourself aware of our conflict of interest and autobiography policies. When you write your own article it is more difficult to judge freedom from bias in the end result. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks to both the above - references templated and reviews grudgingly deleted. Point taken about conflict of interest, but I hope you agree that it is now neutral, and still verifiable. Though I am stunned to note the amount of unverifiable "opinion" in articles I consult daily on here... I had not seen, before, that it is "strongly discouraged" to write one's own article; and can see why. However, as I said this was just an extension of an existing article on French Wikipedia that was not started by me, though I did amend it. LWHero 21:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPer Dhartung I'm convinced on notability; however, there should be some sources referenced from the article to meet WP standards. --Kevin Murray 02:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, can you be more specific about what sources you'd like referenced, and I'll try to do it...LWHero 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable. More explicit references per WP:BIO would be good. --- Safemariner 07:14, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Karaseva[edit]

Looks like an autobiography. Is she notable? -- RHaworth 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, academic CV, no notability asserted, fails WP:PROF, borderline on CSD A7. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All improved. In fact, there was a wrong way chosen for the entry. Now I see it and tried to give the core. Marinola8 00:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sounds notable. Rename article to make the first letter of last name uppercase --- Safemariner 07:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete article with the first letter of last name uppercase, and move this there --Raistlin 11:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggestion, but how to rename this article? May I do it now? Being afraid to do something wrong Marinola8 12:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No you can't, because you, or someone else, created the uppercase page as a redirect to the lowercase one, so the uppercase page must be deleted first by an admin, then the lowercase one can be moved in its place. --Raistlin 12:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks quite notable, many references. But reads like a hagiography - might we have WP:COI issues here? Sandstein 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please be more specified with your opinion: this article seems only to inform about some innovational approach in the field of music education which has been proved documentally (see references and bibliography)Marinola8 10:20, 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 no consensus. GRBerry 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Bambery[edit]

Non-notable lawyer. Her only claim to notability is that she serves on the board of directors of the NRA. Google gives about 352 results for her, most of which relate to seminars she has spoken at for NRA events, but nothing that establishes notability. Metros232 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, staff counsel to a govt. agency is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It seems to me that being on the NRA's board is actually the more notable claim. We generally accept articles on people who are on the boards of directors of major companies; seems like we should have the same standard for one of the two-or-three best-known nonprofits in the United States. Still, this is basically a faceless bureaucrat, and I can't see much coming of this article. —Chowbok ☠ 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Notability is bordeline --- Safemariner 07:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - each of her positions and accomplishments is marginally sub-notable by itself, but the combination reaches notability. Georgewilliamherbert 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep work with the NRA appears notable, but could really use better sourcing. Eluchil404 12:45, 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 delete as repost, Carshalton Village F.C. is even salted. Punkmorten 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carshalton village fc[edit]

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Reason given was A7. No stance. Cbrown1023 19:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure we've deleted something like this before, possibly a version with proper capitlisation? Anyway - this is a completely non-notable team, loads of levels below normal notability criterion of level 10 of the English football pyramid. - fchd 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, below level 10 and not notable for anything else. Budgiekiller 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – another which fails Section 3 of WP:CORP. Bubba hot ep 22:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Sunday league team. Nuttah68 08:14, 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. Cbrown1023 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U-Haul lesbian[edit]

Transwiki'd already. This is an article about a one-liner. I checked the refs, they are actually more or less generic references to U-Haul and would apply equally to anyone with a bad relationship history. I didn't see the exact phrase "u-haul lesbian" in them, although maybe I miseed it. This looks like a distillation of primary sources and a one-line gag combined to make what looks like an article but actually isn't. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously nominated for deletion under the name U-Haul (lesbian). - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The transwiki was bizarre given that phrase "U-Haul Lesbian" is a multi-level and complex phenonmen that goes way beyond a "dictionary definition". The article has made verifiable attempts to cover the term as a sterotype, a description of the dating behavior as well as the GLBT cultural signifigance it has following its orgins in gay humor. The term is given serious treatments in several of the references such as Dr. Pimental-Habib & Christopher Alexander's two books. Agne 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly enough references and content. Maxamegalon2000 19:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please actually read the content and review whether these sources actually cover this topic—they don't. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I would agree with the nominator that a number of the sources are deficient, e.g. they discuss lesbian relationships and make one reference to U-Haul. But overall it passes. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Passes what? All the sources are trivial mentions, and the article is half dictionary definition/joke and half weakly sourced speculation. —Centrx→talk • 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — although, as Dhartung and Guy say, the existing sources ~~aren't quite up to snuff~~ could be improved, the concept is wider than a dicdef and I'm sure that better sources could be found. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the relationships section, which is about everything that's not a dictionary definition, or a joke. It is not neutral, it is not well-sourced. —Centrx→talk • 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps not neutral, but the sources look OK to me, at least as a starting point. Did you look up the print sources before dismissing them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have. The Houston Voice article says nothing about this subject at all. The Metro Weekly article simply repeats the joke without any further analysis of what a U-Haul lesbian is, as do all of the Seattle Weekly article, the first article in The Advocate, the book by Hardin, the book by Stevens (which is actually discussing sexually transmitted diseases), and the book by Alexander (which is actually discussing the subject of "merging in lesbian relationships", per the title in boldface at the top of the page). The second article in The Advocate actually talks about U-Haul trucks, not U-Haul lesbians. The book by Marcus mentions the joke in a two word footnote and proceeds to talk about the reality of couple formation, which it states to be quite different. Uncle G 13:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are about 200 independent ghits that talk about the phrase (have to use both U-Haul and UHaul), some could be added into the sources/references.SkierRMH 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it looks like there are 100, and a very high number of them are on Wikipedia or on Wikipedia mirrors. Which of these are reliable sources? —Centrx→talk • 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relationships section is just some novel unbalanced research presented as uniform fact. The rest is just a dictionary definition and a joke. —Centrx→talk • 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Did you check out the print sources, or just the ones on the web? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that none of the above reasons demonstrate why this should be a separate article. Verifiable information can be merged to Lesbian or Gay slang. —Centrx→talk • 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I examined do mention the joke, but they are not about the concept of "U-Haul lesbians". They are about the feature of some lesbian relationship to which the U-Haul joke is pointing. Whether the woman is using a U-Haul or the back of her pickup is irrelevant. "U-Haul" here means exactly what it means to everyone else in the world; I could easily substitute "moving van" for "U-Haul" or remove the joke altogether and the substantive content of the article would be the same. It seems to me that this substantive content is about lesbian relationships and should therefore be merged to Lesbian. If the article remains as it stands, please delete the Transwiki box. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works, too. 80.176.82.42 12:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AdelaMae. There is no source material about "U-Haul lesbians". Searching, I haven't found any substantial sources that are any different to the cited ones, and that do more than just repeat the joke. The cited sources are actually discussing topics such as how to broach the subject of STDs with one's new partner (the book by Stevens), how slowly couples moved in with each other (the book by Marcus), and "merging in lesbian relationships" (the book by Alexander). This entire article is original research, a novel synthesis of sources in order to define a concept that is solely used in the punchline of a joke. Anything substantive to say about lesbian relationships should be said in an article on that topic. Given that most of the content of this article involves twisting the sources out of shape to discuss the joke stereotype rather than the actual subjects that they are addressing in their text, it seems that there's little content to save with a merger that wouldn't require a significant and almost entire rewrite anyway. About the only content worth saving are the book citations themselves, so that editors can go and read the sources and use them to expand articles on the actual subjects that they discuss. Delete. Uncle G 13:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepThis article needs to be expanded and improved, but it's certainly notable (and hilarious - no offense to anybody).Nina Odell 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep is not a valid !vote in this context. Your assertion that it's "certainly notable" lacks a credible evidential basis, as noted above the sources cited turn out to be either trivial or not actuallty references ot the term "u-haul lesbian". Please cite valid sources for the term as stated and defined or tell us what the title should be. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is certainly out there in the lesbian community, and goes beyond just the punchline to a joke. The article should be expanded and improved, but I think it's notable enough to keep. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the cited sources, it doesn't go beyond the punchline of a joke. There's no documentation of any such concept as a U-Haul lesbian, and this article is original research that combines various sources that simply tell the joke, in discussions of other things, in order to attempt to define the punchline. That's the problem. Uncle G 11:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is notable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources whose subject is the topic. Eluchil404 12:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the article's premise that this is an emerging term for a dating pattern (rapid move in). I can attest to the fact that as a straight man I was still expected to know this term and the joke by 1993 (within LA community). I don't know whether there are lots of references or not, but at least regionally this is clearly notable. jbolden1517 ^Talk 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia exists to document that which has verifiably emerged, not that which is asserted to be emerging. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/U-Haul lesbian: "Keep the article - I found it very informative - I am a translator and came upon the term in an episode of ER. The "joke" was mentioned. I am grateful someone compiled it! Ana Linhares;;;" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.8.117 (talk • contribs).
Keep. I see no reason why we shouldn't do articles on lesbian jokes or any other type of humor, particularly when the joke has gained widespread currency over a long period and speaks to deeper sociological issues. The issue is mentioned in numerous books on the subject [72], [73]. Hence, easily passes WP:V, which is the only policy issue at stake here. Editing differences should be worked out on the article talk page. --JJay 15:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (or merge and redirect, if local editors prefer). Opabinia regalis 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry de la Mesa Allen, Jr.[edit]

(Page restored and added to AfD after discussion with author): Persons claim to fame is being the son of a famous US General. He became Lt. Col., chased some Viet Cong in Vietnam, and got killed in the resulting ambush together with his unit. After his death he had some media coverage due to his famous father. There are two books and one upcoming movie about the battle, and something like 300 google hits for "Terry de la Mesa Allen, Jr." or "Terry Allen, Jr.". In my opinion borderline notability at best, but as always i am willing to be convinced otherwise Chris 73 | Talk 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my apologies for the first formulation of the AfD. Nevertheless, as per Wikipedia:Notability Non-prominent relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person, and articles on persons who are only notable for being associated with a certain event tend to be merged into the main article on that event. applies perfectly for a merge to Battle of Ong Thanh and Terry de la Mesa Allen (Major General) -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nontrivial coverage in the book and the New York Times article. The nomination should be revised to be less strident, speculative, and less of an attack.Edison 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- revised. Sorry, got carried away -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Terry de la Mesa Allen. Although he is mentioned in the book and was the highest-ranking officer killed in the battle, no other particular notability is established (e.g. posthumous medals). Wikipedia is not a memorial, and over 400 officers of his rank were KIA in Vietnam.Search on O-5 Chris 73, glad you changed the nom. The first version was unduly incivil. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. -- Daniel J. Leivick 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

On notability: Terry de la Mesa Allen, Jr. aka Terry Allen Jr. was the American leader in the Battle of Ong Thanh which has its own wiki-article, he is the subject of several books including "They marched into Sunlight" which is reviewed here at the NY Times

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06EED6143DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

This book is also being made into a movie starring Tom Hanks as described here:

http://movies.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_4003.php

He is also the subject of another work called "The War at Home" which discusses the effect of his death (the son of a World War II hero) on the American perception of the Vietnam war

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3358786_ITM

He was one of the main subjects of a PBS episode of the American Experience.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/twodays/index.html

On if its a memorial: If the Battle of Ong Thanh merits its own wiki-page how does the American leader of that battle not merit one?

I think that as a notable leader in a notable battle he deserves his own wiki-article, but if this is not persuasive one can look at the wiki-pages created for other people who inspired films who did far less notable deeds:Vince Papale the football player who inspired the movie Invincible (2006 film) has his own page despite the fact that most of his actual career was not in the NFL but in the less notable World Football Leauge. Daniel Ruettiger the inspiration for the movie Rudy (film) has his own wiki-page despite only playing one down in one college level football game. David Helfgott the pianist and inspiration for Shine (film) has his own wiki-page.

The article needs massive expansion and clean up, but it was Speedily Deleted within an hour of its creation and now is under this review.

--Wowaconia 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Please don't place your comments out of order without good reason.) He is a part of (not "the subject of") the Maraniss book, and I am pretty certain that the "War at Home" piece in Texas Monthly was an excerpt from that book, because he was from Texas. It's unclear that his death attracted as much notice as you imply, but I would imagine not. He is used as an example in the PBS show, but that's more about the effect his deployment had on his marriage, so he's being used as an example. As for memorials, please do not argue in terms of whether someone "deserves" an article, as we don't judge worth but notability. Additionally, inclusion is not notability, hence the existence of articles you deem less keepable isn't an argument for keeping this one. --Dhartung | Talk 12:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any harm having an article about Terry Allen Jr. Other Vietnam War commanders have an article, why not Terry Allen Jr.?Canpark 14:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a high-ranking officer from a famous military family killed in combat. --Habap 15:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge — , preferably keep. Passes WP:BIO and has enough information on him. Wizardman 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debonair Magazine[edit]

Delete, as I see no evidence from WP:RS that this online-based magazine meets WP:WEB. It's Alexa rank is 965,383; this might not be the best indicator, but as the site was officially launched a few months ago, it might be an accurate indicator of at least its short-term lack of notability. Also, while there are a few self-published print issues, I feel that WP:WEB is more apropos, as this bills itself as online content. Also, it is important to note that the "publisher" Hertzman Media Group is owned/operated by the same two individuals who have created this magazine (its only publication, according to its website), and shows no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. I should point out that in my research I've found other magazines of the same title, such as a skin-mag from the 1960s and an Indian magazine of the same name, so the Google test is difficult to apply. This is neither of those, and attempts to find references to it outside of blogs, etc., was fruitless. This may also be a WP:COI issue, as User:Yanks5157, the creator of this article, has no edits outside of this page, and User:Foxycat has added multiple external links to subpages of the webzine's site in multiple articles (now reverted). --Kinu ^t/_c 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 and A7. Unique google hits for "debonair hertzman" are to wikipedia & mirrors, the magazine website, and a MySpace page. Translation: not being written about in trade media. --Dhartung | Talk 02:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 10:46, 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 a non-notable neologism. alphachimp 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolito[edit]

The term is a neologism. The page links to a webpage about a film "Lolito", with very doubtful credentials -- the webpage contains a short but enthusiastic review, written in Dec 2005, of a 2006 movie. See also User:220.244.84.18's contribution to the talk page. Aleph-4 20:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef, article lacks sources other than one fan's review of a movie. Edison 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page says it's a neologism. Also, there is no IMdB listing for the film; the one webpage cited [74] is really questionable - the Director's home page doesn't mention this, the Production company appears to be non-existent. SkierRMH 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism and apparent attempt at promoting some sort of student movie. Pascal.Tesson 00:41, 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} redirect to British residential property market, which is in effect a redirect to Residential property market in the United Kingdom (as the first term is a redirect to the second). Proto::► 13:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British property bubble[edit]

Proposed for deletion by another editor, and relisted here to generate further discussion. The article currently has plenty of problems. On the other hand, a related article on United States housing bubble is a former featured article candidate, and could serve as a model for this one. I think that it could be improved with some work, so I'm going to say keep. Pathlessdesert 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as I said in my Prod notice: "original research, completely unsourced so unverifiable. Virtually every sentence is stuffed with weasel words. From the title on down it violates a neutral point of view at every opportunity. While it might be possible to write a well sourced, neutral article about the British retail property market, you can't get there from here. Much better to delete this and start over". Over a month ago I left a message on the talk page warning that the article needed work and would be proposed for deletion, with no action taken since. I tried pruning it back to verifiable facts and got down to the title, which itself is deeply and irreversibly WP:POV. Gwernol 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything neutral and verifiable (which probably isn't much) to British property market, or failing that delete it. We certainly shouldn't have an article here.--Doc^g 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I doubt the article title is correct, since the current status of UK house prices may not be a bubble at all. However, the general issue of current UK houseprices is not some non-notable imagining of a few complainers, it is frequently frontpage/national television news and there are several other issues stemming from it. Not least: 'kidults' (many young adults are struggling to move from the family home due to outrageous property prices), the average age of first-time buyers is now in the early thirties, the Deputy Prime Minister proposing extra home-building (when he's not having it off with his secretary that is) causing outcry at the potential loss of green-field sites in Southern England and key workers not able to find affordable housing and therefore being unable to fill teaching/nursing posts etc. etc. I'm quite sympathetic to the nom, the article is a pile of warnings and no references, weasel-wording is not acceptable full-stop. That said, this issue (in a properly named article) is no less worthy than any other which frequently appears and is discussed on countless television programmes, in countless magazines and in other media. Of course, 'countless' makes it even less forgivable that the article contains naff-all refernces. Just bear with me, I'll find some references or at least sources about the overall problem. QuagmireDog 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British residential property market. There is plenty of potential for someone who knows the subject to write a great article. This is not a great article, and would be best served by concentrating effort in one place. As it's a plausible search term, leave a redirect. Eludium-q36 10:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Eludium. After seeing the other article they're both very similar. QuagmireDog 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — per Eludium Wizardman 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't see the point of redirecting to an article that has barely any content, particularly when the US market does have a specific housing bubble article; people would just end up merging the content of this article with the generic UK property market article. That said, the article as it stands could certainly do with a lot of tidying and elaboration. Mark Grant 20:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bubble referred to is speculative. Following deletion, redirect could be created... Addhoc 23:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list of famous short men[edit]

very hard to keep track of/verify and also seems to me to be a breeding ground for edit wars.DELETE. The Pink Panther 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (Moved by User:PullToOpen after this nom was mistakenly added to another subpage. P TO 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete WP is not Guinness Book and the term "short" is too subjective and would also vary per culture. Tarinth 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there is already a List of famous short women, List of famous tall men, List of famous tall women. Granted, there is a huge probability of vandalism... for instance, I was going to add subcategories of 5'7 to 6'2 - well, tall and short can be somewhat personally subjective ;0) SkierRMH 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't that the Pokemon defense? :) Presence of similar lists doesn't justify the presence of an article. Personally, those other lists should be AfD'd as well for being inherently POV. Shrumster 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a community that is largely ignored, and yet contributes heavily to the world in which we live. This article helps to shine light on the fact that men do contribute to society regardless of their short stature. However, the article should be limited to men 5'2" and shorter, as per the statistical global average. Wandering Star 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on one hand, I'm insulted that the list goes up to 5'6 because hey, I'm not that short. But overall, this is a pretty harmless list which could be improved to be at the very least properly referenced. Also, all kidding aside, it should probably put the treshold low enough to make the list manageable (say 5'3), :-) Pascal.Tesson 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim per P.T, as I also find some encyclopedic value in the list, but it should be shortened (absolutely no pun intended, I promise) to a more manageable size- 5'5" really is not that short (this coming from a six-footer). -- Kicking222 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is essentially its third deletion vote in four months as the September Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men (2nd nomination) added it in. Limit it to a shorter height if needed, but there are certainly men whose notable relates to their height. Maybe there shouldn't be, but that's not something for us to judge.--T. Anthony 07:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move and trim Honestly, "short" is subjective. Maybe rename and trim the list to something like "List of men famous for being short" or something like that. As it is, the list goes on to 5'6", which is already average height where I come from. Right now, it seems to read like a "List of famous people by height up to 5'6" Looking at the list, I have never heard of Bono or Woody Allen being as famous as they are for being "short". At this rate of subjectivity, we could have something like a List of famous ugly people. Shrumster 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with List of famous short women, List of famous tall men and List of famous tall women. Lists of people based solely on a personal chracteristic appears pointless, of only subjective value and therefore unencyclopedic. List of people famous for being tall/short might be worthwhile. But these are not. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with articles mentioned by WJBscribe above. If considering keep, please give me definitions of "short" and "tall" - the articles are inherently POV as "short" and "tall" are subjective (POV) values. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WJBscribe. м info 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stricten. 5'6 is too tall to be short (oxymoron?). I'd say knock it down to at most 5'3, preferrably lower. --Wizardman 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one over 5' 2½ is in it now.--T. Anthony 06:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but make shorter. Nobody taller than 5', otherwise it just gets silly. Now, where's my CD of "Short People" ? WMMartin 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but cut list at 5'3". I personally reference this article often and find it very useful.24.60.212.46 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh come on people. The word "short" is subjective, and as thus the article is inherently WP:POV - that is, it can't written from a neutral point of view. it can't. and really, how is it encyclopedic? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh this isn't an actual encyclopedia. Do you think Britannica or Americana would even have articles on Padmé Amidala or Bulbasaur? Wikipedia doesn't just have them, they're featured content.--T. Anthony 19:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest I would like them to go away. However, those articles at least pretend to be encyclopedic. And, after all: don't forget Wikipedia:Five pillars. (This article fails the two first of these five pillars.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well one is "incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." Almanacs do have lists, in fact almanacs are largely made up of lists. I'm not sure any almanac would have a list of short people, but it doesn't seem entirely out of bounds of possibility.--T. Anthony 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roblimo[edit]

Doesn't seem to be much information on this person outside his own websites, no independent sources also blatant conflict of interest, Neutral at this point. Daniel J. Leivick 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless independent, third-party reliable sources can be found to assert notability. Most of the assertions don't seem that notable to begin with (having been a free-lance writer, a few computer manuals, some new online video ventures that don't seem to be major yet). There seems to be a lot of content about him, but everything I find about him so far seems to be from his own sites or other blog/forum sites. Fan-1967 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Redirect He's all over Slashdot - he's perfectly notable (famous, even) from his work there. I'd keep his article under his RL name instead of the nick. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't quite understand, being famous amongst visitors to a notable website one works on is not really notability, what we need are independent reputable sources. -- Daniel J. Leivick 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. The question is, is he well-known outside slashdot? I've seen Jimbo Wales (misspelled "Whales" once) in three separate articles in the Chicago papers over the last few months. If he was only known within Wikipedia, he wouldn't merit an article. Any coverage like that on this guy? Fan-1967 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite notable geek celebrity.--OinkOink 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Notable" does not mean "popular" in Wikipedia (or anywhere really). We need third-party reliable reliable sources on this person. In fact, where does the information in the article come from? ColourBurst 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if he's famous in Slashdot. Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's not "famous in Slashdot", he's famous for being the ed. it. or. of Slashdot. Difference. 49 GNA results including major media. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~WaPo staff profile~~ WaPo interview profile --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update I don't know why I said "staff", but pizza was being waved in front of me while I was trying to finish the entry, and I blame the pepperoni. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well, works for me, but get a couple of those in the article and please make the article fit the sources. ColourBurst 01:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am still a little concerned, the major media sources on GNA are generally because he writes for the Washington Post, which in and of itself does not establish notablity. -- Daniel J. Leivick 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable, but rename to his real name GabrielF 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles should be at most common name, not "real name". --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note regarding COI: all he did to the article was wikify it. --Dhartung | Talk 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't think he passes the "will anyone care in 10 years time" test. Not convinced being an editor on Slashdot confers notability. Akihabara 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is more then a Slashdot editor now, he is the Editor-In-Cheif for the parent company, OSTG [75]. He has written several books and for some major newspapers. I think that we should Keep this article. meshach 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Slashdot was the first major Geek news site. It was highly innovative and is famouns, notably for the "Slashdot effect." The term "Slashdotted" was coined to describe the effect on a website of being mentioned on Slashdot.(the effect is to overwhelm the site with traffic, usually taking it off the air.) Roblimo is probably the name most associated with slashdot. To Geeks of the years 2000-2004, the name Roblimo is probably one of the top ten most recognized geek celebrities, right up there with Stallman and Thorvalds, and certainly more recognizable than the guy who started Wikipedia (I can't remember his name.) -Arch dude 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability mentioned above. Neier 11:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has a single external source - not enough per WP:BIO. Sandstein 22:54, 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 DELETE. -Doc^g 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc!o Mathers[edit]

If this isn't an outright hoax, it is at least crystal ballery. The album that is claimed to be forthcoming isn't due until october of 2007. The problem is that the article claims the album will be titled M! where as the article author added info about this person in the P!nk article claiming the album would be titled TabOo. Created by Marciomathers so we are probably looking at a conflict of interest. Google has absolutely nothing on this person other than additions to Wikipedia and a blog entry from the same author. IrishGuy ^talk 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the "debut album" and the "debut single":

IrishGuy ^talk 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. I also listed their album. --Адам12901 ^Talk 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daniel J. Leivick 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This has apparently already been speedy deleted once. Marciomathers has been adding himself to various other articles as well [76] [77]. IrishGuy ^talk 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete... again... No serious references to back any of that (dubious) speculation. Pascal.Tesson 00:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. John Smith's 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, unverifiable, conflict of interest, probable hoax. —ShadowHalo 02:54, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) (2nd nomination)[edit]

A consensus decision at the prior AfD was overturned at deletion review. The disagreement about sources has not been resolved during the review, so it is now back here for more discussion. Please see both prior discussions before commenting or closing. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - per a request I made in Village Pump, I am not sure what to make of these players anymore. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable subject clearly passes WP:BIO having been cited by multiple non-trivial independent sources. He is also the top ranked player in a notable genre of gaming, Halo 2. 151.204.193.104 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I ran across this at the DRV, and I think it was handled correctly the first time around. If someone wanted to merge a couple of sentences into Major League Gaming by creating a section on notable participants and convert this page into a redirect, I'd be OK with that, as long as any added material could be sourced properly. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm only seeing one independent reliable source. One Night In Hackney 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As weak as humanly possible. I think we have too much of these non-notable gamers because of systemic bias. Namely that things of interest to techy young men are going to be more notable to Wikipedians, who largely are techy young men, then they will to anyone else on the planet. Still he didn't seem to be any less notable than several other such who just got keep.--T. Anthony 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I can easily switch to weak delete if we start moving against some gamer articles.--T. Anthony 07:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moving against gamer articles? Well, let's hope so, because there are plenty of contributors who haven't yet been upset to learn that a few guys here don't think their area is interesting enough for Wikipedia. Grace Note 07:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not about interesting, it's about notable. Is every guy or gal who wins some gamer competition notable? Granted we only have 30 people in Category:Electronic sports players, but that's still more than Category:Spellers and Category:American pool players combined.--T. Anthony 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per deletion review. It's a serious problem that deletionists insist that sources be the equivalent of the mainstream media. This creates systemic bias. They surely need only be reliable in the correct context? BTW, ColourBurst, if you read this, you severely misunderstand WP:OWN. A person who cares about manga doesn't consequently own the articles about it. I can edit them mercilessly. But applying my own lack of caring to consideration of them is wrong. Do you see the difference I am suggesting? Grace Note 07:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was pondering this position myself for a while. Often times we delete notable topics within a particular field because no sources in that field are considered reliable. However, when I look at this subject from the eyes of a gamer, I don't see much importance. If I had to choose between having a bunch of crap articles about "professional" MLG gamers and having no articles about gamers at all, I would choose the latter. --- RockMFR 08:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Earlier I said that this should be overturned and undeleted, but in retrospect, I don't think that was the best option. Most of the claims of notability within these types of articles are extremely weak. "John Doe is a professional gamer working for MLG. He won some Halo tournaments." This doesn't mean much at all. MLG is not a respected and/or important organization in the world of gaming. Are any of the gamers within the league important? Not really. The sources do seem to be fairly trivial in this case. Will anyone care about this person in 10 years? or 100 years? Not a chance. --- RockMFR 08:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please there are multiple sources that are reliable already and this person is notable in gaming Yuckfoo 08:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are not multiple independent reliable sources. The only independent reliable source is the article in The Californian. One Night In Hackney 08:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's been included in two PR Newswires (which reached the United States and Europe) and other independent reliable sources, is the United States National Champion in HALO 2 Free-For-All (FFA), and shares in a $1 million dollar team contract with Major League Gaming, all at the tender age 19. The article could use a good cleaning, however. -- Jreferee 09:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely any company or person can send a press release to PR Newswire and have it distributed? One Night In Hackney 10:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Electronic sports? Who do they think they are fooling? Guy (Help!) 10:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be a notable professional gamer, has some media coverage. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please be considerate of interests other than your own, professional gaming is here to stay, and this person is a notable figure in that realm, as established by multiple non-trivial and reliable sources documented here, and within the article as well. Silensor 08:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone list the independent multiple non-trivial and reliable sources please? I can see one. One Night In Hackney 08:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won a national tournament, interviewed by CNBC, article in NCTimes about him. People said the same things about snowboarding when it started. Electronic games are here and with an organization for competition. MECU≈talk 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous decision and the comments/arguments referenced therein. There really is not a substantive amount of reliable, non-trivial sourcing for this video gamer. alphachimp 06:07, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyworks Solutions[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:V --Адам12901 ^Talk 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major chip mfr, 39 hits on Google News current stories. over 2000 results on GNA. Please use {{primarysources}} next time, and at least give Google a whirl before wasting our time. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - The article reads like an ad, and the only independent source it cites is in referene to the merger that created the company. That does not qualify as notable under WP:CORP. If it is not to be deleted, this article needs to be rewritten using independent sources. --EMS | Talk 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article sounds like an ad because the original source (by the original "author") was lifted directly from the company's about page. The article is in need of serious work (I did a fair amount, in tracking down the info for the infobox and finding its origin), but it's worthwhile, if for no other reason than the fact that it's featured heavily in the music video for Such Great Heights. Dhartung also has a point, since it is a major manufacturer of chips for cell phones and other wireless communications systems. — Mustang dvs 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major chip manufacturer. Component of the S&P 600 and Russell 2000 stock market indices [78][79], a qualifier under WP:CORP - "3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.4 Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded." - When an article of a notable company looks like an ad, it means it needs to be changed, not deleted. Everything verifiable. Even a CURRENT Google News search brings up multiple articles.[80][81] [82][83][84]--Oakshade 07:08, 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 Redirect to Troll (Internet). While the topic is notable as explained below, it is also too small to warrant an independent article. As a compromise, I am going to redirect Troll organization to Troll (Internet). (Non-admin closure.) Yuser31415 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll organization[edit]

Troll organisation: an organisation of trolls. And? No reliable sources, and you'll never guess which troll organisation keeps adding its link to the article. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On a poorly written nomination. Guy, why would we want to guess which organization keeps adding its name? Why don't you spit it out! If it's irrelevant leave it out of the nomination. --Kevin Murray 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to troll (internet). Protect if necessary. Unless we have some verifiable information.--Doc^g 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; no sources. Chick Bowen 23:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand; This is a definite internet phenomenon, there are several such organizations around, like myg0t, GNAA, etc. Scarerah 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the user's second edit, after blanking his/her user talk from a standard speedy deleted article warning.10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Doc and Chick Bowen, protect like we did for the disambiguation page that is related to the organization JzG references.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect just no good sources. Anomo 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per nom.--Azer Red Si? 19:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:DENY and because the article isn't particularly encyclopedic. --Yamla 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is no verifiable information on the page, then the content should be removed. The article topic is valid and there is enough information for a stub. There is no reason to permanently delete this artice -- the current version should remain in the history for future editors to review. — David Remahl 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - They exist, they are notable. Stub. If there is a problem with content vandals that is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to just have more people watch list the article. Speedy close as a Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. F.F.McGurk 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Troll (internet), cite. This is a relevant topic, and sure, GNAA, myg0t, etc. may not be considered notable enough for their own article, but for them to not even receive mention is ludicrous. They are as important as any other internet community. -- Jmax- 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Troll (internet), per above. Dragomiloff 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Troll (internet), per above. Complete lack of citations and references UnseemlyWeasel 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect merge optional. Article consists of a vacuous dic-def, unsourced history, and mentions non-notable troll organizations as notable. Possible search term but not a necessary or useful article. Eluchil404 12:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect. Useful to have, and trolls are ( sadly ) certainly notable. WMMartin 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to troll (internet). This is a collection of OR and weasel words. - Peregrine Fisher 21:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reasons given to delete this particular article could easily be applied to Troll (Internet). I don't see any reliable sources in that article at all. --- RockMFR 22:38, 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 delete, WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wong (Medical Doctor)[edit]

NonNotable. Fails WP:Bio and does NOT deserve an article

Delete per above and also WP:N. --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:09, 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.--Hús ö nd 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hornivore[edit]

A silly and nonnotable neologistic dicdef, according to the talk page apparently from a "personality test" ([85]) - hardly a reliable source. Contested speedy deletion candidate, unfortunately fits no CSD. Sandstein 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD nomination edit-conflicted with someone's attempt to redirect this to Womanizer. Whatever... I still feel deletion is the better option here. With 830 Google hits, it's not that likely a search term. Sandstein 21:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Womanizer makes a bit more sense, this is just too nn. SkierRMH 00:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't redirect. We should be giving due weight to this term. And that due weight is zero. Pascal.Tesson 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly per Pascal.Tesson. — coelacan talk — 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Richard 10:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pascal.Tesson. WMMartin 18:53, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Nihilist Underground Society (5th Nomination)[edit]

Already deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society, no ocnsensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society (2nd nomination). This looks like an organisation with external coverage, but on investigation it turns out that none of the cited sources is actually a story about ANUS at all - one of them mentions it in passing as being allegedly the source of something and none of the others even name it. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has already undergone two recent afds. I suggest that you wait a while before renominating.--Azer Red Si? 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ANUS.com started out on the web in 1993 and went into its home at ANUS.com in 1995. It has been written up in SPIN magazine, investigated by the FBI, and reported on in several oblique contexts for its related websites. ANUS is thus an 11-year online presence that has seen many notable mentions and has maintained itself on a high-value domain name without selling out for that time. Only someone horribly bigoted against its content would argue "not notable," and clearly that's the case with "Guy." It is the oldest heavy metal resource on the Internet. Is that "not notable"? Come on, grow up. MouthfulOfFeces 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, lets look at the references. The Houston Chronicle awards ANUS.com as being the best Nihilist Website on the web. They directly write about them and it is an award (criterion 3 of WP:WEB). The Wired article is about the exploits of the leader of ANUS. The MTV and Yahoo articles mention ANUS's relation to the Day of Slayer. The Village Voice article credits anus.com with the heavy metal faq. I'm sorry but you can't just pick and choose to ignore sources that are there. To say that none of the external coverage is about ANUS in particular is just false, the Houston Chronicle award is direct coverage and an award. --TrollHistorian 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Previous AfD's - [86], [87], [88], [89]. Tevildo 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keeps should count towards number of AfDs survived, so the last one is irrelevant. Still three previous, the third being rather close. But now that we don't have an apparent bad faith nominator, delete per nom. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Is this for real? Third nomination within one week? It was kept seven days ago and speedy kept two days ago. This is rather disruptive and clearly not what Afd is for. An administrator should know better. Prolog 21:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keeps do not count. If they did, I could prevent an article from ever being re-AfDed by simply making a nomination every month, getting it speedy kept because it's too early, and then any real nomination will end up speedy kept, too. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Still, there was nothing wrong with the third Afd and that closed only seven days ago. Disagreements over Afd closures should be taken somewhere else. Prolog 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "No consensus" is considerably different from "keep"... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. And? What has changed in seven days? JzG's nomination does not present any new arguments. Prolog 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I have an arguement; what about the GNAA? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. That was the argument by the third nominator. See the Afd. Prolog 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually, it does. Nobody really discussed sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I know I did. And after the Afd, this article was turned into a stub and most of the original research removed. So it's actually better now than at the time of the third nomination. Also, since nominator titled this the "second" nom, it's obvious that he failed to go through, or even notice, the last Afd's. Prolog 21:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not that easy to find, y'know. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, they are right at the top of the article's talk page. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I seemed to miss that. Anyroadup, the last two completely failed ot address the issue: one was clearly bad-faith, the other was "didn't we just do this?". This is a proper nom, based on the article and its cited sources. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom GabrielF 21:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Can someone easily tell me that ANUS and GNAA have nothing in common? We have already decided that GNAA was not worth keeping on WP, and because of that, it makes sense to remove ANUS also. I think there needs to be consistency here, otherwise, if I see that this is kept, I am going to see that GNAA gets included again. We cannot have it both ways. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some should take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination). :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Why would we delete organization Y because organization X was deleted? We don't do that to bands or schools either. This one seems to meet WP:WEB criterion #2: The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. Houston Press [90] Prolog 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~If you are saying that The Hate Directory is an award, is that particular organization notable, then? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Sorry. Fatigue played a role in not seeing your link. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holy God, leave this alone for a while. -Toptomcat 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep for the love of God, Odin, or whatever deity you happen to worship. TTHERE WAS NOTHING CHANGED when this new person nominated it again. This is not a good faith decision on the afd nominators part. Ours18 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we must assume that the nominator isn't acting in good faith! Seriously, though, if the issue of not having sources has truly come up before, it should be easy to counter, so could you just do it? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When reading the nom's reasoning, I'm afraid that's the only sourced conclusion one can reach. A mention in the Houston press, a mention in the Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal that is the primary source for the List of Heavy Metal Bands (the entry in the books states the website is "authoritative," if my memorery serves me correctly)...these are reliable and verifiable. Now, as for some sort of thing you can look at without having to buy the book, see Prolog's diif here from the last nomination. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Nihilist_Underground_Society_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=next&oldid=96580991 Ours18 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um... like JzG said, two of those sites don't even mention the thing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - From the yahoo article: “Apparently the National Day of Slayer was promoted this year by a website affiliated with the American Nihilist Underground Society, who called on fans to listen to the band's music on June 6.” From the Houston Press article: “Many people who click on Anus.com aren't looking for philosophical treatises, but porn seekers just might end up finding enlightenment. A.N.U.S., an acronym for American Nihilist Underground Society….” Now, that’s the exact opposite of what you said. And you still have no response to the site’s mention in the Encyclopedia….because there isn’t anything to say about it. It’s mentioned in two mainstream press outlets, one of them in passing and one of them as the feature of the article. It is mentioned as a reliable and authoritative source in what’s pretty much the most reliable source aside from EM used for articles related to metal (the afore-mentioned Encyclopedia). Just two of those would be enough. Three? It should be here by default. Ours18 01:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple independent sources in the article (see the external links section) that mention this organization (and not just in passing). --- RockMFR 01:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is any way of protecting an article from ever being nominated again, this one warrants it. Ours18 01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how many afd's does it take till an article is deemed permanent!? Jcuk 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's absurd, an article should never be deemed permanent. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole "AFD until it's gone" strategy, like what happened to the GNAA article, is a persistent problem. Perhaps an article should never be deemed permanent, but something else should be done to address it. -Toptomcat 04:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so 2 AFDs go by and I as a major editor of this article receive no notifications on my talk about it? I know you don't have to tell people about your AFDs but it is courtesy. Regardless the ANUS article meets the notability and reliable sources requirements. For WP:WEB it is verifiable as per WP:RS and WP:V (multiple news sources) and it has won a non-trivial award. Thus ANUS passes criteria 1 & 3 of WP:WEB (you only need to pass 1 of the 3). ANUS is not just a website and do in real life trolls like slayer day and various postering campaigns. They have multiple media mentions in magazines such as Wired, in Houston newspapers and on MTV news. --TrollHistorian 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article still has bad sourcing. It still does not meet WP:V. It has the same problems it had when I wasted time discussing it for nomination #2. Seriously, though, this is a little soon to renom. Delete but even I'm wary of this one. GassyGuy 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the Houston Press and this site's second most credible source for metal music fail verifiability? Ours18 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the reasons GNAA was deleted. Maybe it will take the number of nominations into double figures, but I'm sure Wikipedians don't mind that. --Montchav 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- *raises hand* Hi! Hello! I'm a Wikipedian, and I mind. -Toptomcat 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I second that motion. When notability has been established countless times through verifiable sources, there is no reason to delete it no matter how many times it gets nominated. Ours18 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here is the aforementioned Encyclopedia source[91]. Ours18 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I rewrote the article now and there isn't a single unreferenced sentence and sources include Houston Press, Blabbermouth.net, Village Voice, MTV, Yahoo! and Windy City Times. Prolog 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete In a previous AfD my opinion was to keep thinking that it met criterion 1 of WP:WEB. I'm no longer convinced in meets that criterion. In particular, none of the mentions are non-trivial and the summary of all the details is drawn by synthesizing disparate details from a variety of sources. While one could argue that it meets the second criterion of WP:WEB but a glance shows that the relevant Houston award is not sufficiently notable for that purpose. I would strongly suggest that the page be userfied until someone can come up with better sourcing(not all the sources used meet WP:V) and a demonstration of notability occurs. If nothing else, I won't mind having a version userfied to my userspace if no one else wants to take it. JoshuaZ 03:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How does it not have non-trivial coverage? Yahoo! coverage starts with A group of nihilists are being blamed... and the Houston Press award page is dedicated to the organization. Also; [92] and [93]. Prolog 08:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, original research, non-verifiable (or when only verifiable claims are made, it isn't notable), dies by the same rationale as GNAA. Also support userfication as per JashuaZ. Cool Hand Luke 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is it original research? Each line now has a citation. --TrollHistorian 05:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You are supposed to check the article before participating in the discussion. You obviously have not done that. Prolog 08:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate how you assume good faith, but to make myself more clear: it was original research before, or once distilled to verifiable claims (which it's really not yet, unless the GNAA became a useful source of commentary), it fails to assert any claim of notability. It fails WP:WEB, having not recieved a bona fide (let alone notable) award, and it doesn't pass WP:ORG any more than any other minimal organization needed to run a website. And yes, the coverage is trivial. Cool Hand Luke 15:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The article has been rewritten 3 times already, the first was an obviously ANUS driven article, I wrote the second and Prolog has written the 3rd. Quite frankly each article is completely different from the previous, my article and prolog's articles were sourced and are not Original Research, you can go ahead and make that claim that it is original research but it isn't. Now you claim it hasn't recieved any awards. Yes it has! The Houston article is an award saying ANUS.com is the best nihilist website of 2006. This is reputable houston publication claiming this. There are also multiple article which are news coverage of ANUS pranks. You are welcome to claim there are no sources but there are. You are welcome to claim they are non-notable, but in fact they are. You are welcome to claim anything but just because you do doesn't mean your claim is accurate. I passes WP:WEB, it has multiple secondary sources, it is referenced, they are attributed with maintaining the Heavy Metal FAQ, they have recieved an award (so we have WP:WEB criteria 1 & 2 covered), they are an organization who has recieved media attention for their pranks and have been awarded as such. --TrollHistorian 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I appreciate how you claim the article is not yet verified, because 1/13 references is the GNAA. Let's define "trivial" per Wiktionary: Of little significance or value, or per Wikipedia: Trivia are unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information. How is a long interview on a website with 0.8% reach "trivial"? How is a Houston Press web page entirely dedicated to this organization "trivial"? This article meets WP:V, WP:WEB (#1) and WP:ORG (#1). Prolog 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The news stories cited are predominantly not about this alleged organization. They reward it for being a good site (an award which fails WP:WEB because, as I said above, it is not a "notable award"—a random prize from a weekly newpaper's annual Restaurants issue with no independant coverage is not a Webby—the Houston Press "award" is not notable per WP:WEB#2 and WP:V), sources discuss ANUS.com in context of music, but they mostly don't cover the article's topic. That is, the reliable sources don't write about the underground as an actual organization (appart from folks who presumably run a website). The more on-topic the references are, the less reliable they are—a problem that was also suffered by the GNAA. If GNAA had been distilled to bare references like this article has, it would still not merit an article. I believe in the precendent set by GNAA and Jimbo Wales. Cool Hand Luke 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why do you keep bringing up GNAA as precedent? It had no external links to any newspaper publication whatsoever. There is no precedent, it is a policy called WP:WEB. If we read WP:WEB Criterion 2 we see: "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]" and footnote 6 contains "Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies or Webby Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.". The award is from an independant houston based publication. That said do you think there are a lot of nihilism related awards? --TrollHistorian 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I think there have been no notable awards given to anus.com. Notice that WP:WEB#2 even links to WP:N to stress its point. A non-sequitur sidebar to in a weekly's "best-of" restaurants issue which generates no independant commentary is simply not a notable award.
        
        Actually, the GNAA did have an external link to a reputable daily newspaper, but I remember now that there was a significant difference. See the Scottsman article mentioning GNAA. The Scottsman article was poor because it relied on wikipedia itself as a source, so you are right that this article has more independant verifiability than GNAA. I agree with Prolog that this article satisfies WP:WEB#1. I still believe WP:ORG shouldn't apply when the article's sources primarily refer to an organization in their capacity of maintaining a site. At any rate, keep, but the GNAA reference has got to go. Cool Hand Luke 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep mentioned by name numerous times in the media including MTV, Village Voice and YAHOO! News. The article as it stands is well referenced, completely verifiable, and probably the best sourced stub on wikipedia. It clearly passes WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:NPOV. I would in fact deem this the PERFECT EXAMPLE of what a stub on wikipedia should be. Just because you dont like the subject matter is not a valid deletion grounds, many people hate George W. Bush but if we deleted on the grounds people dislike him where the hell would we be as an encyclopedia? A "vote" here for deletion is a "vote" for censorship and bowdlerism on wikipedia. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you explain what part of WP:WEB it meets? I'm not seeing it. Also, note that claims of censorship are rarely productive. JoshuaZ 04:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Why the fuck do we even have an article about this? If GNAA shouldn't be here, neither should this. Shady Tree Man 04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Um, I'm not sure I follow that. Could you expand? JoshuaZ 04:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ANUS seems to meet WP:ORG (I realize it is a guideline not a policy) which is important since ANUS is more than just a website and a heavy metal FAQ. --TrollHistorian 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in reply to JoshuaZ on my talk page: Criteria 1) The Yahoo and MTV articles mention ANUS relates trolls which were on a national level, Criteria 2) ANUS isn't really local in scope according to the slayer day related articles and the skull related articles and the astronaut bones related article. WP:ORG Notability Requirements 1) They are included in third party materials including some metal encyclopedia, they have been awarded for their website and various sites have written about their exploits. 2) They have some news coverage. Thus ANUS meets both the requirements for inclusion according to WP:ORG and notability according to WP:ORG. --TrollHistorian 05:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per redone article, redone sourcing. Articles can and do reach permanent notability standards. Arguments that no articles can/should be permanent are straw men. Notable troll organization covered by a stunning array of mainstream and independent media sources. This is and should be the final XfD on this. Keep/close per WP:SNOW. Future noms should also close as hasty keeps. WP:BALLs. F.F.McGurk 19:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, too many of the deletes I see against this article I'm seeing people refer to GNAA by which they are directing some of their bad feelings about that article by lashing out at this one. For goodness sake stop constantly putting up an article for deletion mere micro-seconds after the previous one failed. Give the editors of an article a chance, otherwise it can be seen as outright bullying and highly disruptive to wikipedia. Mathmo ^Talk 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was kept just a few days ago - not sure what's going on, nor do I really care. Articles should not be nominated repeated in a short time span. WilyD 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.52.187 (talk • contribs).

Comment & Note for closing Admin: Please be sure to review the previous AfDs, and note that this 5th AfD began less than 24 hours after the last closed as a Speedy Keep. This 5th one on that basis alone should be closed procedurally from my readings and understanding of the AfD system... here is the complete list of the previous AfDs, copied from the article talk page for your ease of review. Thanks! F.F.McGurk 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there are some reliable sources and the article is still being improved since last time Yuckfoo 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Imprudently renominating the same article on a daily or weekly schedule demonstrates contempt for previous discussions and wastes the limited resources available to improve wikipedia. More experienced users - particularly those who claim the sysop mantle - should not be mechanically pulling the AFD lever thinking this will be the day the cherries align. The nom claims that previous nominations were "bad faith"[94]. I don't see that, nor do I see any new arguments that could possibly justify an immediate renom. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to call for renewed debate. I stand by my argument from one of the previous discussions [95]. --JJay 02:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. If the subject is notable enough for The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal [96] then it is no doubt notable enough for an encyclopedia which hopes to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. RFerreira 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous 4 tries. // Gargaj 07:13, 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. - brenneman 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of Secant Function[edit]

The article Derivative of Secant Function does not seem to add any value to Wikipedia. The derivative of the secant function can be derived in one or two lines using the chain rule, the derivative of cos, and similar standard rules of calculus; it is pointless to derive it from the limit definition of differentiation (which requires much more work and is therefore only used to derive the most basic rules of differentiation).

Are we going to have an article on "Derivative of X" for all X using this pointlessly cumbersome machinery? Possible? Yes (given infinite time). Useful? No.

(I should mention that the proof is also incomplete. It relies on the fact that sin(x)/x goes to 1 as x goes to zero, but needs to also show that (1-cos(x))/x goes to zero.)

—Steven G. Johnson 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a calculus textbook. Pascal.Tesson 00:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul August ☎ 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possibly transwiki to wikibooks. --Salix alba (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pascal.Tesson. WMMartin 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No transwiki, btw, per nom's comments on the chain rule. WMMartin 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has no use in an encyclopedia. --Gwern (contribs) 20:26 11 January 2007 (GMT) 20:26, 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 merge/redirect, and the nominator has already done exactly that. This should have been speedy closed. — CharlotteWebb 11:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin DB9 Volante[edit]

Little/no important information, the information on the page is also included in the article Aston Martin DB9 The93owner 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Guy (Help!) 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect until such time someone can write a fully formed article with specific information which is not on the Aston Martin DB9 page – if such information exists. Bubba hot ep 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Pascal.Tesson 00:28, 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. W.marsh 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom[edit]

Delete as per WP:OR. No such term "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" exists, except for probably some obscure, frustrated pseudo-historians and irredentist. Wikipedia should not be the means by which some, after coining all sorts of terms, make them popular. Avaring 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy empty page now. Just H 22:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it redirected to Partium, where the term is used in a very dodgy way. Not only that by it`s use, the author attempts to present erroneous facts, and set the base for a future development of this spurious term, but it even redirects to itself. Avaring 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this page:Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is also inexistent for you, right? I therefore call up on you to restore the deleted entry and start a negotiation on its discussion page...--fz22 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and take up on redirects for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this was never an article, per se, it was a redirect. I left a message on the nominator's talk page on how to deal with an RfD rather than an AfD. SkierRMH 00:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since then it turned into an article... Delete as per WP:OR, WP:V (article 1), WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT, etc. Avaring 09:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Test - 6 results: two of which are Wikipedia mirrors, and the rest of them are about a certain chapter From the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom to the Principality of Transylvania, from a shady online book. Avaring 10:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This online book actually is not shady, it was published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. However, I agree with deletion. See my comments below. Cserlajos ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From my last look it was changed from a redirect to an article. As an article it is unsourced. And not wanting to get in the middle of a dispute (I have absolutely no opinion about this subject), it appears that this might be coming from the discussions/arguments about Transylvania, Oradea, and related articles. My g-research is similar to Avaring's and agree with WP:V specifically. SkierRMH 02:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or complete rewrite. There was nothing such as "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom", just a "Principality of Transylvania". At least, I don't know the "Keleti-Magyar Királyság" (E.H. Kingd.). Posibbly it refers to John Zápolya's rule over the eastern part of the Kingdom of Hungary? Maybe yes, but it is not as important to have a distinct article about the subject (in this form). Should be incorporated to the article about the Principality of Transylvania. Cserlajos ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it there are no less and more important articles in an Encyclopeida. This term is widely accepted and used by Hungarian historians. Between John I's death and the formation of the Principality of Transylvania the administration of the eastern part of the former Kingdom was not abandoned. --fz22 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[97]] (junky google??)
Szabó, Péter: Az erdélyi fejedelemség (History of the Principality of Transylvania) , Tudomány - Egyetem sorozat, Kulturtrade Kiadó, Bp., 1999
etc. etc: [[98]]--fz22 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reasons already issued by Avaring and Cserlajos. Daizus 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per WP:V. Wizardman 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Jinian 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informational listening[edit]

Work of a WP:SPA, no edits since October when this was added. One source paper, the other source does not mention the term. Can't find any reliable sources on Google, very few hits and those I saw are unrelated. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe term seems used by experts in the field of listening such as university courses. Lots of google hits even with the term in quotes. I'm not sure the definitions all match but that seems a debate for the talk page.Obina 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. JzG states that he did the search, and couldn't find a reliable source in any of the pages that the search turned up. If you want to counter that, simply pointing out the number of hits is insufficient. You need to point to an actual source. Uncle G 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since the google search will return anythign with the word "informational" followed by "listening", which gives a lot of unrelated results. Google Scholar [99] also indicates that this term is not in widespread use. Factiva turns up no hits. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe following educational sites use the term in a very similar fashion to this article [100] [101] [102]. A similar use of the term is here[103] and here [104] where it is also called comprehensive listening. And here are some books (all educational books on communctions style) that use the term. [105] I confess to not owning these, but the "search inside" feature of Amazon shows the term to be used as in this article. Based on these sources, it seems that this term is used in the listening field to describe a type of listening. I agree the article needs to be better referenced. Also I think it needs review by an expert in the field. And almost totally off topic, in case no one has told you lately, this is a great and helpful essay! User:Uncle G/On notability.Nice.Obina 15:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep on the merits of the article, and on the obvious potential for sourcing. Completely new concept to me, but educational. What is WP for if not new concepts?DGG 06:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, a riposte to the preceding comment: Wikipedia is expressly *not* for new concepts, it is for concepts that are well established. New concepts are original research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Had we been around a century ago, we wouldn't have accepted an article on Special Relativity even if ( well, actually, especially if ) it had been posted by Einstein himself, if it were not adequately referenced and demonstrably notable. New ideas aren't our stock-in-trade: we're here for the stuff that has been tested in the marketplace of thought and found buyers and sellers. My initial reaction to this article was that it was OR, but a quick google suggests otherwise: the term actually does seem to get used by people working in this area. On balance, I'm inclined to Keep, though per Obina I support getting an expert in the field to take a look and suggest improvements. WMMartin 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — just as long as an expert tag's added. Wizardman 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Ghost Hunters[edit]

This article is about a fairly non-notable paranormal investigation group in West Virginia. I had originally tagged it as {{db-group}} but the author, Wvghosthunters (talk · contribs) (an example of a conflict of interest) has contested this. As of right now, the only references for this article are the website of the group itself and it's page on Alexa, of which it has a ranking of 366,978. It's "claims to fame" is that it has worked with The Atlantic Paranormal Society on the Sci Fi Channel program Ghost Hunters and as part of the Travel Channel's Weird Travels program.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I de-speedied this as notability asserted, but I definately think it should go. Viridae ^Talk 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Cannot find anything to verify notability. Just a long list of freewebs, blogs, and boards. Bubba hot ep 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability: a couple of appearances on TV shows doesn't quite make the grade. I've been on a couple of TV shows expressing a point of view, but I certainly don't qualify for an article. We need to see why these guys are more notable than any other scooby gang. WMMartin 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. The ghost hunting craze has driven many such hobbyist orgs (and individuals who are self-proclaimed "paranormal researchers") into a frenzy of self-publicity. This group is just one of many exploring WP as a means to self-publicize. See also CASPR --- LuckyLouie 23:26, 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.--Hús ö nd 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets of Cebu City named after a person[edit]

The Article is overly-specific, and seems to serve no purpose at all other than to act as a list of streets in a single city named after people. I haven't seen any lists around WP as specific as this. If this article/list is allowed, it might lead to tons of equally-specific lists such as "list of streets in XXX city named after a person/place/birds/flowers/trees etc. Perhaps a version of the list could work as part of the Cebu City article as a "List of streets in Cebu City" or something not as specific. Shrumster 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yikes. But perhaps creator could make a List of notable people from Cebu City (on the Cebu City page for now per WP:LOCAL) which may be what the goal is.Obina 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least until we set a precedent with List of streets whose names contain at least three vowels in Brookline, Massachusetts. -- Kicking222 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a note in my diary to start the article List of streets whose names contain at least three vowels in Brookline, Massachusetts; I will do this shortly after hell freezes over. In the meantime, Delete as listcruft. WMMartin 18:08, 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. Proto::► 13:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Anarchists of Western Greece[edit]

A Greek anarchist local organisation, which is unknown to most people, does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. The article violates WP:N. Mitsos 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The nomination rationale is pretty weak. Still, references seem to fall short of what we would need to build a decent article but then again, I can't read Greek and I suppose that's the language in which we should expect some. Pascal.Tesson 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Nominator, please cite policy and guidelines, not personal opinion. "Unknown to most people" == "fails notability guidelines". "Does not deserve article" == opinion you should keep to yourself. --Dhartung | Talk 02:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weak nomination argument. Merge and redirect to Anarchism in Greece might also be appropriate. - N1h1l
Agree the nomination argument is weak: being unknown to most people is not the same thing as being non-notable. Is there an equivalent to this article in the Greek Wikipedia ? I can't find one, but I don't know modern Greek ( and am pretty awful in classical Greek ). Local political organisations are sometimes notable, and sometimes just bunches of people with aspirations but no notability: I can't tell which of the two sets these people belong to. I'm not an expert on Greek politics, so would welcome input from Greek wikipedians. For now I'm Neutral. WMMartin 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there is no such article in the Greek Wikipedia. Mitsos 13:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable entity Francis Tyers · 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not notable! Noone in Greece knows that group. Mitsos 07:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — Very weak nomination. Still, 100 Yhits and 41 Ghits says something, although part of me wants to remain neutral, policy says that it fails WP:LOCAL and WP:N. Wizardman 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - very weak nomination, however lacks reliable secondary sources. Addhoc 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:V. I briefly scanned the Greek text from the website, but did not see any interesting links. There were some PDF files of paper publications of the anarchist group, but I did not come across any outside comments on the group's activities. A search for "Ομοσπονδία Αναρχικών Δυτικής Ελλάδος" on google.gr gets 50 hits, but none to any reliable sources like newspaper web sites. EdJohnston 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 13:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thieves in Black[edit]

A Greek anarchist gang does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. In other words, it is not notable. Mitsos 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Darn those anarchists! How did they get reliable sources to cover their hijinx? But they did. Notable, verifiable, done, kept. "Undeserved" is your value judgement, and you can keep it to yourself in the future, thanks. — coelacan talk — 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll remain more polite than the above user but I'm really not sure what the problem with this article is. Pascal.Tesson 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nominator has not provided a valid argument for deletion based in policy. (As noted in the nomination above, "does not deserve article" is an opinion and an inappropriate value judgement based in no Wikipedia policy or guideline.) --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:N. Mitsos 09:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it right now. It says "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That is exactly what the references in the article show. — coelacan talk — 09:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the external links section doesn't even mention "thieves in black". The other two sources come from Greek newspapers, so this gang was never the subject of English-language works. Also note that the google hits of "thieves in black" are extremely low. I can assure that even in Greece, if you ask the people in the street noone will know about this gang. Mitsos 09:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the policy does it say that sources must be in English? Otto4711 13:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The group has been dubbed the “Thieves in Black” because the 15 or so people thought to comprise the group wear black clothes during robberies. Ekathimerini bogdan 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources don't need to be in English; only the article does. We can assume good faith that the articles are valid references. Tarinth 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see also Anti-State Justice, nominated for deletion at the same time. - N1h1l 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not the sources, it's that the group is non-notable. Mitsos 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say that again, please? — coelacan talk — 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep bogdan 10:36, 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.--Hús ö nd 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historian of Za[edit]

Supposedly an upcoming book from a non-notable author. No reliable sources and the book's existence is unverifiable. Google for "historian of za" gets no hits. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with nom. Article poorly written about a future book which may not even make it to print. Ronbo76 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost speediable Delete per WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have tagged it for a speedy, although I'm certain that non-notable books aren't a CSD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the book gets written, the article might then meet notability criteria. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's got to write the book first, then get it published, that someone has to read it and and comment on it in print, then a WP article could be writen. Good luck! Steve Dufour 14:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness' sake, this is an obvious "speedy" ( by the application of common sense, if nothing else ). The book hasn't even been written yet ! Delete. WMMartin 17:39, 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.--Hús ö nd 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drazen Zigic[edit]

Non-notable "screenwriter" who seems to be more famous (if marginally so) as a blogger. Previously speedy deleted and recreated pretty much the same way, with some clean-up by admin User:Kukini, which is why I am not simply re-tagging. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and, if previously deleted as mentioned above, block against recreation for the time being. Recreation and the page creators' edits, which all relate to this person's spec script, would seem to be self-promotion and therefore violation of WP:COI. Doczilla 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article creator G.R.007 (talk · contribs)'s contributions seem to be all promoting projects related to the Oehlen family. Demiurge 12:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, can't find him in IMDB, and Google is no help. Also, I suspect CoI with G.R.007 (talk · contribs) ( although I also had to revert a "blanking" of this page by G.R.007 (talk · contribs) today ). SUPPOSITION FOLLOWS: My best guess is that G.R.007 (talk · contribs) tried to publicise a film he's written ( but which has not yet been produced ), and has now realised that giving himself a Wikipedia entry on the basis of this was a mistake, and has tried to blank these entries as a form of correction/deletion. WMMartin 17:35, 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. - brenneman 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One World Many Cultures[edit]

Non-notable web site, essentially a travel journal. The creator of the article also placed many links to this site into other articles (but stopped immediately when warned). I conclude that it is self-promotion. Delete gadfium 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More self-publicity, and no evidence that the website itself is notable. WMMartin 17:18, 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 GRBerry 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road & Track Ten Best[edit]

Is this a copyright violation? I'm not sure what warrants a copyvio, so I'll leave it for the public to decide. Either way, the article is very unfinished and may want a tag on it. Apparently Template:unfinished doesn't really exist in its own right Montchav 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of this type -- magazine lists whether automotive, movie, or whatever -- don't generally survive AfD unless a closing admin lets WP:ILIKEIT volume override WP copyright policy and the WP:V requirement for multiple non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. Road & Track's ten-best awards are probably a bit less notable than Car and Driver's 10 Best or Motor Trend's Car of the Year; although they're used in carmaker ads, and R&T's press release gets a few newspaper articles each year, they aren't highly notable in general. Delete or redirect to Road & Track. Barno 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify: Articles on one particular year's list generally get deleted, while articles on the awards may be kept or deleted based on whether there are independent sources. Time magazine's "Person of the Year" is an example where national magazines and newspapers not part of AOL Time Warner have discussed the award and its implications at length. Barno 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (a) We're not a bunch of lists; (b) this is presumably a copyright violation anyway, as the publisher will surely have copyrighted the lists. WMMartin 17:16, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Muffins[edit]

Delete. Textbook case of non-notable neologism. The "Prairie Muffin Manifesto" is hosted on a homeschooling mother's website, and "Note: If you have something you would like to suggest for the Prairie Muffin Manifesto, email carmon...". What fun! But not a reliable source. All other sources are blogs and quizzes ("Are you a Prairie Muffin?"). It looks like the article's author has worked very hard on this, and commentors at Talk:Prairie Muffins have raised doubts about verifiability, but the author couldn't come up with any further support. Time to move it off Wikipedia, back to the blogosphere. — coelacan talk — 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the sources are blogs and other websites. But unlike most of the non-notable neologisms we debate here it is in lots of blogs and web sites. So it seems to be a real web word. Here is even a site making fun of it [106]. I think we keep other words used mainly on the web. This one seems to have caught on.Obina 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:RS? It doesn't matter how many blogs and quizzes and chain letters and friendship bracelets it adds up to. Not a single one of them is a reliable source. — coelacan talk — 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgot my other thought. Perhaps the manifesto site itself meets WP:WEB and we should make the article about the web site if consensus is to delete this page as is. I forget how all that alexa stuff works.Obina 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even the remostest chance of the website meeting WP:WEB. If it did, then it would already meet WP:RS. — coelacan talk — 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. I could find no reliable sources for this. A regular google search didn't show anything, so I tried searching some more topical sites, such as The Christian Science Monitor and National Home Education Research Institute. I still drew a blank. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Artw 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability, is not notable (not the same thing nessisarily) no reliable sources, pure Neologism. Wintermut3 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have tried to find a legitimate source but I can't. Malla nox 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... Even though Obina takes a very good point. I am the author of this page and created it as a noob before I had a good grasp of WP content policies. This site may come close to a usable source, but even if so it is only one such source which is not enough, since it must be the subject of MULTIPLE reliable sources. HOWEVER, I suggest you all apply the same standards to a few more of the sexual slang/neologisms I nominated for deletion. ~~Also, give me a day or two until I get the info into Wikctionary where it more properly belongs~~. CyberAnth 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD won't close immediately, and I have a backup copy of the article on my hard drive (in wiki markup as well as html). If you need it later, let me know on my talk page. — coelacan talk — 07:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page will be fun to quote in future AfD debates. CyberAnth 07:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution. AfDs stand on their own merits. To say that one thing failed so another automatically should is not a valid argument. Malla nox 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also say that I have knowledge of a book in proccess for publication on Quiverfull where "Prairie Muffins" will be a subject of discussion (I am the author). So do not salt this, as I suspect an article (real article) might turn up again. CyberAnth 07:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, you can close this. I have the info on userspace. CyberAnth 07:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why. I thought you were moving it off Wikipedia. Yeah, you can take it into your userspace for a short period of time, but remember WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. — coelacan talk — 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I can~~not~~ imagine is is the reasons for the double-standards. CyberAnth 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, wait, stop, this is too deliciously rich, I can hardly begin to savor it. Who is the one with "Most particularly, I am a hard-ass stickler for requiring reliable citations for all article claims" plastered on his userpage that he links to dumpy little unsourced articles with such swelling pride? Do you even read your book? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/7.html — coelacan talk — 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge While the circumstances under which this AfD came about may be suboptimal, it's factually accurate & correct in its application of policy. A Google News search shows no news sources using the phrase. While my instinct is that this is a notable phenomenon, it doesn't appear that there are any reliable sources with which to cite references and make the article verifiable --Ssbohio 07:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: CyberAnth, you deleted this user's comment. See this diff. This is not the first time you've done something like that. Are these honest mistakes because you're just barrelling ahead without regard for others, or what? — coelacan talk — 08:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I figured out what was going on. It is because I have been refreshing my browser after an edit conflict rather than clicking the edit link anew. Apparently, that removes the edit that caused the conflict. I know to avoid that now. CyberAnth 12:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coelacan, remember to Assume good faith -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence the term is in widespread use and WP:NOR. If some good sources could be put forth, I'd change my vote, however. Tarinth 10:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom DXRAW 11:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article coming from a charismatic christian, it seems that this expression is mostly used in these closed christian communities and is not known much to laizistic people. Googling gives LOTS of references. Even if the author is notoriously trying to AfD articles describing sexual slang by pretending that there are no sufficient source references, that is no reason to do the same to him (that's just retaliation). I find that article very interesting and vote for keeping. St blac 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) — St blac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. No sources provided for this article provide nontrivial, independent coverage. Nick Graves 04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: please remind author at User talk:CyberAnth that subpage User:CyberAnth/Prairie Muffins should be moved off-wiki ASAP, as WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. — coelacan talk — 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. -- Fan-1967 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of how it's ended up on AfD, I can't find evidence that this phrase is used widely enough to justify a keep. Since double standards have been mentioned, I agree that consistency is important, and double standards should be eliminated. But there's a reason that I voted delete here, and keep at "wanker". First, wanker is a much more commonly used term than prairie muffin (over two million Google hits, versus 878). Second, and more importantly, there are reliable dictionary sources that at least define the term "wanker", including saying how it's usage has evolved over the years. I can't find a single dictionary source that even mentions the term "prairie muffin". If you can find one, I'll be happy to reconsider my vote. If "prairie muffin" is really a widely used term among Evangelical Christians, I wouldn't mind if a small mention of it was made in that article, or somewhere similar. However, if it's only used by a small minority within that community, I don't think it belongs there. In any case, I don't see enough information to justify its own article. Quack 688 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS and if the creator of the article CyberAnth is writing a book on the subject doesnt that mean this article is in violation of WP:NOR too? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism and conflict of interest concerns as well. Silensor 05:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear COI. Article gives no useful information. An external link in the home schooling article to the website would be enough. DGG 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete muffins. Suprised that Improv hasn't gotten to this one already, actually. ;-) RFerreira 08:52, 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.