Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

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 criterion a1 Robdurbar 10:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of licensed Risk game boards[edit]

I do not see the use of this list. FirefoxMan 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is a work in process. I believe the talk page outlined what I was planning to do. Regardless, I am trying to imitate the List of licensed Monopoly game boards article, in order to bring the Risk (game) article up to GA/FA status. b_cubed 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChessDB[edit]

a google search of ChessDB [1] returns not more then 500 pages. Further more this project was started on 13 dec 2006 which makes me think that the guy uses wikipedia to advertise his product. KaiFei 12:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced WilyD 13:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. -- Cate |_Talk 14:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Recury 15:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to nominated user. see WP:NOTE. to that, It lacks its better sources. so this article should be deleted. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 15:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced advert-like article with way too many external links (encyclopedia articles should not link to join mailing lists).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of software deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another NN chess program --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V - non notable. SkierRMH 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reanme not delete I'm the orignal author of this. First I would like it renamed to 'ChessDB - a free open-source chess database'. Of the 500+ Google entries, few have anything to do with this open-source project. There is a domain chessdb.com, which is not related to this at all. The comment about 'advertising a project' is a bit inaccurate, as this is totally free and open-source. As for it being just another chess program, there are very few open-source chess databases. This is a fork from Scid, on which development stops years ago. Yes there are thosands of chess programs, but this is not typical at all. It is not designed to play chess with for a start. As for it not being verifiable, the source code can be downloaded free or a windows installer can be downloaded free. I thought the external links were useful, but take the point particlaurly about the mailing list one. Could it be renamed as I request and give me a few days to get it into shape before revisiting this deleltion process? Drkirkby 08:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drkirkby (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC).Drkirkby 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see the deletion guide for guidelines on renaming and editing while this runs. Basically, feel free to get it into shape, don't rename without reading the guide. This will probably run for 5 days (unless the result is clear earlier). Improving the article may have an impact here, but your modifications may be deleted if the result is negative. As a scid user, I am aware of ChessDB. I don't know if it meets WP:SOFTWARE - is ChessDB (not scid) included in major distributions such as Debian, Fedora, or NetBSD? Are there non-trivial reviews, guides, etc in publications written by independent parties (chess magazines, etc)? It is essential that independent sources write about the program. The fork is really quite recent, so it is possible that it has not yet achieved sufficient notability. I am neutral. skip (t / c) 08:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A random comment: "ChessDB - a free open-source chess database" is an inappropriate article title; we don't put content-based specifiers in the title unless they're necessary for disambiguation (see Naming conventions). You'll note we have Blender (software), not "Blender 3D - the free open-source 3D modelling, rendering, compositing and video editing package". Would be a bit tiring to write, don't you think? And let's not even go into what the proper name of Emacs should be... "the miraculous do-it-all package that also seems to have a text editor somewhere"? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and ask Drkirkby to remember that ad articles don't have to be selling something for-profit. It is entirely possible to "promote" open-source programs and charities, and those violate WP:NOT a soapbox just like corporate spam ads do. Seraphimblade 09:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty certain I've seen this on speedy deletion before, I was just too coffeed to make a decision at the time. Jaranda appears to have speedy deleted this before without specifying a reason (I suspect the slightly promotional approach). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apt-cache search chessdb on Debian comes up empty. No distro inclusion and the project was started in December... Not really famous enough now, but welcome back when the project is famous enough. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well delete it now Clearly this is not going to be in a Debian release yet, which a couple seems to think sets some level of acceptance, since it under a month old. It might as well be deleted now. I'm sure it will make it into Debian at some point, as one of my other projects atlc has made it into both Debian and NetBSD dostros without any input from me. That package is far more specialist and technical in nature, but have been around a long time. ChessDB has had over 800 downloads in under a month, so I believe it proabably will get there. But given the criteria, it might as well be deleted now to save wear on anyones keyboards. Drkirkby 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. You can place the {{db-author}} tag on the article if you'd like it to be deleted before the end of the discussion, that will bring to an admin's attention that the article's creator requests deletion. The article can still be recreated once this program does reach the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines-just remember that it still has to be neutral and all information must be sourced! Seraphimblade 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment A site dedicated to Free Chess Programs says on its frontpage "ChessDB knocks off Playchess from Pick of the Best" then has quite a nice review. I have nothing to do with that site. I'm sure it will get there, even if it does not meet the criteria at the minute. Drkirkby 15:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misfile[edit]

Comic doesn't assert notability that would qualify under WP:WEB. While it has a number of books published, Amazon doesn't carry them. Brad Beattie (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Ronbo76 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Strong Keep - This article meets WP:WEB Criteria #3 in that its "content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" as a paperback book available at this URL: lulu.com web bookstore. Additionally, a Yahoo websearch yielded three notable independent neutral third-party citations and or a source that have been incorporated into the article via citations, a source and reference citation. I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics but speak without conflict of interest (WP:COI) because I have nominated AfD and support debate on the AfD. Ronbo76 01:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think I agree with you regarding the Lulu.com bookstore; It's certainly the strongest lead to notability here. However, the third-party citations you added to the article aren't really that strong. The Comixpedia reference was based off of the Wikipedia article and the Web Comics List is more of an entry in a directory than anything else. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of these can be considered reliable sources. Comixpedia is a Wikipedia mirror. The Web Comics List is an inclusive directory that lacks the inclusion standards of Wikipedia and has been rejected as a source in past Webcomics AFDs. And Lulu.com is a print on demand publisher, which means the books there are not an "independent third-party" publications. Serpent's Choice 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics maintains its review and deletion of webcomics and other Comic related articles [[2]]. Recommend - This and all other AfDs be referred to them as they would be the experts on the matter. Ronbo76 02:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Comixpedia wiki is definitely not a Wikipedia mirror. That said, it's still a wiki, so I removed the source. We've lost good articles before to poor arguments giving deletionists more fuel. --Kizor 07:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with Ronbo, the comic seems notable enough and the article is well written.Gan fon 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article per Ronbo. Big top 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Delete per nom and Dhartung. I do agree the Alexa traffic rank that it does not count Lulu. It's non-notable, so I change my vote to delete. Big top 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless other sources are forthcoming. A print-on-demand publisher is not an indicator of notability. bikeable (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alexa traffic rank past 28,000. And lulu does not count. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lulu.com is essentially a print on demand website, meaning that books produced by it cannot be included as a third party distributor. Comixpedia is a wiki and therefor unusable as a reference and The Webcomic List is free to join and not necessarily third party. I'd consider keeping if better sourcing is available. Cheers, Lankybugger 06:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Bwithh 07:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that many other webcomics with articles are less notable than Misfile, and these are not listed as AfD. It seems as though Misfile has been singled out for no apparent reason.86.3.139.101 14:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Comment Fair points made. I think maybe the notability definitions for webcomics should be carefully reconsidered (although this is not the place to discuss that) - due to the media of webcomics, book sales are often low and thus do not attract publishers except in the case of very popular webcomics, and there are far fewer awards and notable reviewer/commentators of webcomics as compared with print comics. Perhaps the total readership of comic, or the professional status of the artist/writer should also be considered? 86.3.139.101 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Terrible argument. A is bad, so B should be bad. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This argument has been used before in other AFDs. How would we sort all the comics by notability to ensure that we nominate the least notable first? Considering that such a task would be impossible, it's best to just look at what we have and see what meets our criteria and what doesn't. --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment and Brad will eventually get to AfD the even less notable ones in due course! ;) --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure he will, Steve. I'm sure he will. --Kizor 17:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yours is a common objection -- "that's in here, why not this?" The answer is that Wikipedia is big, and the AFD attention window is small, and something like a spotlight. Inclusion is not notability, because another article you find may also in fact violate guidelines. Since policies and guidelines have gotten stricter over time (and because "no consensus" defaults to "keep"), it is also possible that an article previously "passed" AFD but would not pass today. Ultimately, webcomics are all struggling uphill against WP:V and WP:RS and really should be exceptionally notable in the webcomic world to have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which will largely obliterate our coverage of webcomics and destroy Wikipedia's use as a reference work in the field, not to mention its coverage of an art form. --Kizor 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: self-published books are not an indication of notability. And by the way, there have been nominated (and deleted) a whole bunch of webcomics over the last few months, this one is definitely not being singled out... Fram 15:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN per above, and self-publishing doesn't count per above too --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lulu counts as a 'vanity publisher', thus invalidating its only claim to fame. --InShaneee 17:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluble[edit]

Article's claim to notability under WP:WEB is publication in a student newspaper, which may be insufficient. However, a google search turns up only 735 hits. Brad Beattie (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Ronbo76 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: regarding the first WP:WEB criterion, verifying this comic's notability seems hard. The only claim to fame mutually exclusive of the other two criteria is a certain controversy that arose from the satire of the Jewish use of "G-d". Apparently "a member of the community wrote a complaining letter to the editorial staff of the Brown Daily Herald", and I would not consider a letter from a member of the community a non-trivial published work. This web comic has not won any notable awards, and finally, the medium through which this content has been distributed (the Brown Daily Herald) is not exactly "well known." Gracenotes ^T § 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that all the various things added up still don't amount to notability.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing a little bit of stuff about it on the web, but nothing that meets WP:RS. J0lt C0la 12:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bogdan 20:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 即時削除 (G1)--Hús ö nd 00:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

早速ですが[edit]

I tried putting the {{notenglish}} tag on this to have it translated from Japanese, but an editor removed it. Apparently someone doesn't want it translated. In that case, it doesn't belong in the English Wikipedia. Fan-1967 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

削除 (delete) per nom. --- RockMFR 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete by {{db-notenglish}} (though I can't say if the same article exists on the Japanese WP). If multiple people can't/won't/don't want to translate it into English, it shouldn't be on the English WP. -- Kicking222 00:33, 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 07:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Formula One season Testing[edit]

The article is cruft. Information on testing should be confined to the main 2007 season page as discussed here and here. Journeyman 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as excessive detail with no encyclopedic perspective relating the data to the broader topic. Offseason testing is more notable in F1 than any other motorsports series, but still is of only niche interest, mostly passing news rather than anything encyclopedic. If any of the most important changes seen at the tests isn't in the 2007 season article, then merge it to there; otherwise I don't think we need a redirect. Barno 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Gan fon 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We'd be the only encyclopaedic source that went into this level of detail. I would expect some (limited) material on testing results to appear in the season articles in the period before the season starts, I would also expect that to be edited down leaving only the most significant points as the season progresses, as most of it will prove to be irrelevant. By the end of the season you might see only a comment that 'Despite topping pre-season testing, the Banger Racing Team finished last in every race'. 4u1e 08:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if we're the "only encyclopaedic source that went into this level of detail"? We can outdo our rivals can't we? --Madnessinshorts 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but we can't include everything. My comment was meant more as a guide to where we stop, not an indication that we shouldn't be better - of course we should! ;) I suppose 'notability' is really the point, but a good first indicator on notability might be what other encyclopaedic motorsport sources include. Motorsport articles on Wikipedia already go into as much/more detail than specialist racing sources on some topics. 'Normal' encyclopedias wouldn't even include many of them, or only in much, much briefer form. Of course any relevant points from testing should appear in the appropriate season article, but it's not likely to need to take up much space. 4u1e 16:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It makes Speedy Deletion because it thinks that it isn't yet done.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 09:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Manipe 12:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non encyclopedic: in very few years these informations are no more relevant. -- Cate |_Talk 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, testing is not worthy of an article. We don't have articles on practice for other sports, and shouldn't. Recury 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom Junebug52 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arguably testing proves nothing to anyone except the teams themselves, and isn't representative to us of any progress they're making. Thus it's misleading as well as irrelevant. Bretonbanquet 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced and well-written. Even if "testing proves nothing to anyone except the teams themselves", the point may be missed. We have info, let's keep it there. And yes, maybe it is "of only niche interest", but is that a bad thing? ~~Most~~ A fair deal of Wikipedia article are about "of niche interest" and that's what makes Wikipedia special. --Madnessinshorts 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-- danntm ^T _C 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopaedic - testing deserves a couple of paragraphs in the main 2007 article and a couple of external links to sites publishing lists of times and such like - no more than that --Jsydave 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for it, hastily put together in a rush. The359 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dont see what this page achieves, its basically the entry list for the 2007 FIA F1 season which is already on Wikipedia elsewhere --Granger Toivets
Weak delete per all above. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:28, 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 07:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shy line[edit]

Contested prod. I just don't feel that there's enough material for a full blown article. This is a hockey (that's ice hockey) line that has been together for a year. While I don't doubt that some broadcasters use it, it is also not significant enough to keep around. The article contains WP:OR appreciation of the line's quality of play. If we stick to the actual verifiable content, the article will most likely become and remain a sub-stub. Pascal.Tesson 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cruft. Some lines such as the French Connection will become legendary, but this is not it. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems pretty close to non-notable neologism territory.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism that's not commonly used even in New York City, let alone in the hockey world. Hockey commentators create dozens of this type of neologism every year. While reading the article 15 came to mind. None were notable. --Charlene 05:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Meno25 07:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom John Vandenberg 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-sourced, non-notable neologism, and I'll take Charlene.fic's word that it's not even a neologism in NY! SkierRMH 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete petty... - crz crztalk 04:18, 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. DS 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In da Streetsz Musik[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable record label; only ghits are MySpace sites (search for "In Da Streetz Muzik", not the title of the article, which gives you only Wikipedia sites); it's official website is an "under construction" page; I couldn't find any third-party, verifiable sources that claimed it had released any records. At best, it deserves a few sentences in the Black Child article, but even then, it wouldn't have a reliable source. Gzkn 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with nom. Ronbo76 01:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a venue to promote things that aren't yet notable, let along things that might not exist yet.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - much of the content is "crystal-ballism" per WP:CRYSTAL; in addition, much of it doesn't pass under WP:MUSIC, largely due to lack of sources. Crystallina 04:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 07:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources, and I don't feel it meets WP:MUSIC. J0lt C0la 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources outside of Wiki&mirrors appear to be Myspace related, w/ no 3rd parties, fails WP:V, in addition to the aforementioned. SkierRMH 04:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 18:19, 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 (A7)+(G10).--Hús ö nd 02:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Lee (twinkie)[edit]

Obviously not a legitimate article; fails WP:NOTE NMajdan•talk 01:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Speedy Delete should have been so tagged. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I restored speedy tag, no reason to go through whole AfD with this. Tubezone 01:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Steve's recommendation, this article should been Speedily Deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and Slf67. Also by Tubezone. Big top 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteSurprised it's been up this long.Gan fon 02:15, 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, article is unsourced, so nothing to merge. ~ trialsanderrors 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMX-104 R-Jarja[edit]

Actually, this is part of a larger AfD i would like to create, but its beyond any practical abilities to do so: I would like to nominate all the articles in the following template: {{Template:Universal Century Mobile weapons}}. I see no reason why all these random suits of armor from a fictional series should have their own articles. Merge at the very least. I know this is 'poor reasoning', but if lists of weapons in halo 2 and every other game shouldn't and no longer exist, this shouldn't either. Non-notable even with association. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: In response to this AfD another user set up a similar AfD here. It may be helpful to review details of both cases, in the hopes of establishing precedent. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although my opinion probably doesn't matter. It was on the most wanted list, for Christ's sake! --Shady Tree Man 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion does matter, though you must use reasoning to support your arguments. How exactly, is it notable to have every Gundam ever seen, each with its own article? How are they that important to the series? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're notable to the series because they're the foundation the series is built on. Without Gundams, the series would just be people yelling at each other. --Shady Tree Man 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without starships, Star Trek would just be people emoting at each other. But after forty years of TV and cartoon TV and movies and hundreds of books and fan magazines and conventions, there's only one starship from that series that is notable enough to be recognized by the general public: the USS Enterprise. I know the Gundam stuff is relatively big-name compared to most anime, but it's no Star Trek or Pokemon, is it? Why should non-fans be convinced that any Gundam fighting suit, let alone every one, is notable enough to pass general WP standards, just because the series is? Merge into one list per WP:FICT. I would say "delete" except that the suits (as a category, not every one) are the premise of the whole thing. Barno 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the general public would recognize the Borg Cube, Klingon and Romulan Birds of Prey, and maybe a few others. I do agree one list would be a better idea in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use the Star Trek example, are you suggesting every one of the [3] should be deleted or merged into one article? I don't think we should have different standards for different fandoms. Edward321 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to "have different standards for different fandoms" because of the general standard that more widely noted topics, those with more cultural influence, should be covered in more detail. I don't think every one of the ships in that category merits its own article in WP, but some do, simply because they've been featured in multiple third-party independent verifiable sources, not just fan-fiction, fan-obsessive-detail-suit-specs, and corporate promotional tie-ins with other products. Barno 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re saying the reason for the difference is popularity? How do we measure that? Should Wilkie Collins and Bret Harte be deleted because the majority of Wikipedians have never heard of either author, let alone read their works?

Do we take into account people whose first language is not English when assessing popularity? A Japanese science fiction fan would react to this suggested deletion much like an American science fiction fan would react to the suggested deletion of the Starship Enterprise articles. Or don’t their opinions matter, since this is the English language part of Wikipedia?

I expect you are correct that the majority of information and commentary on Gundam comes from either fans, the creators, or promoters. How is this different from Star Trek, Star Wars, or Dr. Who? Given five days, how many cited references to the Enterprise, the X-Wing, or the Tardis could you find, especially if you were not allowed to cite either the creators, promoters, or the fans? Edward321 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Barno, no significance outside the series is asserted. Daniel J. Leivick 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Okay, this is ridiculous. No sources. No listing of even what episode or manga or whatever it appeared in. It's nothing but a page of made up stats. This is NOT an encyclopedia article, and tagging it for cleanup isn't going to make it one. If the rest of the articles in the Template are this bad, they need to be burnt with fire. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yzak Jule 07:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 07:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, then ~~Delete~~ per nom. But make sure they're actually transwikied this time. -- Ned Scott 09:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsuitable for a general encyclopaedia. I would recommend not to bother with transwiki - a) nobody will do it, and b) the information is almost certainly already on the gundam wiki. Proto::► 09:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Copy/paste) Delete; Transwiki to some sort of Gundam-themed Wikia if one exists. Despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no need for an article on every single Mobile Suit in the Gundam universes. Wikipedia should only have articles on major mobile suits, and not utilize a template that fills up most of a computer screen, one with a resolution of 1920x1200 like my own.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — and most of the other articles of this kind. Perhaps someone knowledgeable could advise the group of editors on how to set up their own wiki? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. All this rubbish needs to go out the window. MER-C 10:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Barno. There is no need to create a separate article for every fictional machine ever shown in Gundam, especially if the articles only list the tech specs. JIP | Talk 11:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think that it would be useful as a list of all the minor Gundams, people often come to Wikipedia to find such things that they couldn't otherwise find all together in one place, and "cruft" or not, since there's at least the source of the TV show, I don't see why it would hurt to have one list of these. J0lt C0la 12:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I'd say merge into a list (and I do support the idea of a list of these mechas), but in this case, I see nothing we can really merge. The article isn't sourced, and when I say "list of mechas", that doesn't include information like "Propulsion: rocket thrusters: 16200 kg, 5 x 11200 kg; vernier thrusters/apogee motors: 18". (Disclaimer: this comment is just for this article. If other articles on minor mechas have some well-sourced content, they should be merged into a list. If not, delete.) Quack 688 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a List of Zeon mobile suits while cutting out the crufty stats. --Farix (Talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of those not truely notable MS, and has little content on its own. However, it is just for this nom and I don't support the universal nom plan at all. As it most likely that it would just be random-pick-nom regardless of it content (RX-78-2 got AfD nom already, so I don't think he known which article is notable or not). L-Zwei 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete all articles in template {{Universal Century Mobile weapons}} per nominator. Absolutely useless and empty articles that do not contain anything apart from in-universe fake specifications. I strongly concur with nominator's opinion "no reason why all these random suits of armor from a fictional series should have their own articles". Further, I strongly agree with all delete votes appearing above:

Ridiculous, no sources, nothing but a page of made up stats, not an encyclopedia article, per Elaragirl.
Unsuitable for a general encyclopaedia, per Proto.
Nothing to merge, per Quack 688

and so on. It really is useless. Delete. -- Ekjon Lok 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ekjon Lok. And would someone please take a look at the 493 Pokemon characters as well. Edison 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and this is effective for any article in that template that is not longer than this one. A lot of these are really not notable, I am just going to bother myself on the really notable ones like the ones appearing in more than one series. MythSearcher^talk 17:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not assert notability. No reliable sources that support notability, no reliable sources at all, fails the non-negotiable WP:V by a mile and a half. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, heavily detailed article written with speifications that are unsourced and entirely in-universe. -- Whpq 17:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in {{Universal Century Mobile weapons}}. As a group, these articles are not about notable subjects (lacking substantial independent reliable coverage), are mostly unverifiable and topically inappropriate for a general interest encyclopedia. Sandstein 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison, Proto, Sandstein, Moreschi. WP:V, WP:N and WP:INN refer. Apparently the well-intentioned editors who wrote WP:WAF wasted their time. Transwiki if anyone wants it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Medlat 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's not turn this into the AFD form Hell, Take 2 by blindly including all of the other articles in {{Universal Century Mobile weapons}}. --Farix (Talk) 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge And I second Farix's comment. Kyaa the Catlord 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article: no indication of why this is notable, even within the series itself. In the more general case, keep any suits (eg RX-78 Gundam) with real-world influence as separate articles and merge the ones which are notable within the series into a list --Pak21 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no demonstration of notability. --Folantin 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I insist to include many things seems not important for ignorant people, also per my global view as inclusionists. This article may seems not important for some, though it may be different for others. It is like Roche Limit, Spoo, etc for common people. See also my complete argument here. Draconins 08:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Which policy or guideline are you referencing to support your argument beyond WP:ILIKEIT? --Pak21 08:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: See my complete argument here. It is wasting to rewrite my full argument, since that is also a precedent AfD. Thanks. Draconins 12:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement, not removal. Jtrainor 11:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I came here from the relevant AfD for the figurehead RX-78 page - this particular AfD is made under even worse accusations than the former was. This is almost as mind-numbing as the deletion of hundreds of Soviet-era images used under the fair use rationale because a Russian court made a retroactive decision. Infact, I would go so far as to say that this is worse, because in that instance there was at least a tiny chance of Wikipedia being in violation of fair use laws and observances - this here is downright article barbarism. MalikCarr 11:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just because it's fictional and you're not a fan doesn't make it non-notable. As for your Halo 2 comparison...a genre-defining franchise that's still active and approaching its 30th anniversary is a lot bigger than a single recent video game. Redxiv 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Agree for the reasons above. As mentione,d if this can be deleted, so can many other articles for Star wars and Star Trek.George Leung
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the last few strong keepers. WP:FICT makes it clear that minor characters, places, and concepts should be merged into a list. I'm happy to apply the same policy to these mobile suits. RX-78 Gundam seems to be the equivalent of the Enterprise or X-Wing, and is definitely worth keeping independent. If you can show me that some other mobile suits are significant within the series, I'd consider keeping them. But you can't have 100 articles about 100 mobile suits and tell me that every single one is critical to the series. Someone who actually knows about Gundam needs to explain which ones are major, and which ones are minor. The best place to explain that is in the articles themselves.

Second, all this article is right now is four lines of text and a list of specs, all unsourced. (Those detailed specs aren't necessary for every single mobile suit, btw.). How often does this mobile suit appear in Gundam? Where is it established that it was "built by Neo Zeon during the First Neo Zeon war."? How do you know it has "a set of shields that could be flipped"? If you can answer some of these questions, feel free to edit the article and improve it. Quack 688 10:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be honest, I agree with some of your points above. However, just as your argument becomes more valid, you shoot it down in the second paragraph. How do we know these things you mention? That's not specifically difficult. (1) Watch the animation and/or read the comics in which they feature. If we need to source everything, I suppose I could start collecting screen captures or image scans, in line with Wikipedia's fair use policy, on your "how do we know this" points. (2) Purchase or otherwise be in posession of any of the myraid plastic model kits of these various mecha issued by Bandai, the copyright holder. In addition to being a physical representation, in scale, of that particular mecha, the manuals are usually full of the "unsourced" technical lists that were so heavily decried earlier. If you travel to this website: http://www.1999.co.jp/ (it has an English option) and visit the appropriate Gundam section, they retail the vast majority of Bandai-issued model kits, and include, for your reference, fully scanned manuals that include the technical section.

Whether or not these entries belong here as encyclopedic content (and isn't that a popular buzzword these days...) is a point-of-view issue, but I would like to lay to rest this "unsourced" hogwash ad infinitum. MalikCarr 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think you just finished off my own argument for me - cheers :-p. Seriously, by definition, if an article doesn't list any sources, it's unsourced. I don't think we need a screenshot to prove every single claim, but the article does need to say where it's getting its content from (episode name, comic book issue, tech manual, whatever) - no-one should have to ask. Of course, once some sources are listed, the other debates about reliable sources and encyclopedic content will probably start again, but some sources would still be better than none. Quack 688 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply: Allright, that seems reasonable. I'll start compiling sources and appearances and so forth on articles that lack them, and we'll talk about implementing them once this nonsense AfD is dead and buried. I'm a bit uncertain as to the proper format for sourcing an episode of an animation... MalikCarr 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unencyclopedic cruft run amok (with beam rifles and heat swords, apparently) Pete.Hurd 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not assert notability with encyclopedic treatment per WP:FICTION#Fiction in Wikipedia. Since this only has in-universe POV, a transfer to the Gundam Wiki is acceptable but a merge into Wikipedia would go against WP:NOT#IINFO (plot summary and video game guide) --maclean 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the deletionists above: since, as has been stated, this is not a vote, perhaps you should review some of the above arguments by Edward321 and others before casting a delete vote with little more than IDONTLIKEIT as your "delete" rationale. MalikCarr 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed and can find no argument presented by Edward321 to support the argument that WP policies and guidelines require that this article be kept, and note that not everyone who believes that this article ought to be deleted is necessarily a "deletionist". Pete.Hurd 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also cannot see a persuading argument by Edward321 (can you be more specific about what you are referring to?) Also, please note that nobody has voted to WP:SALT the article. This should be a wake up call that the articles not appropriate for Wikipedia are coming out of the Gundam project (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and WP:FICTION#Fiction in Wikipedia). --maclean 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for being overly straightforward, but I simply cannot see the virtue in deleting dozens of articles with no more reason than "delete per norm". MalikCarr 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Pasta Why is fictional technology non-notable? It's from Gundam. I'm not a big Gundam fan, but I know how huge of an influence Gundam has on mecha, anime, and Japan in general. To say that major parts of the series (THE MOBILE SUITS) aren't notable is ignorant. It's like these people just don't like Gundam and are doing it out of spite. Some people are suggesting merging... do you know how huge that page would be if ALL of that was merged? Should pages for all fictional things be taken down? Take down every page of Marvel characters? Or merge it, ya know, they're all in the same universe, just give them one page? James Bond villains? Fictional characters, take it down.

Definitely some suits are not AS notable as others, and perhaps should be merged into a page that covers which series of Gundam the suits come from. But it is ridiculous to suggest that none of them deserve their own page.

Not my words, but the general consenseus of /m/ and a damn good point to boot In other words Strong Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.159.50 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters[edit]

This page is redundant and lists things that already have their own articles. It creates more hassle and the template is already a navigational tool. This was discussed a little here too. Dylan0513 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redundancy is not a good reason for deletion, nor is more hassle. A template only serves to navigate by name, but does not provide the potential informative content of this list. For example, there are many television shows and other fictional works with lists of characters, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, The West Wing and The Wire. Now this page is fairly new, so it's not as good as any of those pages, it needs some real clean-up to bring it up to snuff. But deleted? I can't understand why, though I am concerned that this is a bad faith nomination, and should be looked at very carefully. FrozenPurpleCube 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in the interests of fair disclosure, I will say I was involved in that prior discussion, and have tried to work to improve this page. I don't think I'm biased though. But then, maybe I wouldn't... FrozenPurpleCube 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per FrozenPurpleCube - useful. Why do we need to delete this? This might be useful if in case Wikipedia readers get confused or want to get a quick detail. The nomination could be a bad faith nomination; look very carefully. Big top 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of your opinion on the subject, throwing around accusations of bad faith here is uncalled for. I'd really strongly suggest you provide some evidence when making such an accusation.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well written, well layed out, and well researched.Gan fon 02:16an, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Well researched? It was copied and pasted from data already on other pages! If it was well "researched" there would be stuff on there that needed researched or there would be more detail. Well layed out is bull too because currently it looks like a crappy list of links. I don't know if you are a SOCK or paid by someone to come on here and just give a support vote but I ask whoever reviews this to strick this vote from the decree. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 10:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is definitely not a bad faith nomination. The article serves no purpose at all and just restates what other articles say. Another article to keep track of and one that was made before discussing and was pretty much discussed in favor of deleting before here and here. -Dylan0513 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that there is an intent to revise and clean-up this page as soon as this discussion is resolved, and that if you find keeping track of this page burdensome, there is no obligation for you to worry about it? Nor do I concur with your description of the consensus that developed through the prior discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 07:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not meant to be a direct criticism of Bigtop, but it seems to me that people are awfully quick to make accusations of bad faith when people nominate articles of this type for deletion - lists of fictional star trek weapons, articles about each and every character ever mentioned in a particular comic book, etc. Is it really difficult to understand that some editors honestly don't believe this stuff to be encyclopedic?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you misunderstood the problem, which is that there is a dispute over the existence of this page, versus the existence of other pages, and how to handle the subject. And since there has been a somewhat substantial disconnect in the discussion of it, well, I'm rather troubled by this nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 07:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's well written, and it does seem to be useful. --Tohru Honda^{Sign here!} 07:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of characters should be well catered for in the main series article. - fchd 07:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to be clear, are you also advocating the deletion of List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters, List of Avatar: The Last Airbender minor secondary characters, and List of Avatar: The Last Airbender creatures? FrozenPurpleCube 08:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've not looked at those other articles, but if the content would be better handled on the main series article (or maybe not at all in the case of a list of minor secondary characters!), I would !vote Delete at an AfD for those as well. However, this AfD only relates to a single article at the moment. - fchd 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you've been made aware of those pages, perhaps you could share your opinion on them, since their existence is why this page is being nominated for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at them, I'd delete the lot of them. The single article for the series is plenty. - fchd 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're nuts. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this nomination is for this article alone. None of the article will go nor should they. Avatar is one of the most viewed pages on all of wikipedia and you want to make it one article? -Dylan0513 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it should be one article. I don't see what these lists offer extra. You disagree, fair enough. I don't have any grudge to grind here, I feel the same about most of the "List of character" type articles for TV shows/films/video games etc. As an aside, how do you know "Avatar is one of the most viewed pages on all of wikipedia", and which Avatar page? - fchd 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most viewed lists and it's the main page. We've gotten grief in the FA nomination on how the article is too long as it is. It would probably be 5 times it's size if none of the other articles were there. -Dylan0513 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avatar is actually the 78th most viewed page.[4] – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Delete - This information is presented not only on the Avatar: The Last Airbender main page but it's also presented at the bottom of every Avatar page that carries Template:Avatar. All information not listed on the main page each has it's own main page, also listed on Template:Avatar. All these names are linked to multiple times within the episode articles as well. It's just a list with links to no more than 10 different pages. The bottom half links ALL links to Minor Secondary Characters but then goes to that same character. That page itself has a key that is identicle to the bottom half of this page. The only reason I put semi-delete is because if a person wants to look up, say, Aunt Wu, this page tells them that she is in the Minor article. But then again, had they clicked the Major characters page first, not found her, the next logical thing is to go to minor. In this situation though, it still required exactly two pages before she is found. It either needs to be deleted or worked into a way where there is actually a use for it's existance. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 10:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - information is alread present in a template and the main characters in a category. This, and the "major secondary characters" / "minor secondary characters" (completely arbitrary and subjective article titles, btw) and "creatures" should also go. Proto::► 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate annotated navigational list. --Farix (Talk) 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good list. TonyTheTiger 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason to delete. Redundancy is not a reason. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then having no purpose should be a reason. This just takes up space as it is stated in other places and donesn't really make things any easier. -Dylan0513 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, this page doesn't lack any purpose, it is intended to be informative. The only way it would have no purpose is if it were nonsense, or blank, which isn't the case. It may not be useful to you, but there are other people who think otherwise. FrozenPurpleCube 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are people who agree with me. This already states what other pages have and isn't useful! I think that constitutes as not serving a purpose. -Dylan0513 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there are people who agree with me that it does serve a useful purpose. Thus it's a wash. I really think not serving a purpose should be reserved for patent nonsense, which this isn't. FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if I made a page for my name syaing I rock would it serve a pourpose? -Dylan0513 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of the page holds no more weight than anyone else's. That people agree with you is also moot, since people also disagree with you. Finally, you know that argument is flawed. you should know better than to even suggest such a thing. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you made a article saying you rock, well, yes, it would be of minimal relevant content. Assuming you added more than that though, you'd run into the personal vanity problem. If you can get enough other people who think you rock though, you might well qualify for a page, but I'd still advise not creating it yourself. Even editing it should be taken very carefully. However, that is an entirely different problem, completely unrelated to the subject of this page. FrozenPurpleCube 00:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, however, to say that you rock in your own userspace though. FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Omg, you seriously just tried to disprove a stupid example I gave just so you'd actually think in terms other than that of Wikipedia's. Obviously didn't work. And of course people are disagreeing with me! I'm saying people are also agreeing with me. And I nominated this article for deletion because it serves no purpose and one of the ways it serves no purpose is though redundancy. I don't see what more of an explanation you guys want. And Manticore, please don't responde quoting any Wiki rules because I will just ignore you. You say nothing in a long way when you quote the rules. -Dylan0513
So you suggested that just to make a point? Not good behavior, especially if you want your reasoning to be taken seriously. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith, and responded to you in a civil and polite manner to explain why what you suggested would be a problem. Perhaps if you considered practicing that kind of behavior more yourself, you might find yourself less frustrated? There is a reason why people do follow principles like those discussed in WP:Civil and your expression that you'll ignore them does not work in your favor. FrozenPurpleCube 03:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Breaking the chain) Of course I did it to make a point! Do you think I'm stupid!? And did you even read what I wrote, stop quoting the rules! I epically expect less idiotic responses from a fellow Code Lyoko fan and someone who I've seen at the Tv.com forums! Oh, so trying to prove a point isn't good behavior, then what's the point of any discussions on Wikipedia? -Dylan0513 02:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point of discussions on Wikipedia is to persuade people using reasoning and work for a consensus of agreement. FrozenPurpleCube 03:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG! They're called policies for a reason. They aren't strict rules and aren't meant to be quoted every single time you post in a talk page. I said before I'd ignore each time you did that. I will not respond to you or Someguy here anymore, so don't expect it. -Dylan0513 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't referred to every time, but they are helpful to refer to, as they are useful ways to express arguments without going into excessive details, and to help show people what other people feel. I'm not sure why you're offended by referring to them, especially not in an AfD discussion which relies heavily on policy, but you should note that not every comment I've made has referred to any policy. You should perhaps avoid such gross exaggerations. They are not indicative of proper reasoning, but are instead merely hyperbole. The same with your claims that you'll go off in a huff if people cite policies to you. It's one thing to be concerned about insults and uncivil behavior, but when people choose to cite policy when you've engaged in behavior that violates it is something that should lead you to reflect upon your conduct. FrozenPurpleCube 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep General pages are perfectly acceptable and are what most people will look to if trying to locate a specific character. I know for a fact people often don't notice the template, as I have had to point them out at least twice to users asking on talk pages. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - I vote this page stay as it is just as beneficial here as it is on the main avatar page, it contributes by having a separate article for characters on its own. Featuring a brief introduction, is another good feature it has as well. Keep the character profiles the way they are, relationships is interesting and adds more interesting content which is the opposite of redundant. Minor characters and secondary characters should remain as they are a good edition. For avatar fans, they are just as necessary as main characters and were displayed as they should have been. The character page deserved to have its own separate section and it was well made and nicely done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lastairbender (talk • contribs).
Comment - After looking over the main page and the article in question, I agree that having them both is redundant. However, I can't decide which course of action, out of deleting the article, or keeping the article and deleting the section in the main page, would be better. If the Avatar article is getting too big, I say we keep the page and delete the section. SAMAS 13:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've already discussed deleting the section and it was decided not to. here I think that since the section is staying it's pointless for the article to be there. -Dylan0513 13:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't a discussion about deleting that section, so much as modifying it, and shortening the main article's section was actually the agreed-upon consensus. And of course, there is a clear intent to modify this page, as soon as some of this controversy has settled down, and a good consensus can be reached. FrozenPurpleCube 15:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic in that discussion wasn't shortening it, it was deleting it and at the very least there wasn't a consensus to delete it so that isn't going to happen. The Avatar project members came to a consensus on not deleting the descriptions and I think that's what matters there. This is a separate matter. -Dylan0513 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't, as nobody ever proposed deleting the section. So you can say there was no consensus to delete if you want, but that's still missing the point, as nobody was actually advocating it. I still don't don't know why you believe it was the case, but really, if that's what you were worried about, that wasn't the idea at all. And that discussion did end up with a consensus that shortening that section would be appropriate. Ignoring that is not exactly good reasoning on your part. It's certainly inaccurate. FrozenPurpleCube 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep I thought we alrady went over that in the main article, the section will be shortened while this list is a longer, more elaborate version of it. But I think that this article should be over the MAIN characters and not a link to the secondary, tertiary, etc. characters, as long as this is focusing on just the main ones, as I thought was intended, that will be fine. --Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we ended the discussion on this article saying that when someone nominates for deletion, the discussion will continue. -Dylan0513 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it ended whoops, my vote still stands though. --Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep this and get rid of it on the front page and make a link to this on the front page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zach111493 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We've already discussed doing it and it is out of the question! -Dylan0513 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wut zee frak? -- perfectly good list, serves a valid purpose, I can see no reason to delete a good stable list. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add all of them to Category:Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. It looks like they may already be in the category though, which means I'm conflicted. It's completely normal to have a list of characters such as this one for easy access, but part of me think it's not all that necessary. Verdict: weak keep per precedent.--Wizardman 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish-American Student Society[edit]

The Irish-American Student Society does not appear to meet the notability requirements of being the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." It seems as though the information might be useful if merged into the Evangel University page, but on the talk page it sounds as though it is not even relevant there ("As this organization is not exclusively a student body out of Evangel, it should not be included on the evangel article"). — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with a merge to Evangel University because the information does seem useful, however it's not enough info. or notable enough to deserve a seperate article.Gan fon 02:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, do not merge, this is not useful or particularly relevant to the parent article and smacks of vanity.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as "an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". No assertion of notability, OR throughout and almost certainly COI. 44 ghits [5], with this article in first place. Just another student club. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanity. Edeans 07:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for failing to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 08:00, 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 WP:SNOW. Although this was not a repost, it's just related nonsense.--Hús ö nd 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raid on Black Mesa East[edit]

Delete Recreated similar page after successful deletion, no sources, no reference pure cruft. Daniel J. Leivick 01:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article reads like nonsense. Ronbo76 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom.Gan fon 02:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can't this go to CSD instead? FrozenPurpleCube 02:19, 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. JIP | Talk 11:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Johnson[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE. No discernable Google matches. Possible vanity article. NMajdan•talk 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junk, no verifiable notability asserted, reference is a (guess what?) MySpace page. Tagged for speedy delete. Tubezone 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like it was written by someone in the picture which reads, "Dumbass". Ronbo76 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Seems like an attempt at a humorous vanity page, not even a hint of notability. If the creator is the subject, then it violates the conflict of interest guidelines, and if the creator isn't the subject, then it thoroughly violates the policies concerning biographies of living persons. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This is a joke.--Meno25 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per nom. Chris 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't this been speedily deleted yet? MER-C 07:47, 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 (G4).--Hús ö nd 02:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"poli" metropolitan internet system[edit]

Non-notable; horrific linking, looks like it was copy and pasted from somewhere, terrible grammar and spelling... overall, just a bad page that is almost beyond repair and doesn't belong on Wikipedia anyway. Mrmoocow 01:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Recreation of prior AfD deletion by same editor. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 01:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 per Steve. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and other posters as G4 criteria. Big top 01:59, 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 08:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash City[edit]

Spam to print out your very own Wild West town Steve _(Slf67)^talk 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep looks like spam to me, all G-Hits are places were one can download this item. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Product of a nn company. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable near-spam.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. MER-C 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Meno25 07:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment seems like there should be a place for this somewhere... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cannibalicious! (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The place for it is its own website. Wikipedia does not exist to promote obscure websites.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What to hell??? Delete and burn.UberCryxic 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SPAM, V, etc. SkierRMH 04:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
k... delete and I'll try to hack into the guys website and send over the knights that say eep along with a trojan to return the favour. (just kidding) --CyclePat 05:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That really was the opposite of Super Special Awesome... whatever that is. JuJube 10:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam for a product with a niche so small you need a magnifying glass to find it. Seems like something only a bored 10 year-old without media access could enjoy (and do for free with colored pencils and other materials). Nate 12:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, partna boy howdy. JuJube 10:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. also WP:COI as the article was created by Special:Contributions/Erichotz. John Vandenberg 21:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Way to Your Heart[edit]

Article makes no claims to notability that would suggest inclusion under WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable Web Comic. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to be notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. It does not meet WP:NOTE.--Meno25 07:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technically, MER-C, but this article has been around for a long time and was created in good faith by a reputable editor - User:Merovingian. I'll point him to this discussion, rather than us just nixing the article as a speedy. ⇨REDVEЯS 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is that assuming bad faith, or just jumping the gun? I see no reason why an article should be speedied when it isn't damaging the encyclopedia or anything else, triply so when it's already in AfD. --Kizor 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability, no verifiable info from third-party relaible sources, etc. To address the above, no, it is not an assumption of bad faith to delete an article by any means. Simply deleting an article is not a judgment that the article's editors are trying to harm the encyclopedia. It is usually , as in this, a judgment that the article does not meet our content guidlines and policies. Even deletions by CSD G3 (pure vandalism) or G3 (attack pages) are not counter to WP:AGF as "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism," etc. -- Dragonfiend 19:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. "The Way to Your Heart" webcomic has only 37 unique hits. John Vandenberg 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy A7 by EdwinHJ. Tevildo 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whimville[edit]

Article makes no claims to notability. Fails WP:WEB as a result. Brad Beattie (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable Web Comic. If there weren't the links to confirm it, I would have presumed this to be suitable for {{db-nonsense}}! WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to be notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though it sounds like a fine vacation spot.--Tainter 03:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 08:04, 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 08:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Ninja Comics[edit]

Comic doesn't meet the notability requirements in WP:WEB. The previous AFD in mid-2005 reached no consensus. Brad Beattie (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Ronbo76 02:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable Web Comic. Evidently nothing has been found to establish notability since the last AfD. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Meno25 07:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 08:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "history" page on the official website says "Not only is there the audience of regular internet viewers, but many publications around the world have published White Ninja comics including, newspapers and magazines from San Diego, Montreal, New Zealand, Vancouver, Singapore, London, and Australia." However, I haven't found anything more specific yet. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find reliable third party sources, WP:VERIFY & WP:CITE, to establish acceptable notability, WP:NOTE. It get's a lot of ghits, I've seen the White Ninja thousands of times on various websites, I'm even a little bit of a fan. But I can't find much to help White Ninja Comics to meet wikipedia guidelines. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I hear this comic being discussed often and reffered often enough to consider it keep aworth--80.221.25.141 10:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to a concern template due to claims of wide publication that have not been confirmed nor deleted, most likely due to lack of manpower as this is a nonprominent article. (I shouldn't be here myself. I've got studying to do.) As things stand, insufficient data. --Kizor 23:37, 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 redirect to CO2 dragster per WP:HUEVOS by User:Tubezone Tubezone 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co2 cars[edit]

Not only is it extremely unclear what kind of "Co2 car" is being discussed here, but a wooden kind of car does not seem notable at all. Lunar Jesters _(talk) 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CO2 Dragster. Tevildo 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CO2 dragster (which is where I just moved the page above). I had a car made of wood once, the only problem was that it wooden go! --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:13, 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 08:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice History[edit]

Delete article that is redundant to the article about the TV series The Apprentice. Article title is also incorrectly capitalized. Doczilla 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not necessary. Note also about the capitalization. Big top 02:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN unverified cruft about people that have long since had their 15 minutes of fame --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everythingmentioned.Gan fon 02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, though it might be worth checking first to see if this isn't a rewrite-in-progress that escaped into article space; if it is, then userfy. 23skidoo 12:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant.-- danntm ^T _C 16:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. TonyTheTiger 19:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. John Vandenberg 23:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.UberCryxic 23:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all of above; note that the creator is blocked vandal User:EJBanks using a sockpuppet. --Quuxplusone 02:23, 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. Creator request. -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalinda Gray[edit]

Disputed prod. Concern: "No referenced assertion of notability to demonstrate the subject meets WP:BIO criteria." The only coverage I can find in secondary sources consists of passing mentions in a few local publications [6] and a photo in The Orange County Register [7]. Muchness 02:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - flunks WP:BIO. - IceCreamAntisocial 02:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - apparently it's also an autobiography. WP:COI. - IceCreamAntisocial 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all of the above.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above comments.Gan fon 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webfossil[edit]

Neologism with few Google hits outside of ads and plugs for the company. This article is spam for that company. De-prodded without changes by someone with the user name Webfossil, so there is a conflict of interest as well. - IceCreamAntisocial 02:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability - Aagtbdfoua 02:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEO and WP:WEB respectively. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Gan fon 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is quite spam-like.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam.--Meno25 07:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. MER-C 08:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Multiple topics on one article; WP:NEO; WP:SPAM. Fails WP:WEB due to only 75 unique hits. From the contrib history of Webfossil, the COI may only apply to the de-prod. John Vandenberg 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam. Medlat 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bozrah deliverance[edit]

Presumed original research JeremyBicha 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. according to the Bozrah article "biblical scholars" discuss this. but a lack of anything substantial on google makes me doubt that claim. seems like someone jumping up on their soapbox to me. --Tainter 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite clearly OR even if the topic, in theory, might warrant an article. I suppose it could be turned into a stub, but even then there needs to be a better reference.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete research.--Meno25 07:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research essay. MER-C 11:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and request for admin to look into possible sockpuppetry here - anon ISP 70.187.35.108 & 199.190.155.2 & (new 67.100.32.198) edit histories are just too coincidental! SkierRMH 05:09, 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 speedily deleted as vandalism, per WP:CSD#G3. -- Merope 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver economic[edit]

nonsense --SamMichaels 02:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Just H 02:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as nonsense and speedy delete. Big top 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete --Mhking 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete bunch of crap.--Tainter 03:13, 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 closure, re-implement redirect from prior AfD and protect it this time in lieu of speedy G4 deletion. —David Eppstein 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devonte_Hynes[edit]

The consensus for the previous deletion nomination debate (see below) was that the Devonte Hynes page should either redirect or be deleted, and yet soon after this decision, the page was resurrected by an anonymous user (IP 147.143.56.14). This resurrected page still fails to establish notability. The bands that Devonte Hynes has been involved in are not notable, and neither is Devonte, so I think the Devonte Hynes page should be deleted, and probably also protected to prevent resurrection. Medlat 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable musician. Keb25 05:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Test Icicles. There is a rough consensus to delete, so if the redirect is reverted without improving the article and establishing individual notability I might revise this closure and implement the consensus, but for now redirecting seems sufficient. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devonte Hynes[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Crumby article but there is plenty of information on him in relation to the Test Icicles seems just notable enough for me. Daniel J. Leivick 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ExpansionI wanted to expand on my reasons for keeping this article. While the article should be edited down, Hynes is the subject of articles in several reputable sources easily found in a google search, he is also an artist on a major record label that produces work from some of the UKs biggest bands like The Arctic Monkeys. If this article is deleted and the Martin Perreault is kept it will make me sad :( . --Daniel J. Leivick 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable member of an only marginally notable band; the article says it all ("most of what he does is hidden from the public.") --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to Test Icicles. Grutness...wha? 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, nn. Chris 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Medlat 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Admin, please let this run full 5 days for Daniel J. Leivick & others to fix this up.SkierRMH 05:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge some of the data to the Test Icicles page until he is notable enough on his own. Diabolical 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Devonte Hynez" turns up another ~150 ghits.
Weak keep. The article does need some work, and verifiable notability of "Devonte Hynes" and "Devonte Hynez" is weak, but notable all the same. It will take time to piece this together and find sources; Thequackquackquack and others that are working on this. John Vandenberg 00:11, 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 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euphres[edit]

Zero available info on this painting; All google results are either on the Euphrates River, or are mirrors of WP. Therefore, unnotable Blueaster 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I followed all the steps... All well, thanks, bot. Blueaster 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 02:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Zero relevant ghits - in fact the artist's own website doesn't even have any work that resembles this. Appears to be completely inaccurate. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Unknown painting. --Meno25 07:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vallejo has done some work that might be so described, although the substub is really too short to even know. Regardless, no assertion of notability at all; Vallejo is a productive artist with hundreds if not thousands of works. Paintings don't qualify under CSD A7, so no speedy, but the spirit's there. Serpent's Choice 09:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful example of where 'a picture is worth 1000 words'! Cant' find anything about this piece specifically, ergo WP:V. SkierRMH 05:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:40, 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Peters (TV anchor)[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Amnewsboy 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. She has a few regional Emmy awards, but I don't think that makes her notable enough. Jayden54 13:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable enough, that's quite a few awards. At least as notable as any other second-tier author or journalist who has won recognition through awards and their work. Tarinth 16:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FWIW, nominated for deletion by an admitted former co-worker. Strict interpretation of WP:BIO would qualify most television biography stubs of non-national anchors for deletion, including the entire Kansas television personalities category. 64.24.5.161 06:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Personally, I have no qualms with Susan -- I think she's a great anchor... but generally speaking, I don't think local television news anchors meet WP:BIO or WP:N (a similar debate is ongoing over Little Rock anchor Jancey Sheats). Do we write articles about Susan's co-anchors, the other anchors at KAKE, the anchors at the other stations in town, and the other stations in Kansas as well? Amnewsboy 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just find it strange that Amnewsboy has nominated only two local anchors for deletion: Susan and Jancey. Both from the two previous (smaller) cities where he has worked as a television producer. I presume he now only considers local television personalities from the largest 31 markets to be notable. I think Wikipedia is an appropriate place to chronicle the qualifications and broadcast histories of smaller market anchors. Official biographies listed on station web sites seem to be spun with a bias in favor of their current employer.64.24.4.114 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect -- my professional career has absolutely nothing to do with this. (I have no idea where you got that I ever worked in Little Rock, BTW.) If you have an opinion on the matter in general, I'd suggest voicing in with the WP Television Stations Project to reach some sort of guide that we can all live with -- and please, be civil. Amnewsboy 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the awards tip her into notability for wikipedia purposes...--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This newscaster has won five awards, one listed as an Emmy in 1994 during her 17 year career according to her station bio KAKE Bios Susan Peters including 1994 "Best Reporter Award" from the San Diego Press Club.

Comment I have no opinion but that was a local Emmy which there are a ton of. Quadzilla99 04:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a ton of Grammy Awards but they're still notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But document to avoid future AfD. --Kevin Murray 04:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm really not seeing the notability here, as with WP:PROF, what distinguishes her from any other local anchor (and local Emmys don't cut it for me)? --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the awards, a television anchor is at the top tier of the broadcast journalism profession ("just an anchor" is almost like saying someone is "just a rock star"--sure, the subject of this article is not Dan Rather but we don't limit musicians only to John Lenon either). Add to this the fact that a new anchor is a significant public personality, seen by at least hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions), and I think it's clear that she and anyone similar are way over the minimum bar for Wikipedia notability. Tarinth 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. Local Emmys don't mean squat really. TJ Spyke 06:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly on this one way or the other, but it is an award much more impressive than anything I've ever won - it's not trivial and is widely recognized and I'm a little surprised it's a bone of contention (she won an Emmy, but it's just a local Emmy). --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to verify the claim of a 1994 national News & Documentary Emmy Award. I looked through the list published in the Los Angeles Times[8], and the only medical-sounding story which won an award was one about "Morgan Medical" by ABC. I looked this up too in Factiva and this story was about medical insurance fraud, not organ transplants. It was also a news investigation which was focussed on Los Angeles (no mention of being in LA in Peters' station bio, and only work for ABC mentioned was in Illinois. It's still possible (but unverified) that she somehow worked on this story's team or that she worked for a winning team which gave its organ transplant story a completely non-medical sounding title. However, we would still need to know what role she played - was she the lead reporter? the junior reporter? the assistant junior reporter? The junior researcher? etc etc

There are 20 regional chapters of the National Television Academy[9]. Using the Nashville/Mid-South chapter as a sampling, each chapter awards 60 Regional Emmys year[10]. As a rough guide, that means that there are 1,200 Regional Emmys awarded annually. This anchor has won 2 Regional Emmys + some more obscure and even more local broadcasting awards (San Deigo Press Club/Best Reporting in Kansas UPI award etc.... The Golden Mic award appears to be a local charity-awareness award? Anyway, unable to verify her receiving this award [11]). I'm skeptical that a regional Emmy award is sufficient indication of encycloppedic notability, and have been unable to verify her winning these awards either. Wikipedia really needs a guideline for assessing awards/prizes/fellowships/contest wins etc though - most of them out there are not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 06:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Edeans 07:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO. Edison
Delete Until she hits a major market or has longer tenure merge with network or something. TonyTheTiger 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Don't agree with any discrimination based on market size. I'm satisfied that multiple regional Emmy awards indicate that someone has made a notable contribution to their work, but this claim needs to be sourced, at least to the level of which awards she won, in which years, for what.Eludium-q36 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's notable enough. I think WP will survive her inclusion! Like to see a few more refs, though . . . --Wehwalt 16:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as repost of deletion from last year. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hemispheric Partners[edit]

This article could go somewhere, but right now, all it is is just the name of the company, its founder, and its official web site. It has stayed this way since June, so I don't think that this article is going anywhere anytime soon. Diez2 03:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this isn't much different from an article about a band or record label or webcomic that is not currently notable but might be someday.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and advertisement.--Meno25 07:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this seems like WP:SPAM.-- danntm ^T _C 18:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the founder may have some notability, this is just a spam-stub. SkierRMH 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied - don't any of you check the log? This is essentially identical to an article deleted last June. Looks like it was re-created just four days after it was deleted... Grutness...wha? 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Opabinia regalis, no notability asserted. Tubezone 06:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Machín[edit]

Ooo, wow. A group of digital art curators in Spain. Anything else? No notability, no verification. Diez2 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no notability asserted, so tagged. BTW, machín is also a Mexican swear word (short for lo más chingon), the creators probably don't know that ;-) Tubezone 04:02, 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 and merge into appropriate page(s). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bentiromide (data page)[edit]

Orphaned data dump, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. MER-C 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All the info is available from the links in the main Bentiromide article, and we don't need this level of detail in a general encyclopedia. Tevildo 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Meno25 07:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These data dump pages are common, as it was part of a standard template. My guess is that it has been orphaned accidentally; looks like a matter for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry to look into. John Vandenberg

Being common is no excuse for keeping the article. And if they violate WP:NOT#IINFO, which they probably do, then they all need to go. Further down today's AFDs, I'm taking on a walled garden of more than 250 articles of pure fancruft. This is also similar to Ohconfucius's successful systematic purge of 150+ stubs on unremarkable masts, which is just winding up. MER-C 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of this material should be merged into the main article. Your vague use of WP:NOT#IINFO is not helpfull. What is an encyclopedia if it is not giving the reader information? I agree with John Vandenberg that time should be given for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry to think about this. It certainly is not fancruft. --Bduke 21:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge. Ideally everything in Category:Chemical data pages would be merged into their respective articles. Every bit of data in these pages is verifiable with reliable sources. I don't think afd is the proper route for this sort of cleanup. Make a note of it at the proper Wikiproject talk page. --- RockMFR 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above. -- Librarianofages 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe Merge. The data is verifyable, tells about the compound, so I don't see why this would not be encyclopedic (and that goes for other datapages as well). I really don't see where this fits into WP:NOT#INFO, NONE of these points apply, the closest I get is point 4, instruction manual. But there it does state "while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things" (this is a thing, IMHO), which would be in favour of keeping, since it is not one of the not-items following that statement. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or maybe Keep. The information is useful, but there is very little in the data page that is not in the main article already, so it could be merged. I think it is unlikely that we will ever have enough data on this molecule so that it really deserves a data page to avoid distracting from the main article, which makes me lean towards merge rather than keep. I disagree that Wikipedia doesn't deserve this level of detail because it is a "general encyclopedia". Here I guide myself on the principle that Wikipedia is not paper. Itub 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure the 'pubchem' link is in Bentiromide. Why do we have these data pages? If I am interested in Bentiromide's properties and my career (or life?) depends on it, I will go to Bentiromide (after searcing for "Bentiromide" not "Bentiromide (data)", so a merge is irrelevant) and from there to the external source. This is an encyclopaedia that summarises chemicals and their use. It is not a duplicate of better maintained, exclusive repositories of chemical data. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 00:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe Merge : This page contains verifiable and useful data. This is not just a data dump. JoJan 09:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a not WP:Chem data page, although many of those would also be subject to the comments made about this one. WP:Chem data pages should not be "indiscrimate" commections of data: they came into being because the {{chembox}} was becoming ridiculously long, and yet people still wished to add more data to it (in fact, they still do). Other science projects, notably WikiProject Elements, use the (data page) suffix to give basic data which might otherwise be the subject of revert wars over sources. This approach has been in use for a couple of years now without obvious problems. Physchim62 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete: useful information already well covered in Bentiromide page. Also the physical properties / hazards section does not provide any information at all except links to articles on NMR , IR etc (but not an actual NMR spectrum!). This is cheating the audience, a section on information that simply is not there. V8rik 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant merge: I like the page, but it does seem to duplicate much of what is in the main page's infobox. These things should be standardized.--Wehwalt 16:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jlt[edit]

There is nothing here that makes this Indian magazine notable. It fails WP:CORP and should be deleted. Diez2 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no assertion of notability whatsoever. Article creators should be aware that it's their resposibility to establish noteworthiness when creating an article. Quadzilla99 04:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 06:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Eastmain 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete. ~50 google hits for the domain name timesjlt.com. Requires login to access articles/forum/etc. John Vandenberg 09:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, 'JLT magazine' gets 270 ghits, 'Just like that magazine' gets 1! SkierRMH 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've added the info about mag to Times Group. utcursch | talk 13:19, 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 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Report on Knowledge[edit]

Non-notable student publication as it hasn't been subject to multiple independent reports. Google hasn't heard of them. Contested prod. MER-C 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing that would make this publication notable is if they won an award or were the subject of some press. Per nom... Diez2 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 06:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now my maths is a little rusty, but if "there are approximately 3 issues per year" and this is "volume 2 number 1" [12] then that gives us grand total of ... four issues...ever. The entire article is just spammy sales-pitching and OR, with no meaningful assertion of notability. Google produces only 40 distinct hits [13], with this article already in at number 2. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHow come it wasn't deleted for so long? Not notable. --Meno25 07:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim flowery words. Notable due to being a source of high profile interviews. John Vandenberg 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one reference cited in the article is the only one I could find on LexisNexis and NewsBank. It may be notable in time, but there's not enough published material about it yet. -SpuriousQ 09:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently sourced to establish notablity.-- danntm ^T _C 21:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by EdwinHJ. MER-C 06:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gods Bible[edit]

Original research essay. Unverifiable (WP:V), no reliable sources (WP:RS) and is original research (WP:NOR). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly original research that will lack verifyable reliable sources. Peripitus (Talk) 04:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Herostratus 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no brainer. JuJube 05:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research; pretty easy to see this as an article in need of deletion. Ravensfan5252 06:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc.[edit]

vanity article created by a role account used by the organization the article is about. Does not satisfy WP:CORP for clubs, societies, and organizations. - ∅ (∅), 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Josh Parris#: 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 07:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The organization's website "mamiwata.com" gets 6 Google Books hits and several unique Google hits. The full society name gets 1 unique Google hit that is not in reference to the book they published and none on Google books. No vote. — BrianSmithson 08:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Mami Wata Healers Society of North America (formerly OATH) is not a vanity article. It is a serious, and legitmate, legal 501(c)3, non-profit African/Diaspora Religious organization. One of MWHS (OATH) achievements has been proactive in changing the way some branches of African Religions are classifed i.e., cults. It deserves the same protection, respect and rights as any legal public entity.--MWHS 13:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please present evidence that MWHS has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of MWHS itself, or that it is an English men's football club competing in Levels 1-10 of the English football league system. - ∅ (∅), 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not understand your response. Please clarify and provide Wikilinks for the criteria for Religious Organizations to be profiled.--MWHS 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did, in the nomination. - ∅ (∅), 10:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- nomination? Where is the link? Please, we are new to this particular appeal process, and do not understand your response. Again, please clarify and provide Wikilinks for the criteria for Religious Organizations to be profiled. Thank you.--MWHS 16:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if this applies or not since it's just a proposed guideline at the moment: Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). Dmoon1 21:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have noticed that Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) states that"References or links to their page should not describe it as "policy." We also understand this to mean that there has not been any formal concensus established criteria/policies for religious "congregations/organizations, under both of the proposed criteria. We must ask what specific critera were you employing in your sudden proposal to delete our African Ancestral Religious Organization? Please assist us by stating the criteria justifying your proposal. We are able and willing to respond to your request if you can offer a more specific established policy that we can read, understand and respond to accordingly. Thank you for the link and we look forward to your response..--MWHS 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main concern of the nominator and Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) is the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), especially the section Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations, as well as the guideline Wikipedia:Spam, particularly the section Advertisements masquerading as articles since the tone of Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. is not what one expects to find in an encyclopedia. Dmoon1 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is also applicable and strongly advocates that members of organizations such as this not write articles about themselves; if you're notable, someone unaffiliated will eventually write an article about you. -- BrianSmithson 05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your feedback. We have reviewed all of the wikilinks listed, and based on our understanding,could not find any of the suggested guidelines which would indicate to us that we are in violation. The very ancestral & religious nature of the Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc., precludes it from being a forum for WP:Spam#Advertisements,proselytizing or recruitment. It simply is not possible. Additionally in reading the suggested guidelines on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page, we have avoided linking any Wikipedia article to our religious corporation. Wat was also clear in reading each article was that all were simply general guidelines as oppose to official policy, the article further stating that the most severest penalty which may be imposed in the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is that it "may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client." Nonetheless, in consideration for your concerns, what we have done is to re-read the MWHS article, and can always agree that the article can be improved so as not to offer the appearance that our intention is to recruit. In that regard, we are open to anyone rewriting the article or submitting a link to an example of how a Religious organization is presented in encyclopedic form.Thank you again for your comments and feedback.--MWHS 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main problems of the article is that it copies almost word-for-word the text found on the MWHS website. This brings into question the neutrality of the article, among other things. Dmoon1 19:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have edited it to what we believe you are suggesting. Again, if you have a link to an example,we will review it and consider all suggestions for editing. Thanks.--MWHS 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of the debate above, the article fails to establish notability per Wikipedia:Verifiability which is policy. Nuttah68 13:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing Reliable/Verifiable Sources

As a non-profit Religious entity, the MWHS can easily be verified through the following reliable sources:

Georgia Secretary of State
United States Patent and Trademark Office see also on-line pdf doc pg. 1& 2
Columbia County see also on-line pdf doc pg. 3 for current licensure
Library of Congress. The MWHS is notable for petitioning to change the name of African Diaspora religions from cult to religion

All of the above meets Wikipedia:Verifiability policy/standards. Again, as Wiki administrators, if you can assist us by providing an example of how a Religious entity is presented in encyclopedic form we will certainly re-edit the article.--MWHS 23:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Viv, that only proves that your organization exists, it doesn't mean you're notable enough that we need an article about you. You see, we don't only delete articles for being in violation of policy, we delete them because we simply don't need them. Wikipedia is not a collection of every single thing that exists; this is an encyclopedia, and what deletion debates are about is whether the article merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. So far the consensus seems to be that your organization is hardly any more notable than the bowling alley across the street, and the "ancestral & religious nature" of your organization has nothing to do with it. It's just that there are a lot of bowling alleys in the world, and we simply don't need an article about each individual one. We have an article about bowling and that's enough. Likewise, there are a lot of religious organizations in the world, many of them claiming "ancestral" status, and your organization is no different. Sorry. - ∅ (∅), 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We believe that the MWHS has met all of the challenges presented to us to satisfy both Wikipedia:Verifiability policy/standards,and Wikipedia:notaility. Yet your response offers nothing other than a personal opinion as oppose to wikikpolicy of which we are not in violation. We also take offense to your disrespectful tone in addressing our organization founder and your derisive characterization of our religious organization. My name is Anagossii, the MWHS secretary whom you are corresponding. We have been respectful of you and it is policy that you extend the same. It is clear that you are determined to delete the article no matter what is presented. You may do so. However, in the meantime, we have made a copy of this transcript and will fax it to the Board of Directors at Wikipedia along with a letter of complaint. We believe it is important for them to obtain first hand knowledge of the tone, and spirit, and (what we believe is) abuse in which some of its admins and editors are responding. We must know directly from them if they (Board members) are in complicity or are quietly sanctioning such behavior.. Anagossii--MWHS 15:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think comparing a religious organization to a bowling alley is helpful to anyone. (A little more WP:CIVIL, please!) The Mami Wata article indicates the general subject of Mami Wata has significant notability in Africa. The difficulty is in coming up with evidence that this North American organization has attracted attention in its own right. It is perhaps unfair that non-Western religious movements, whether new or traditional, are somewhat handicapped in this respect. For what it's worth, the organization claims to constitute a denomination rather than a local church or congregation, so it's not clear that the Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) policy, which may require special evidence of local notability over and above that of the denomination, applies. Although it can be debated which policy is applicable, evidence of notability from one or more independent sources appears, fairly or not, to be an element underlying essentially all the variants of the notability policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to check e.g. the University of Virginia's Religious Movements website, [14]. --Shirahadasha 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shirahadasha. You are correct MWHS does not proclaim to be a separate entity from its ancestral roots of the Mami Wata traditions in West Africa. Our society was aided in its very establishment by elders of Mami Wata from Togo, West Africa. Within our own religio-cultural milieu, we are very much notable for having established the tradition in North America since the suppression of African religions in America during slavery and Reconstruction. Additionally, within our organization we display the photo and credentials from Togo of our founder and other legal documents that are required by both our tradition and the state and local county. The bigoted and disparaging manner in which our African Ancestral Religious Society and its members are treated here is indicative of its long history of racism, suppression and discrimination in the USA. However, we are not deterred. We understand this history and the motivation behind it, and will continue to contribute and challenge what some of these editors and admin have made self-evident.Apokassii--MWHS 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are requesting that the naysayers demanding deletion of this article, provide tangible evidence and convincing argument that the MWHS is not deemed notable under Wiki notability policy in spite of the numerous Reliable sources provided. If sufficient Wiki policy and agrument cannot be provided within two days, we have no choice but to consider this issue settled, and will remove the AfD message. Anagossii --MWHS 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've read the debate and am not convinced of notability. Or else merge anything useful into the main Mami Wata article.--Wehwalt 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Your vote is acknowledged. However, again, we are requesting that the naysayers demanding deletion of this article, provide tangible evidence and convincing argument that the MWHS is not deemed notable under Wiki notability policy in spite of the numerous Reliable sources provided. This would prove more helpful to us. Anagossii --MWHS 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Tubezone 04:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seo thailand[edit]

A how-to guide on boosting a website's visibility on search engines. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from [15]--FreeKresge 04:20, 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.

2010 BCS National Championship Game[edit]

The result was Redirect to BCS National Championship Game. Johntex\^talk 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Plus there's almost no information right now and probably won't be for 2 years. Delete this, thought if you guys prefer a redirect that works too. Wizardman 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article won't be anything more than a stub for a couple of years. TJ Spyke 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information in the 2008, 2009, and 2010 articles is all verifiable. No harm in keeping it as a stub for a few years. --- RockMFR 06:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find it right this second, but WP policy says sports events should be +1, meaning only the next event should be covered. So an article on the 2008 game is arlight (and 2009 I think), 2010 is not. TJ Spyke 06:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds right. Hence why I'm keeping 2008 and 2009 up. Per RockMFR's comment, yeah it's no harm keeping it in that condidition, but seeing how short that is means there's no harm in deleting it either. --Wizardman 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No benefit at this point to creating it and having a stub. Wait until there is enough coverage to make an article. Edison 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I don't think the sports +1 is any kind of policy. If so you'd have to delete a lot of pages like 2018 Winter Olympics. There is nothing of value in the article that can't be recreated instantly when the time comes. Information about where the game is can be found on BCS National Championship Game for the time being. Perhaps change this into a redirect to that article. I have listed this at WikiProject College football for more input on the matter. The 2009 article could probably be deleted/redirected as well until the same premise that we could redo it to the same state easily and nothing will be lost. The 2008 article should definitely be kept, though it might not see expansion beyond what it is until August-November. --MECU≈talk 20:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a member of the college football WikiProject, I also say delete. This game is way too far in the future to warrant an article. Especially consider there will be so significant developments for this game for a long until, unlike, say 2020 Summer Olympics. NMajdan•talk 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I support Mecu's suggestion of a redirect to BCS National Championship Game. And I would support this action for the 2009 article and beyond.--NMajdan•talk 20:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect 2010 and 2009 as mentioned above. This is way to early for these articles. For all we know there will be a playoff system by 2010. VegaDark 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content, but Keep as a redirect (per MECU≈talk & NMajdan•talk). Once the the event is closer, then it can be converted back into a meaningful article. In fact, if this article continues to exist as a redirect, then perhaps users won't be tempted to recreate.--Tlmclain | Talk 21:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a member of the College football WikiProject, this is still too early. Some far-future articles can be kept, but not this one. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly crystalballing. And depending on the whims of the University Presidents, this game may not even exist in 2010.-- danntm ^T _C 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Until a couple of year, then re-open. CJC47 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mecu & Tlmclain above. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mecu. Keep the 2008 article. Redirect 2009 and 2010 (and any past that) to BCS National Championship Game. Johntex\^talk 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and close this one as a redirect to BCS National Championship Game. Johntex\^talk 18:14, 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 12:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Pirate Club[edit]

Nom - speedied once already. Self-sourced student club - should be merged with the school's main or team article. Rklawton 05:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it has 2900 members as it claims it may very well be notable. For now I'll say tentative merge to ECU until I can find a source for that number. --Wizardman 06:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in a school of 24,000 students, I wouldn't think that a booster club of 2,900 would be all that notable. Indeed, the opposite might be true. Rklawton 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this schoolcruft. Yaar! Edeans 08:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club. MER-C 11:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If anything is informative, merge it to East Carolina University. Jyothisingh 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment their website [16] gives the 2900 members.

Question The picture on the article, is there any way that they could confirm that all those pictured were members of the group? Don't know if that would be criteria for IfD. SkierRMH 05:32, 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. --Core desat 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Madden[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, three album releases all on his own label. Almost all editing by two new accounts, both of which only edit Bill Madden. Google search brings up this Bill Madden as top hit, because of URL. Subsequent Bill Maddens are a lawyer, a columnist, an actor, a lecturer - but no-one else talking about the musician. Delete and purge all references (extensive insertion into Wikipedia "List of" articles). Josh Parris#: 06:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC — Currently on rotation on national TV - MTVU [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racewayjr (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 January 2007 - 1st edit (sockpuppet?)
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 15:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article fooled me. I would have thought he was more notable based on a quick skim. TonyTheTiger 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and above. SkierRMH 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. This is my first article on Wikipedia and, with all due respect, I worked my arse off researching and writing. In addition, I adhered to Wikipedia rules and standards. User:TonyTheTiger noted, “The article fooled me.” Fooled you? How did it fool you? Please elucidate. User:SkierRMH said, “WP:V and above.” Please identify what exactly is not verifiable. It is extremely discouraging to be a first time contributer and feel obligated to respond to what appear to be weak arguments and hastely developed conclusions, influenced by peer opinion. I’m open to debate and, if necessary, I will provide you with my research. I don’t want to bore you with another article here expressing my frustration. However, I do kindly request your guidance. I am proud of my first article and don’t want to see it removed. Thank you for your time and anticipated assistance. Windwall 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedias are about notable subjects; WP:MUSIC defines what Wikipedia considers notable is in the case of musicians etc. The article as it stands does not assert any of the points in WP:MUSIC. Further suggestions are the editing history and the lack of independent, verifiable sources. I understand how hard it is to work up a good bio, which your article is a good start towards. But the subject of the article doesn't seem to be notable. Josh Parris#: 06:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point, "The article as it stands does not assert any of the points in WP:MUSIC" is well taken. However, this is easily remedied (chalk it up to ignorance of a novice). I will merely modify the article so that prima facie and on its face asserts the relevant points in WP:MUSIC; specifically, points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles and point 1 in the criteria for composers and lyricists. Quite frankly, I'm exhausted at the moment (just got back from class where the subject was ironically "burden of proof" after a full day of work). As you can imagine, I'm not up to digging up the research at the moment; however, I will update this information over the weekend. In addition, my next article, the Independent Movement, highly relevant to the achievements of this notable independant artist, as well as other notable indies, such as Devandrah Bernhart and Willy Mason, et all, will be highlighted. Apparently, I will need to prematurely post that article to further substantiate my work! Windwall 22:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I commented earlier that I would make the revisions to my article this weekend. I'm a huge stickler to my word so just in case anyone is remotely concerned, I'm posting a comment here to let whoever cares or may have an interest that I'm still working on my research. I didn't get done as quickly as I thought I would. Perhaps this exercise is creating a better writer in me. In any case, I hope to have the substantiations requested by midnight tonight so I can keep my word. Windwall 20:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite midnight; however, I'm close. I have rewritten the article. Quite frankly, I'm uncertain what to do next as I don't want to violate any more rules (it's not fun being rejected). I researched Wikipedia's rules and here's what I gleamed as to what I need to do next: apparently, I need to add cleanup to my article, then I am free to make the edits to my article to address the points raised, then sit and wait. Correct? Again, your guidance is appreciated. I must say, writing articles for Wikipedia is much more complicated than I ever contemplated. It takes much more time and energy than I think I have at this time in my life. But I'll give it my best shot. Please take my ignorance into consideration from this point forward. Thank you for your patience. Windwall 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making good headway in the structure of the article. I've been looking through it and I still can't see text supporting points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles - perhaps I've missed it? Is it in footnotes? The article itself ought to read like "Tom McExample is most famous for setting fire to pants while still being worn by the President of Lithuania; the resulting burns led to the Lithuania-Madagascar war of 1698." so the reader is immediately told why they ought to be interested in Tom. Josh Parris 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the references to substantiate points 5, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles are in the footnotes, as outlined here:

Point 5: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Please see Contributing Members, each of these individuals has made a significant contribution.

Point 8: Has won or placed in a major music competition. Please see footnotes identified as nos. 10, 15, and 25.

Point 9: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. Please see footnotes identified as nos. 6 (MTVU Main Playlist), 7 (MuchMusic), 16 (MTV The Real World Boston), and 17 (MTV The Real World Boston).

Point 10: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Please see footnote identified as no. 37.

Point 7: Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award. As for this point, I do not know if this qualifies as major but it is noted here for you nevertheless, please see footnote identified as no. 25.

Regarding your recommendation as to how the article itself should read, I will revise accordingly. However, I have to work all week and I have classes every night. Due to my schedule and workload in school, I won't have the opportunity to make these revisions until the weekend. Thank you for your continued patience and guidance.

On another note that is relevant, I see the deletes and feel highly discouraged. With all due respect, Madden is more notable than some of his contemporaries who are listed in Wikipedia. I have done significant research these past two days and I have noted artists that don't have as much information substantiated as the work I've had to dig up. I don't want to single any of those artists out on this board because that, in my opinion, is disrespectful of the significance of art and prefer not to provide this information. It just does't seem fair or just. The fact that there is no intelligent discussion I feel gives Wikipedians a negative light. It is disappointing that people do not join in our discussion and simply hide behind per nom without elucidating why my article should be deleted. Windwall 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom-DE SU 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool Hand Luke 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Lost Live Album[edit]

Bootleg record, fails WP:V (reliable sources about this record?) It probably exists, like most bootlegs, but beyond that? Bootlegs are like self-published or illegal books: anyone can make them, that doesn't make them encyclopedic or verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. No multiple verifiable sources are available for this subject (the one source given, while probably correct, is not reliable per WP:V). Fram 06:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - & according to Genesis discography this is not part of their official discography. (Tricky little infobox there, no?). SkierRMH 05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to sources added since beginning of AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesall Road[edit]

Contested prod. It's a long road, not a highway, nor a village. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents. No WP:V sources about the road (not just mentioning it in passing as the address of some shop or so) look to be available. Fram 06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find sources, article does not assert the subject's notability. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 11:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ecclesall Road is one of the first roads people (students maybe) know when arriving in Sheffield to live, and it is a well-known shopping area. My girlfriend will often go there to shop, and many friend will head there for it's shops or the pool lounge. Saying "Ecclesall Road shops" would be like talking of the "London Road restaurants" or "Crystal Peaks Shopping Centre". It certainly has the same retail area as Crystal Peaks! In addition, it is a former toll road, as mentioned in the article itself and Hunter's Bar, and it is a major arterial route into the city. L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 13:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with A625 road - enough incoming links to be notable. --Henrygb 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself can not be used to determine notability, and most of the links just say 'it intersects Ecclesall Road', 'It is bordered by Ecclesall road', 'this rural road is a continuation of Ecclesall road', ... Fram 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a road with shops, restaurants, public transport and houses nearby that has existed more than a hundred years. All nice, but not notable. Nuttah68 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as is, keep, perhaps also list in the relevant watch list for more rigourous debate -- Librarianofages 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Lack of verifiability is not sufficient reason to delete this article—it is a road, its existence can be verified quite simply by looking at a map. The article is currently uncited, but that is only reason to request a cleanup, not reason for deletion. I'm fairly sure that I could find sources for most of the facts in the article. This road is a major arterial road in one of Britain's larger cities—whether that alone makes it notable enough for its own article is a matter of opinion; I would tend to think not, but then there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about things that I would regard as much less notable, so my bar of notability may be too high. Merging with A625 road seems like a good option that should be considered. —JeremyA 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see Wikipedia:Verifiability. First line -The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability-. Nuttah68 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to disagree with the start of your opinion: lack of verifiability is the main reason why articles should get deleted, and if nothing beyond it's existence and trivial mentions can be sourced, then we have to delete it. However, if the problem for the notable parts (whichever they may be, having shops is not really one of them) is not lack of verifiability but lack of verification, then the situation may change. User talk:Captain scarlet seems to think that sourcing should be easy, so I suppose that can be done before the end of this AfD. Otherwise, it are only claims that it can be done, and then the article can better be recreated once anyone actually has those sources... Fram 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Please re-read what I said above. I know that lack of verifiability is a reason for article deletion. My argument is that lack of verifiability is not a good reason for deleting this article as most, if not all, of the information contained within this article is clearly verifiable. —JeremyA 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs a lot of work, but there is a lot of notability about this road, including a lot more historical stuff that could added. Deletion is not the answer. Cleaning and sources are. If merge is the conclusion, also merge in Hathersage Road (Sheffield), another part of the A625. --Bduke 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is one of the primary roads in Sheffield, not just a little street. --Oakshade 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tag for clean-up Notability is established. That there are no sources currently cited is not a reason to delete. Only if, after research, no sources actually exist to cite should we delete.Eludium-q36 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep but verify as soon as possible. Regan123 16:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vial[edit]

The only claim to notability this comic has is that it's a spin-off of a comic hosted on Keenspot. Fails WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 15:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be far too small. Merge to a note on the main comic's article, though, as a spin-off is a significant part of a comic's history. --Kizor 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "minor" WP:COI the author (of the webcomic & the article User:The Webtroll) was so nice to sign this article. SkierRMH 05:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:41, 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 12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The black diamond effect[edit]

Early digital comic which appeared in 1991-1992 and 1998. It certainly seems obscure and fails WP:WEB. The creator of the comic is also the author of the article, never a good sign. Google results are very sparse, no reviews or descriptions or similar references. The artist/author he claims that the techiques he used broke new ground. Whether this is true and whether other artists were influenced by this comic I cannot say, but this would be the only thread on which to hang the existance of this article, I think. But if it is true, it seems to have left no evidence whatsoever on the web. (The comic is on-line here but requires a plugin.) Herostratus 06:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:CITE backing up any claim of WP:NOTABILITY. DMacks 08:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable comic. JIP | Talk 11:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 15:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your dicussion, and exactly what more proof do you need? Prior to establishing the domainsite, my web existence was through an internet provider iSTAR in Toronto, Canada. ex. "istar.ca/~tbdeinc". Surely, "Non-notable comic," is not a strong point for deletion. I have kept my activity on marketing my comics to the minimum. But they ARE out there. In fact, my current run has been designed to help and spark education for brain injury children. Varify this by going to biaph.com. Phone/fax/email them for confirmation. Granted my comicbook doesn't have a large distribution, but I have produced techniques that were ground breaking for comics. The first issue had 3 press runs alone! Diamond Comic Distributors provided quotes of my book at the time. CSN ran an article on my first issue. The current issues are distributed to doctors, caregivers, lawyers and hosptals. What other publisher does what I do? Please consider my comic title for the Wikipedia. - 11:40 EST Toronto, January 9 2007
- Why is none of that mentioned in the article? What we need is pretty straightforward: verifiable citations from reliable sources attesting to the notability of this comic. DMacks 20:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional, I have a federal registered trademark THE BLACK DIAMOND EFFECT in CANADA, USA and abroad. You can varify this by finding me in the Library of Congress. - 11:46 EST Toronto, January 9 2007
Delete Having a trademark, does nothing to establish notability. What is needed is sources, the CSN article would be a start, but most likely at least a couple more will be necessary. Daniel J. Leivick 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTABILITY --Mhking 21:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of contacting all the places that have done an article on my book. I just need some time as it is, I am contacting all the people after the holidays and their schedules are tight. George P. Gatsis - 4:39 pm EST - 9 January 2007
Additional re: techniques; comparing the artwork in The Black Diamond Effect, (line, resolution and style) against Batman Digital Justice and Shatter that came out around the same time and before, you will see a clear distance in the quality and techniques or lack of in the other books. Before and after all the digitally produced comics were noticably BITMAP'd and had not achieved the level of artwork manipulation which combined vector and bitmap artwork from page to page. BTW, still working on contacting the reviewers. GPG 7:40pm EST, 9 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbdeinc2 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This technique comparison is original research, if you want to include it, a reputable source must have published the information. Also why contact these reviewers before giving us their names and publishers, no reason to wait for them to respond. Finally please review wikipedia: conflict of interest as the creator of this work you are discouraged from editing the article concerning it or its deletion nomination pages, in my mind if a the creator is the only person arguing for notability it probably is not notable. Daniel J. Leivick 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPG is my abbreviation of George Peter Gatsis (tbdeinc2). As for the reviewers, I am trying to track them down, why I haven't given out their names, is because they have reviewed my books over 15 years ago. The hard copies are somewhere with all my boxed books, stashed away or quite possibly thrown in the garbage, not sure yet. Until I actually track down the people to their new employement positions (alot happens in over 15 years) I won't be able to link or provide proof. As it is one of the newspapers Toronto Computes, that reviewed my book -the first review too- has merged with another publication or was bought out, don't know. But I've made the calls and sent out emails, to everyone. So to review: I have a 17 year old federal trademark, i have ISSN publication number, I am listed in the Library of Congress as well as the Library and Archives Canada, and pretty soon will have contacted the reviewers of my book. Anything else in terms of proof? George Peter Gatsis 9:04 est, january 9, 2007

I think there may be a misunderstanding, I have zero doubt that this comic is real no proof is required, I do doubt it is notable and a couple of 15 year old book reviews from Canadian computer newspapers will do little to change my feelings on this. A list of reviews might help users determine whether or not this article is notable, if it is not possible to link to them it is still worth giving out the information. Daniel J. Leivick 02:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Diamond Effect is not a webcomic, it is created/published by traditional/digtial means, printed and distributed. After which is made available online for immediate download. A webcomic is produced and distributed only on the web. I've made it a mission to stay away from the classicifaction of webcomic for 17 years. Correct me if I'm wrong. Sincerely, George Peter Gatsis 8:44am, 10 January - 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.107.86.20 (talk) 13:48, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RX-78 Gundam[edit]

When I came across this article and saw the template at the bottom of the page, I thought "You've gotta be kidding!" This article forms part of a massive walled garden of more than 100 articles of pure, unadultered, unverifiable through reliable non-fan sources and non-notable fancruft. Only one article is nominated here to set a precedent. Contested prod. MER-C 06:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As mentioned before, the Gundam is not only a hero in a pop cultural series, but is a world known icon. If people are so bent on deleting this, then why don't they want to delete the Luke Skywalker page. What's with all this picking on Gundam? TurnATitans

Note: In addition to this AfD, there is also a similar AfD with regards to the Early Universal Century Mobile weapons template at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja- if a precedent is set by these, it would apply to all the template articles listed. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I personally understand it, the RX-78 and direct variants are the main vehicles used by Earth in the Gundam (Universal Century) anime series, and as such would be the most "deserving" article of this collection to remain. -- saberwyn 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Japanese cultural icon, and the main character of a huge franchise. Very much so notable. Yzak Jule 07:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Yzak Jule 08:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quoth WP:FICT: "articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot". If these cartoon robots are indeed cultural icons (beyond the franchise of which they are part), I suggest producing reliable sources to that effect. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The article in question does precisely this! Did you read the article first before voting? I would remind the closing admin that AfD is NOT A VOTE. Kyaa the Catlord 12:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only refs in the article at the time IslaySolomon made his comment were links to a Japanese language encyclopedia's book sales page on Amazon.co.jp. Since Islay made his comment, further reference links have been added, but these do not show "cultural influence" Bwithh 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you did not read anything at all. Having appearance in another anime is good enough to be cultural influence, not to mention the Pepsi cap collection, garage kit model by independent parties and following series using its name Gundam as a subtitle for a series of mecha. MythSearcher^talk 15:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did read the references - being one part in a video game which is about anime robots anyway, being a "cameo" in another cartoon, and being part of a Pepsi promo campaign involving gundam toys are not I would call "cultural influence". You really need to tone down the attitude, if you want to persuade people by the way Bwithh 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is this "cultural influence" references you are seeking for, you name it, I will show it to you. I am tired of me showing a bunch of references and deletionist keep saying those are not cultural references. BTW, the Sgt. Frog appearance is not just cameo, the main character in that series built a model of RX-78 and even got a suit that is exactly like RX-78(only the head is removed so that Keroro himself could be place there instead). This is enough to show "cultural influence" of this specified mecha as an cultural icon in anime for me. MythSearcher^talk 16:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Simpsons#Cultural_impact for an example of a sensible and substantive cultural influence/impact section. Promotional toys, video games that are directly about anime robots and a minor appearance in a cartoon ("cameo" was a term used by whoever wrote that part of the article, not just me) are things which belong in a other appearances in pop culture trivia section, and are not evidence that this robot has influenced other cultural activities in a substantial, meaningful way. Bwithh 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two part !vote For the "real life" section - properly reference and contextualize the claims to be a cultural icon by the end of this afd. If this is done - keep. If not, then delete. For the "In fiction" section-which-is-actually-an-excuse-for-a-mountain-of-unencyclopedic-fancruft - delete all the robot descriptions and pictures i.e. 95-100% of this section. Actually, since this robot thingy is NOT REAL, the whole point of an "In Fiction" section is somewhat misleading. If a little bit is kept, section should be renamed or rethought.Bwithh 07:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per IslaySolomon. Not connected to reality. This wiki is for earthlings MiracleMat 07:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Did you bother to read the article? It discusses the real world design, the pop culture impact and then goes into the mecha's involvement in the plot of the First Gundam series. And, to blatantly snarky, the majority of characters in Gundam are Earthlings. Kyaa the Catlord 12:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see above Bwithh 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series --Squilibob 08:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is sad that WP:GUNDAM has continued to fail to deal with these articles. They should be the ones cleaning up this crap, yet I've never seen anything in this project ever get merged. It is impossible to judge each of these individual subjects on their own merits, as almost every single article looks and reads exactly the same. Users supporting the inclusion of ANY of these articles should take a look at the fine work WP:PCP has done. If there continues to be no improvement in this walled garden of crap, all of it will need to go. As far as I understand, all of it already exists on another wiki, and apparently most of the information was ripped from a single Gundam website. --- RockMFR 08:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd say merge to one single article for each series/OAV/movie. At the worst, redirect to the Gundam television show it is in. The information is reasonably keepable, but if it isn't properly organized, I suppose it might be a bit much. FrozenPurpleCube 08:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (for now) there is also AMX-104 R-Jarja listed above --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki, then Delete~~ per nom. But make sure they're actually transwikied this time. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holding on that. Some should be deleted, yes, but people need to calm down and get a plan going. -- Ned Scott 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep switching to full keep support. Yes, a lot of Gundam articles need to be deleted, but the nom picked the wrong example article. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And who exactly would want this pile of nonsense? Delete , then take a look at dissassembling Wikiproject Gundam, which clearly isn't doing a lot of good in building a verifiable set of Gundam articles. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 09:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re WikiProject Gundam: erm, that's a bit uncalled for. You could say that WP:ANIME or WP:TV is also just as much to blame. -- Ned Scott 10:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~; Transwiki to some sort of Gundam-themed Wikia if one exists. Despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no need for an article on every single Mobile Suit in the Gundam universes. Wikipedia should only have articles on major mobile suits, and not utilize a template that fills up most of a computer screen, one with a resolution of 1920x1200 like my own.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Major mobile suits"... which this is. -- saberwyn 10:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not tell that this was a notable mobile suit in the series with a general reading; there was just so much information that obscured the fact that this was the mobile suit first used in Mobile Suit Gundam, the original series. I am withdrawing my delete with a keep based on the massive clean-up of the article—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft, which is a shorthand for "Article written in an in-universe tone about a non-notable fan-specific topic, full of iriginal research, hearsay and fan speculation. If the image of this suit is the one that is used on T-shirts and so on all the time, this should be mentioned in the main Gundam article, this does not warrant an article. ~~As Elaragirl said, I suggest we take a good hard look at whether Wikiproject:Gundam is actually benefitting the encyclopaedia at all in its current form.~~ Proto::► 09:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and could someone please advise me when the rest of this walled garden is put up for deletion. Thanks. Proto::► 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice this second comment. WP:GUNDAM only became WP:GUNDAM after the last big Gundam AfD, which was a little over a month ago. Before that it was labeled as a more specific project for a specific Gundam series, and hadn't attracted much attention. These AfDs are actually helping that WikiProject to do more and providing a place to organize the post-AfD cleanup. WikiProjects are places of collaboration first, and points of blame second. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify, the group before becoming WP:GUNDAM was so inactive that it wouldn't be accurate to blame it for the articles getting this bad. They didn't help the situation, but they didn't cause it. -- Ned Scott 10:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point and something I wasn't aware of - I've retracted that part of my comment. Proto::► 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That only leaves cruft as your only argument for deletion. Cruft alone is not a legitimate reason for deletion. The article has to have problems with one or more of Wikipedia's policies and notability guidelines. And Wikipedia's own policies is to cleanup articles on notable subjects rather then delete them. --Farix (Talk) 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Thanks for bringing it to my attention - I have expanded upon my reasoning. Proto::► 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a really well-written article and I enjoyed reading it - but it does not belong here - 1) transwiki it 2) take a good hard look at this rest of this garden and 3) a non-gundam fan should join the Wikiproject to give them a bit of perspective. --Charlesknight 10:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: crufty walled garden, notability not asserted. MaxSem 10:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Notability not asserted? Again, see the cultural impact section of the article. This mobile suit is a pop culture icon in Japan. Kyaa the Catlord 12:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — and most of the other articles of this kind. Perhaps someone knowledgeable could advise the group of editors on how to set up their own wiki? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://gundam.wikia.com -- Ned Scott 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. If the material doesn't exist there already, move it, and delete the articles here. A list might be acceptable, with a link to the Gundam wiki. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Gundam wikia is an even bigger trainwreck than you people think the Gundam articles on here are, since it's just a mass transfer of months old information. It would be far easier to clean up everything on Wikipedia (if you all would stop deleting it first) than it would be to clean up the wikia. Yzak Jule 10:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard this argument before - from the simpsons project and from various other projects but the clean-up never happens - what actually happens is that the articles just continue to bloat and others are added. If we want to talk about what's "easier" - deleting the lot and starting from scratch to ensure the intergrity would be the way to go... --Charlesknight 10:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blaming the Gundam project for these articles and calling for its head is bad form. These articles are a mess, but that is what CLEAN UP tags are for, not AfD. I'm not going to bother to vote, I can see the writing on the wall. Kyaa the Catlord 10:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the state of the articles with regards to clean up that is in question - it's whether they should be on Wikipedia in the first place. Proto::► 10:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the RX-78 Gundam is like removing the Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon. Removing this article is reinforcing a systemic bias. Kyaa the Catlord 11:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. I cannot understand why there is so much so detailed information about these fictional machines but I guess it is useful for someone who obsesses over minute details in anime series. JIP | Talk 11:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to weak keep per User:Kyaa the Catlord's reasoning below. This is only because this is the primary mecha in a Gundam series. This vote should not be used as precedent in any other Gundam-related AfD discussions. JIP | Talk 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the same reason that X-Wing, Millenium Falcon, etc have specifications. Apparently the wikiproject is working on adding this into an infobox rather than being in the text. Kyaa the Catlord 11:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The X-Wings and the Millennium Falcon are very major spaceships and plot points in Star Wars. Even non-fans who have only seen the movies once over a decade ago know what they are, if not the specific technical details. On the other hand, non-fans of Gundam have never heard of this RX-78 Gundam thingy or the other thingamajigs mentioned in the template, and even after reading the article, it is hard to see what makes one of these robots more notable than another. Star Wars does include a number of vehicles and characters that are by far not notable enough for Wikipedia - you only have to read one of the "Ultimate Guide" books to see them. But saying "if you delete Golden Era Mecha Mobile Suit EVA XYZ-123(R) Mark II+ prototype (which was only ever seen once in one episode) then you should delete the Enterprise-E too" is simply a knee-jerk response from the Gundam fandom. JIP | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then its a case of clean up, not deletion. The RX-78 Gundam is the primary mecha in the First Gundam series. It is as notable as the examples I've given, without the Gundams, there is no show. Your ignorance of Japanese pop culture != non-notability. This is a case of systemic bias, a focus on English language topics and the subsequent removal of ones from other cultures due to blatant ignorance. Kyaa the Catlord 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that things have gotten so out of hand with these articles that something needs to happen, something drastic. Transwiki it all, then slowly work back in the notable stuff. It will be a hell of a lot easier that way, and nothing will actually be lost. I can see the argument for the RX-78 having an article here, but then a lot of the article's content needs to be cut and trimmed. If we can propose a convincing plan of transwiki / mass-cruft cleanup, then I'm sure we'll be given more time before any final deletion decision. Lets focus on that. -- Ned Scott 11:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't hold enough hope that Wikipedia at large will read the article and judge it on its merits. This AfD is a bunch of "OMG! Another Gundam article! Delete!" without taking the time to read the article, judge it on its merits and hold a discussion. Maybe I'm being bitter, but after seeing the other Gundam-related afd noms pass and delete the titular mecha from their series, its hard to believe anything different will happen here. Kyaa the Catlord 12:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a Gundam fan, I did not know the RX-78 Gundam was the primary mecha of the First Gundam series. Because of this, it deserves its own article, but I am sure there are many articles about far less notable Gundam robots. My comment above does not apply specifically to the RX-78 Gundam. JIP | Talk 11:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of the article states "This is the titular mecha...." The article goes on to describe the design of the mecha, how the mecha has had real world impact, etc. Of all the amazingly craptastic Gundam articles, this is actually one of the better ones. And yes, I know, that's kinda sad. Kyaa the Catlord 12:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further research and consideration - I think this article is actually a weak KEEP with amazing amounts of clean-up (it might need to be renamed). However most of the rest need to be binned. Those trying to keep - remember an AFD runs for five days and if you can clean-up this up and provide multiple non-trival sources about it's real world and cultural relevence.... --Charlesknight 12:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some references for the pop culture section, I'm looking for better ones as well. Kyaa the Catlord 12:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The only problem I see with the article is the overly excessive detail in the "In Fiction" section. But the top part of the article is well within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and should be kept. --Farix (Talk) 12:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed to overly detailed information (cruft) about each variation of the mobile suit. All of it could be summed up in a couple of paragraphs, but it's going to take someone more knowledgeable about the series then I. --Farix (Talk) 13:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Unlike a lot of the other mecha articles, this one includes some real-world commentary, and some references, so it's got potential. Coupled with the fact that it's the lead mecha of the series, I think it deserves its own article. (Disclaimer: Per JIP, this comment is solely for this article. I bet that there are many other mecha articles out there which are just begging for merging or deletion.) Quack 688 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Until Farix's removal, this article alone contain info for one main MS of a TV series, one main MS of OVAs series and two main MS of two video games. The content of this article also found in five different languages wiki, with Japaneese and Korean version separate it into two articles. Yet we combine all of them into single article. So it's clearly a notable one. Sure, there are several articles that not worth keeping (like those without real content but spec) which I won't object in delete them. However, this article isn't one of them. L-Zwei 13:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the actual article sources and ignorancy of those who voted delete but obviously ignored the sources given Just because they have never seen it.
Comment and again, people who obviously have nothing to do decided to choose the path of deleting things that they have no idea in instead of improving the articles about fields they are expert of. This is wikipedia, we should not just go around and point at articles saying it is not worth while in it, instead, we should improve the articles in order to make it worth while. Yes, if somebody created a page of totally self generated original thought, we nominate it for deletion, that is what this process is for. However, nominating a cultural icon of some other country is simply just ignorant and arrogant. Face it, Anime has became a major cultural impact in a lot of countries, Gundam is always on the top of the list within Japan, whether you like it or not. RX-78 carries equal cultural impact if not more than X-Wing of Star Wars, it deserves to have its own page and having a badly written page is never an excuse and reason for deletion. To those who think that the WP:Gundam people are responsible for this, it is not. The project was not even called Gundam a few months ago. I agree that some of those articles in the list of Mecha should not stay, but going through hundreds of articles takes time and WP:Gundam people are not professional wiki editors, We have a life to live. From this every nomination, we can see that how ignorant people come to vote without even trying to understand the articles at all. IslaySolomon up there is an excellent example. The article provide source, another anime showing the Mecha itself in it is enough evident of the impact on cultural impact, not to mention there is a RX-78 4 blade Shaver sold in Japan and Pepsi Caps collection. Stop being ignorant Gundam is not just any robot anime you see everywhere, and deletionist ignoring the facts are NOT an excuse of the article does not contain any references. I understand these nomintations can never have any consensus because deletionists keep ignoring sources or keep raising the par higher and claim everything shown is not a reference while editors of the article need to waste all their time to defend one article so that they cannot improve other articles before some other deletionist nominate them for deletion. Understand the situation People of the WP:Gundam wasted so much time on these AfD noms and have so little time in improving the actual articles. Stop your nominations, start actually improving articles MythSearcher^talk 14:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're own obvious bias comes out pretty strong. Let's break your argument apart, starting with the overarching theme: there is no cabal or conspiracy who is trying to delete manga/Gundam related articles! This is about notability, nothing more! That being said: RX-78 carries equal cultural impact if not more than X-Wing of Star Wars, it deserves to have its own page and having a badly written page is never an excuse and reason for deletion- frankly false. Wow. It's big in Japan. Just because it's successful commercially doesn't a notable article make. And your statement is stupid, I'm sorry. Quick google check for RX-78: 719,000 hits. Results for x-wing: 1,530,000.

Next. but going through hundreds of articles takes time and WP:Gundam people are not professional wiki editors, We have a life to live.- true. But if these articles are never going to get fixed from the craptastic situation they are in now, why keep them?

and deletionist ignoring the facts are NOT an excuse of the article does not contain any references- um... no idea what you were saying, grammar check?

Stop your nominations, start actually improving articles- um... I suggest you follow your own advice. This page still doesn't meet the NOTE requirements, and you're the one foaming at the mouth. I do contribute to other things besides AfDs- we're not deletionist zombies, we just follow the guidelines and add input. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I must remind you to be WP:CIVIL in the discussion. But I want to point out a few flaws in your arguments.

"Wow. It's big in Japan. Just because it's successful commercially doesn't a notable article make." Actually it does become notable, especially when that success has lasted for decades generating several spin-offs, model kits, and etc. But then to go on and say that it isn't notable because it wasn't that popular in the US or other English language country reeks of systemic bias.

"And your statement is stupid, I'm sorry. Quick google check for RX-78: 719,000 hits. Results for x-wing: 1,530,000". But the problem with the Google test here is that the mecha in question isn't going to be called the "RX-78", but "Gundam" instead. In this case, the Google test is unlikely to yield results that are anywhere close to being accurate.

"This page still doesn't meet the NOTE requirements." Other editors have already stated that the subject of the article meets WP:FICT. But you continue to say "not notable enough". So exactly what are the notability criteria that is suppose to be applied to this article? Apparently, you don't think it is WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 04:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note it abysmally fails this: multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources. In other words, if there was a book that discussed this gundam solely, not just with other Gundam, that would count. I don't see such an example. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can go find a book solely on X-Wing, or Luke Skywalker, or Link (The Legend of Zelda) before I need to find something that specific. Wikipedia's policy does not state anything about having a whole book stating about it before it gets notable, BTW, this article was originally a list of mecha, not a specific one, it contains different mecha, variants of a famous one. Yes, we did not bother to separate them into 12 different articles, even though 4 of them are the mecha piloted by main characters in 4 different stories, 2 of them are piloted by major characters in another story, and 1 of them is piloted by the rival of the main character in Mobile Suit Gundam(Char Aznable) in the IF story in a major game. BTW, there are various articles JUST describing these particular mechas in Dengeki Hobby, november. 2006 issue, page 12 is the most recent one I still have around, Hobby Japan, Model kit World have hundreds of articles in them through out this pass 27 years of Gundam history and modeling history. You do not know it exsisted? This is WHY wikipedia is here for, to tell you something exsisted and have cultural significance out of your world. Deletionist assuming bad faith and keep saying things are not notable because they have never heard of it and think that no body heard of it because themselves have not is just so laughable. MythSearcher^talk 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the criteria for inclusion for fictional elements as outlined by WP:FICT. Instead, you are applying your own standards. Try again. --Farix (Talk) 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus... listen, I was giving what we call in the lingo, an example. I didn't say there had to be a book, I'm saying that it must meet multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources, if you look at the freakin' guidelines... providing links to vendors and stuff doesn't work, saying that since its been around for years makes it notable doesn't work either. I'm sorry, but you do not seem to understand what I was saying... Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't cited a specific notability guideline so I'll ask the question again. Under which applicable notability guideline says that a fiction element must have "multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources" before it is notable enough to have their own articles? WP:FICT clearly doesn't say that. In fact, WP:FICT states that such articles can be created if including them into the main article would cause the main article to become too large. Try again. And again, there are no links to venders on the article, but press accounts about the merchandizing of this Gundam model. --Farix (Talk) 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references appear only to include the instruction books, so the article fails the requirement of "multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources." This much obsessive detail about technical specifications of fictional armaments is fine for a specific wiki devoted to the fictional universe, but has no place in a real-world encyclopedia. Ditto for every bad guy in every comic book, every Digemon character, every Pokemon character, or even every criminal in every Sherlock Holmes story, unless each such character or device had multiple independent coverage in verifiable, reliable and independent sources. Edison 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Read the article, you skipped through the whole thing and looked at the very end which was called References? There are links up in the article to show that those mecha appeared in other anime and product and is independent and reliable enough for any wiki article. BTW, you are saying the mecha Gundam is not important in the anime Gundam. This is one of the best jokes I have ever heard for a few years. MythSearcher^talk 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tip - tone down the attitude and maybe people will take your points more seriously? Bwithh 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cool thing about this is, it really doesn't matter if the deletionist take my point or not, as long as there are enough people who understand it, the nom will became a stall of no consensus. There is no way I can convince deletionist to take my points seriously, I have learnt that in previous noms, keepers can show every other independent source that even only one is shown, the article deserves a keep. Deletionists will just ignore all of the sources either by saying none of those meet their requirements(even if those meet wiki's requirements) or simply disregard their exsistance and keep saying delete just because the article is poorly written until the very end of the nomination. MythSearcher^talk 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very jaded view of the afd process, and I also strongly urge you to read and consider WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF carefully. Bwithh 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my experience with afd, he's got a realistic view of afd. Deletionists vote for delete, inclusionists vote to keep the status quo, cases are made but ignored because despite policy/guideline to the contrary, afd tends to be treated as a vote. CIVIL and AGF don't say blind yourself from the truth.... Kyaa the Catlord 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys clearly have a lot to learn about AFD. Your stereotypical jaded view is very far from how AFDs generally operate in reality. I bring up WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as Mythsearcher's attitude in this discussion has been unacceptably uncivil and provoking in my opinion. Bwithh 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything seriously uncivil nor anything that doesn't AGF about any of Myth's responses here. I do see a lot of deletionist voters who apparently missed large sections of the article, have posted things which at the time they posted were blatantly incorrect (due to earlier edits on the article), and have been sheepish "IDONTLIKEIT" votes. Seriously, it is hard not to be pessimistic when a large number of the delete votes come from people associated with a wikiproject founded to delete articles. Kyaa the Catlord 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply The RX-78 was featured in the January 2005 issue of Newtype. [18] Real world enough? Independent enough? I don't read Japanese so I can't read the description, but... 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Newtype is a magazine with an anime focus, no? You'd expect this to be mentioned there. A non-trivial feature in a news magazine would show cultural importance, an anime one wouldn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean an article on the Human Genome wouldn't be significant just because it was printed in a Genetics Journal? Shrumster 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be significant, but if nobody can read it would be hard to say if it is trivial or not. My read of the table of contents is that it got a mention somewhere. The non-trivial articles would probably be the ones with comments underneath them. This, however, is getting close to, if it isn't already, guesswork. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be unusual for a magazine to run an article on a non-notable mecha nearly 30 years after the show was aired, wouldn't it? Kyaa the Catlord 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but rather less so if the series were still being produced in one form or another, and doubtless repeated into the bargain. I suppose you'll disagree. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newtype is a reliable source for anime; it's one of the most important magazines covering the topic. Being in Japanese does not make it unreliable. (There's an English edition, actually, though I haven't checked whether it has the same articles -- I doubt it, since the releases aren't the same.) A cover feature story in Newtype is to anime what a cover story in Entertainment Weekly is to Hollywood. As for not showing cultural influence, I can only presume you are unaware of the extent to which anime and manga permeate Japanese popular culture. Something on the lines of 80% of published material in Japan is manga, and they're not aimed solely at children. Personally, I despise most of Gundam and its knockoffs, but there's no question that it's been among the most influential anime series ever produced. The article the two of you are discussing makes that clear: It's a retrospective which includes a series of drawings by an apparently-famous artist (whose name, I'm afraid, I can't read; I'm rather weak on the name kanji). There's also a section dealing with Z Gundam, which presumably is (or was when this hit the stands) the current show in the series. And one dealing with the theme song of that show, which seems to have catapulted the group singing it to some degree of stardom. Definite impact -- but then, I'd think the fact that "the series [is] still being produced in one form or another" after 30 years would make that clear. And this particular mecha is more or less the symbol of the metaseries. It's as notable within its series as the Starship Enterprise or the Millennium Falcon are within theirs -- in fact, it's more so (the Enterprise and the Falcon didn't spawn huge arrays of spin-offs). The difference is that many editors are not familiar with Gundam as they are with Star Trek or Star Wars -- cultural bias, essentially. Not, mind you, a bad-faith bias against the article itself, but a lack of perception of just how important in Japanese popular culture this series and this specific mobile suit are. I don't even like most of Gundam, and I naturally lean deletionist, but there's not a question in my mind that the delete !voters in this case are mistaken. Shimeru 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not so much the cultural impact (or lack thereof) that keeps bugging me, it's the obsession about the detailed tech specs. The fact that the RX-78 Gundam is a central item or character in an anime series that enjoys huge popularity in Japan is encyclopedic. A list of episodes it appears in is encyclopedic. A brief description of how a pilot would use it in battle is encyclopedic. But half a page full of numbers about how much the fictional metal armour weighs, how many horsepowers the fictional engine has, how long its fictional fingers are, a list of fictional model ID numbers of the fictional bullets it uses as ammunition is not encyclopedic. Such things are of interest only in a Gundam-specific wiki, where people can look them up from an in-universe POV, not from an out-of-universe POV that we have here in Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 16:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Comment If you look at the "improved" article, you'll see the specs have been removed. Even prior to this, fantasy specs are just as valid to those interested in the war-machine as they would be to say, someone looking up the F-15. Do we really need to include the number, type and output of them? No. But I've yet to see a reason why not that doesn't simply boil down to "I don't like it". Its more encyclopedic to include stats for warships, even fictional ones, than it is not. These are weapons and not describing their capabilities in combat makes the articles incomplete. Kyaa the Catlord 16:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The problem is, if a part of the article should be deleted, it does not belong to an AfD, instead, it should be brought upon in the article's talk page or the project talk page(since all of these mecha have these data). Also, I see no reason for not tagging in some of the information since those things never have the notablity to have their own articles, and they surely have some impact related to the series itself(For example, the output power is generally increasing throughout the whole Universal Century timeline). The specs are even written by a third party to begin with (Gundam Century itself was written by fans, published by Midori Kobou instead of Bandai or Sunrise) but just later adopted by official publisher. Meaning it is good encyclopedic sources of impact. Maybe more of these should be added in, but it will lengthen the spec part into what the original specs are and who they got changed thoughout the years, and I cannot add in any OR meaning not much could be written. The specs are there so that people have at least the slightest idea of how these fictional things perform. I personally don't care if these are kept or not because I know more places for these things, but obviously quite a large number of fans enjoyed it being here. These should be discussed in the project page instead. MythSearcher^talk 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article looks much better than it did just a few hours ago. This needs to be done on every one of these articles. --- RockMFR 18:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The RX-78-2 is THE Gundam mecha. It over any other deserves highlighting. I'm sorry, but these various Gundam deletions stink of bias. I can understand going after the minor mecha but Gundam is a major franchise and it's spotlight mecha deserves a page. May I ask what would happen if I nominated one of the Starship Enterprise entries for deletion?--HellCat86 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likely an immediate speedy keep. But I wouldn't recomend it to prove a point. However the articles on the various Enterprises are worse sourced then this one. Also many of the deletes before the cleanup are along of either WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDONTKNOWIT arguements, which hopefully the closing admin will discount. --Farix (Talk) 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IslaySolomon, Edison, among others; if these are so culturally important, there should be third-party sources. There aren't. I don't share MER-C's disbelief, after all, Doug Bell (talk · contribs) already had to close the AFD from hell. Incredibly crufty {{inuniverse}} stuff, failing WP:N, WP:V, and a million miles from WP:WAF. Transwiki if so desired, always assuming that the Gundam wiki will take this stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is the defining mecha for more than three different TV series, several more mini-series, movies and books spanning more than 25 years of continuous history. Deleting this would would be akin to deleting an article about Jedi or the Starship Enterprise. As for real-world significance, how about presence the dozens of model kits (of this particular one)? In fact, the gundam modeling community significantly different from the military scale modeling community, especially where I live. And as has been said, the RX-78 and the gundam series as a whole is a Japanese cultural icon. I won't go into details but essentially, the mecha itself and the series changed the direction of Japanese animation significantly. While it can be argued that not all mobile suit models deserve their own page (I agree with this), this one (RX-78) definitely does. Shrumster 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How, specifically, does one prove that a movie or series is a "cultural icon"? How does one establish that Star Trek is a cultural icon? If you say by citing the amount of merchandizing, spin-offs, satirizing, documented influences, longevity, and etc., then Gundam is a shoe in. And since the RX-78 Gundam is a major element of the Gundam series, it actually passes WP:FICT for inclusion. Buy why is substantiate if it is cultural icon necessary for inclusion to begin with? Granted that the article could use more sources, but as it stands at the moment, it is better sourced the most other articles on facial elements and characters. And with the recent cleanup, it's is a lot better off in regards to the "in-universe" perspective then similar articles of franchises that are more familiar to English editors. --Farix (Talk) 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose keep for this particular Gundam, as AFAIK it is the original Gundam, and has some notability from that. Most of the rest of that huge list linked are probably delete material (or a major trim down and merge operation), so perhaps a bad choice for precedent. FredOrAlive 22:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And cleanup. This particular 'Gundam', 'Mech', or 'Armored suit', is the central robot of a number of franchised series. I think that template needs more pruning than my garden, and I think that most of the other suits should be merged and trimmed with extreme editorial prejudice for citation and bare-bones notation, perhaps 'Mechs of Gundam Series(es)'. That said, I think that any number of editors would try to re-write or recreate it if removed, and salting on this topic would be to show significant wiki-bias against anime. I say all this as someone who finds the current american trend to 'lubs dem da animay' nauseating and pathetic, but even I have heard of and recognize the Gundam. ThuranX 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AMX-104_R-Jarja- Even though this appears to be the most notable of all Gundams, I frankly think this should be merged with the whole lot. What's sad is Wikiproject Gundam, instead of trying to clean this articles up, is resorting to personal attacks and accusations of 'western bias'. I'm seriously wondering if there is a way to pull the plug on the who thing. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lies, lies and damned lies. Have you checked the history of the page under consideration here? It has changed substantially since the article was nominated, by editors who have been posting on WP:GUNDAM even. Muddying the waters with accusations of malpractice is low. Calling for pulling the plug on the whole thing, ie deleting the wikiproject for "crimes" is a threat and prohibitted behavior on Wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you feel 'threatened', but people on WP:GUNDAM have been making their own personal attacks, in addition to outlandish attempts to turn this into a battle over 'western bias' conspiracies. I have noted the changes to the article, but adding willy-nilly references from other encyclopedias does not a notable article make. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people of WP:GUNDAM? Do you even know what you are talking about? I'm sorry that things are getting heated here, but that does not represent the whole effort. -- Ned Scott 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One editor seems to act as he's the chief spokesman and defender, which is where that impression comes from. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that you haven't looked at the article or you would have know that what you stated about not cleaning up the article is patently false. You also go and attribute the action of one person onto an entire WikiProject. --Farix (Talk) 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge every model into a single general article (NOT to include a laundry list of model names). Fictional giant robots that blow things up: notable and with cultural impact. A specific model (no matter how "major") of a fictional giant robot that blows things up: not in the least. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, we should delete or merge all of the starships and characters of Star Trek. While some of the mechs are better off merged into lists, blindly merging or deleting these articles are both disruptive and nonproductive. No one has had the time to evaluate these articles since last month's attempt to mass delete a bunch of Gundam articles. --Farix (Talk) 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While I've nominated Gundam articles for deletion, deleting this page would be like deleting X-Wing among the Star Wars pages. Edward321 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further cleanup this one article as primary thingie of a notable fictional multiverse, per WP:FICT. Note that I strongly support a merge-with-scythe of all the zillion other fighting-suit articles into one paragraph of the parent Gundam article and one list where each suit gets one line (or in the most-notable cases two lines), not a pageful of minor details that don't help the reader understand what people have found important or interesting, also per WP:FICT. Barno 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is NOT how the nominator dislike the article. RX-78 Gundam got equal screen time than some of the major characters in the show(Hey, BTW, the show is called Gundam) It can well be thought as a character, a major one. Promotional toys, video games that are directly about anime robots and a minor appearance in a cartoon ("cameo" was a term used by whoever wrote that part of the article, not just me) are things which belong in a other appearances in pop culture trivia section, and are not evidence that this robot has influenced other cultural activities in a substantial, meaningful way. Sorry, Bwithh, this is not the case. If an anime robot appeared in another anime, and that anime was made over 20 years later(1979~2003), it is not just a pop culture trivia event. BTW, pop culture is culture, influencing pop culture meaning it got the cultural significance that people can recognise the icon 20 years later. And anime robots appears in so many shows, there are thousands of them, why RX-78 Gundam? why not any other robot in any other show, say convoy, or X-Wing? why this old, plain looking piece? Or, why is this particular robot along with MS-06 Zaku appeared over and over again in so many different stories, including non-Gundam stories? How did it got its own Credit card like Yoda? BTW, seen this helmet before?

and deletionist ignoring the facts are NOT an excuse of the article does not contain any references- um... no idea what you were saying, grammar check? Deletionist ignoring references exsisted does not mean that the references does not exsist. Somebody in this nom said the whole ref section was just instruction manuals, which is totally false, linking to a page of Amazon is valid that The book in question could be bought in that link, the article sourced from a portion of those books. Deletionist not having read the book is not an excuse of the article is not referenced. The books listed is in fact not all published by official sources, the only dependent reference book is the Gundam Officials and Ms encyclopedia. The others are published by various magazine publishers and reviewers, which are all not paid by the Gundam copyright holder company Bandai, or paid for any information from the company. These are called independent sources. I know some deletionist do not hold credit for fan written articles as sources, but a well established publisher publishing books having editors edit the articles is a good secondary source we can use in wiki. It does not matter if the writer is a fan or not, or the editors are fans or not, the fact is that they are independent workers and some third party company paid the publishing fee wishing to earn some money. MythSearcher^talk 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Simpsons example I pointed out to you earlier. I was attempting to show you the difference between trivial references and evidence of actual substantive cultural influence. Also take a look at WP:RS for a guide to reliable sources for Wikipedia. Bwithh 09:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for that level of cultural influence, The Simpsons has over 300 articles focus on it's episodes, divide into 19 subcategories; and that's just about it's episodes, (yet nobody dare to touch). Are you truely believe it's better than have seperate articles for MS? We actually just ask for handful of notable mech here, not seperate article for each of them. L-Zwei 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per Secondary source, Secondary sources are often peer reviewed, and produced by institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the author's and publishing house's, or research institute's, reputation. Historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny.. Gundam Sentinel Special Edition, Model Graphix, ISBN 4-499-20530-1 alone serves this purpose. It is by a magazine, originally cooperating with Bandai but was later ditched by them, in Frustration, they created the book themselves, also angered Newtype magazine editor to write an article saying model graphix did a good job in creating the real Gundam. The book's name having Gundam does not mean it is primary, and dependent. Also, wikipedia never have a par so high that only changing the language serve as a cultural influence, changing the whole modeling industry(and economy) itself is significant enough.(Where this is quoted from Sgt. Frog) MythSearcher^talk 10:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S The Luke Skywalker page does not contain the Simpson's level of cultural influence, delete? The Featured Article Link (The Legend of Zelda) does not carry Simpson's level of cultural influence, delete? Some deletionist even claim that an anime magazine is not a good enough source to judge an anime's notability? Come on, you are saying a a scientific journal is not good enough as a source for science subjects, this is just showing how the deletionist keep raising the par to a point where it is totally unrealistic and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia policy asks for sources of that field of expert, not from any other field and what is listed here are that field of expert in anime. You can never find a geographic magazine with anime related articles, right? Stop being unreasonable, the sources are not only verifiable, they are also perfectly valid according to wikipedia. The name containing Gundam doesn't mean it is dependent, just like a physics book is going to use physics as its name. MythSearcher^talk 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, trying to save an article from deletion by saying "what about this article? Delete this too then!" is not a useful or good plan of trying to keep an article; look through the old noms and you'll see what I mean (it's also called the theres a page for this pokemon, so why not...) Go an nominate the article if you want to delete it, but it has no relevance on this case. P.S. Why the obsession with Star Wars? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why the obsession with Star Wars?" Star Wars is possibly the most similar Western, everybody knows it, example to compare and it came out at about the same time that First Gundam did. Seriously, Gundam is the Japanese Star Wars. (Even if 75% of the spin-off series suck, oh, another thing in common!) Kyaa the Catlord 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time this has nothing to do with 'Western' bias! Jesus! I'm sorry, but you saying that this is all a conspiracy of us Americans to devalue anime is outrageous. Can we stick to the AfD? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I simply answered your question. I made no claim about western bias or anything else. I simply said "Gundam is very much similar to Star Wars in many ways." No allegations of bias or whatever. Sheesh, can I offer you some tea? Kyaa the Catlord 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake, I confused your comments with Myth... Eh well, maybe he'll read it an get the message that the western bogeyman isn't out to get Gundam. And thanks but no thanks, I'm not one for tea or coffee, I'll go with water. :) P.S. And I do give you credit for trying to perform triage in order to get the gundam articles in order- this article notwithstanding, all the other guys want to do is argue about 'influence.' There is life after AfD. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not argue saying those sould be deleted, I simply reply that Cultural Significant does not require the level of the Simpson's article to be notable. If there is influence, obviously the article should not be deleted, it is useful in an AfD nom discussion. Do not tell me that something having sourced cultural influence is not notable. BTW, sourced more info in Japanese stamps and Industry recruiting seminar. MythSearcher^talk 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article – the out of universe references establish its notability. Many of the others on the template need to be merged/deleted, though --Pak21 10:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) nn[reply]
Strong Keep. This should really be a total nonissue. -Toptomcat 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and this vote is from the guy who's on the rampage nominating most of these fictional weapons articles for deletion. Seems to have at least some sources and some real-life notability. Not perfect by a long shot, but keep for now, but most of the rest in that template are going to go. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Per Yzak Jule and Edward321. I have also nominated Gundam articles for deletion, and I can safely say that this is one of the few important ones. Even I, who has never seen a Gundam episode, recognize the RX-78-2 Gundam.--SeizureDog 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable -- it's practically a main "character" of its series, and has had a lasting influence on the metaseries. The RX-78-2 is iconic. The article is referenced, has independent sources, and covers out-of-universe topics. Some of the mobile-suit articles probably should be deleted or merged or what have you, but this is not a good test case. It's like deciding some Transformers are non-notable and then nominating Optimus Prime. Shimeru 10:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Ugh, I really want to ~~angusih~~ anguish my temper now,as this is the craziest AfD I have ever seen. Well, I am starting with the most stupid arguments. Did you know story of American Civil War if you are not American? Most will not ~~are~~ or barely hear it. Richard H. Anderson? I also know most American does not care about Football (soccer), is that means Football (soccer) is not notable? Hell, no, ask most European men or Asian men. Do you know Roche limit? Now go to fiction side, anyone who never see Babylon 5 know Spoo? Sigh....T_T As other have said, ignorance doesn't mean it is not notable. Do you know Bandai Museum ? Its exhibit sections consists of two parts, Character World and Gundam Museum. Though closed at August 31, 2006 you can say that Gundam is important one, at least for Bandai, as the third biggest toy company. I do not know for other people, but part of most my time reading encyclopedia, I look for something that I did not know before, and some may interest me , some not, that why I love random article menu. Here, of course I may have something that I ~~do not~~ know, I may share it. I believe that sharing is one of the most important feature in wikipedia, right? It is sharing that makes our wikipedia different from other encyclopedia. I admit that sharing is a double-edged sword. Some may talk about something which other may have no interest of them, some may talk about rubbish idea, and so on. As consequences, there also special interest groups who work and talk about that group, as Gundam Fan. Seeing gundam aired in America, at least there are prospects which make Bandai want to sell them there. Of course there are materials not available to non-japanese speaking "viewer". If they want to know more, I think Wikipedia is one of the good place to start for. They may realizes "oh there are these" and "there are those". That is why I insist to include many things seems not important for ignorant people, also per my global view as inclusionists. Well, Roche limit may not important for common people but for astronomers, it is different. Well, if you think that non-fiction is not that important, don't forget that often we achive something from dreams offered by non-fiction. Alas, in my head actually a crazy idea is spinning, it is idea for splitting the Wikipedia into non-fiction and fiction as different project. It may called Wikipedia and Wikifictionary or Wikidreams or whatever. Too many I have seen non fiction article conflict like this. Sorry, if any of you do not like my long argument. I believe we want best thing with Wikipedia, right? Draconins 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drac, calm down a bit. The crisis is pretty much averted and there's no need to go off on everyone else. Let's stay calm. Kyaa the Catlord 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not American, and I know a bit about the American Civil War. Not nearly as much as Americans do, though, but a bit nonetheless. As for the other things, your point is right. I have no idea who R.H.Anderson is, and of course I know football (soccer) (I'm a European, so it's given), and having seen all Babylon 5 episodes, I know what Spoo is. So it's a moot point for those two. JIP | Talk 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American and the only thing I know about the American Civil War was that it happened. Not a Babylon 5 watcher either, and I have no idea what Spoo is. I'm willing to bet that a great percentage of the population where I live (South East Asia) know a lot less about those subject. Just because we don't know about them doesn't mean they aren't notable. His points are valid. Shrumster 23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above arguments. While many of the Gundam articles are unencyclopedic and complete cruft, this is not one of those. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DarkShikari's per. Dekimasu 08:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Bad faith nomination. Articles that need work should be improved, not deleted, and cruft is not a guideline, but an essay. Furthermore, User:Moreschi appears to have nominated nearly every Gundam-related article for deletion, in a rather blatant attempt to remove something he/she dislikes from Wikipedia. Jtrainor 11:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Deleting this article would set up a snowballing precedent, or indeed, a domino effect, wherein quite literally any fictional piece of technology would be deletable material. As per my understanding, Wikipedia is not under any obligation to be an encyclopedia of nonfiction, provided said nonfiction is stated as such. Additionally, this is one of the most heavy-handed AfDs I've ever seen before. What next, go after the Star Trek articles? MalikCarr 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep. Aside from this being a bad-faith nomination apparently based on personal dislike of the Gundam franchise, it's also quite possibly the biggest joke of an AfD I've ever seen. You could make a case (a weak one, but a case) for deleting some of the less significant Gundam articles, but the RX-78 Gundam itself is not only a culture icon in Japan, it's one of the most iconic fictional machines worldwide. It's central to the genre-definining Mobile Suit Gundam, and piloted by the main character of the entire franchise. If this is removed, we might as well get rid of C-3PO and R2-D2 as well, or at least X-wing. This really ought to be a speedy keep given how obvious the notability is. Redxiv 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons listed. If you have to try and get stuff deleted, it's probably best to choose stuff that's not central to a multi-billion dollar franchise. Calaschysm 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, also, for reasons listed. if this is delete, we may as well as delete Star trek stuff, and I will if this managed to get deleted. We already lost Gundam infos on Impulse and etc, and this is where we should draw a line in the sand. George Leung 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i did it. Placed Enterprise in Afd. Ironically, i used this as precedent.

I wouldn't have. This is a classic example of a wp:point vio. Bad George. :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta be kidding me - Even if you could sucessfully Afd every other Mobile Suit article on Wikipedia (you couldn't), this article is the one that from sheer notability and impact, should never be deleted. Strong and Speedy Keep SAMAS 13:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be very foolish to delete an article on a notable piece of a popular franchise.RiseRobotRise 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Bad faith nomination, nominator is out to make a disruptive AFD per WP:POINT. --Epanterias amplexus 18:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dark Shikari. I'm not a Gundam fan by any stretch of the imagination, but this is an article about an important part of a significant franchise. -- 9muses 22:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Despite my love for anime, I hate Gundam with a passion. Even with this in mind, this particular Gundam is the Gundam equivalent of Pikachu, and the Gundam series itself is the Pokemon of mecha anime. It's the cornerstone of a popular series, and meets the WP:FICT guideline for inclusion per major characters (and places, concepts, etc.), "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Disregarding that, the real-life appearances in Japan, including being on a stamp, argue for notability in themselves. J0lt C0la 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 06:54, 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 12:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Williamson Grey[edit]

Delete The only information in the article is that the individual was the father-in-law of a baronet, himself of marginal notability. This individual certainly isn't notable; no non-Wikipedia g-hits, other than a genealogy of the baronet's family, and I'd prod it except that was tried a while ago and disputed. Choess 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here -Doc^g 12:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No point in copying every person mentioned in the Peerage book into Wikipedia. These are directory listings and passing references. Those interested can look in that source. Needs other attestations of notability (not just nobility!). Edison 15:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, distinct lack of notability. Nuttah68 14:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Constance Grey[edit]

Delete See above (Allen Williamson Grey). Individual is the wife of a marginally notable baronet; no other information. Choess 06:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. As the wife of the marginally notable baronet mentioned, she should also be mentioned within the baronet's article, with basic information provided. -- saberwyn 07:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baronets' wives are a dime a dozen. This looks like an A7 speedy to me. -Doc^g 12:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the baron's three wives. Important info is already in the baron's article. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 15:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being mentioned in a complete book of peerage is just a directory listing or passing reference and is not sufficient to justify an article in Wikipedia. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to me she passes Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), specifically "Nobility.

British Peers and holders of courtesy titles (i.e. heirs apparent), as well as those holding the Scottish substantive title of "Master" or "Mistress" given to heirs are automatically notable, as are their spouses."Jcuk 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A baronetisn't a peer, so no she doesn't.--Doc^g 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. The proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) clearly states spouses are not inherently notable, even if a Baronet was a peer. As a lesser noble the same guideline says even the holder of the title must meet WP:BIO in another way to be notable. Nuttah68 14:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry the Lobster (SpongeBob SquarePants)[edit]

Minor fictional TV character, only appeared in a few epidsodes. Article has no references and offers only a plot summary of the character: WP:NOT says: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. 650l2520 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend merge several minor Spongebob characters into a (not yet existent) list. ColourBurst 07:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. I noticed that main characters have their own articles, while all the rest are combined here. If this guy only appeared in a couple of episodes, I'm guessing he's not really a "main character". Quack 688 12:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Quack 688 - violates WP:NOT. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Quack. Edison 15:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, as suggested by User:Quack 688, and per WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters; only minor character in the series. SkierRMH 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the reason for merging into another article and making it all that much more longer. Plus you'll probably lose that grovey table on the right side with his picture. Wiki has room for this. --CyclePat 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but according to WP:FICT,

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

A major character could keep its own article, but based on this article's content, I don't see how this guy qualifies as a major character. Quack 688 06:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Larry has appeared in 15 episodes, the Movie, and many videogames. if not kept, Merge as above. --AMK152 (Talk • Contributions) 02:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to be perfectly honest, I've got no idea if this guy's a main character or not. Actually, List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters only has fourteen "main" characters with their own spin-off articles - given the size of the show, I'm content with that number, and don't think it needs to be reduced. I'd also be happy to keep this article, or recreate it in the future, if he really has appeared in 15 episodes and a movie. But the article needs to include this information, and say exactly why he's a significant character within the series. Quack 688 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only SpongeBob SquarePants, Squidward Tentacles, and Patrick Star are main characters. There a few recurring characters but appearing in 15 episodes (with no references to establish real-world notibility) definately puts him as a minor character. The merge option is fine. 650l2520 01:33, 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 and move to Karl Rothammel. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rothammel[edit]

the article is without purpose. Its hard to tell if it is about the author or a single book. "Karl Rothammel" pulls up 1,620 pages. Karl Rothammel shows 7 books, none of which come close to the ISBN listed on the article. John Vandenberg 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ISBNs are not 100% reliable. This article could be considered for a speedy delete, but seeing as its at afd, we can give it some time to see if a proper article can be built. Bwithh 07:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The correct ISBN has been found. John Vandenberg 23:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article provides insufficient content to say what this subject is, and why it is significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Essentially, what we see now on the article's page is the only contribution made by its original author. So, if we can find anything worthwhile, can we edit the article during the AfD to give it a direction? That's what I'll try to do, time permitting, unless I hear objections here. Keesiewonder 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Assuming I've figured out what this article "should" be about IMO. Can we rename the article "Karl Rothammel" during the AfD or must that happen later? I've made some tiny edits; will return to this task time permitting. Keesiewonder 11:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We can add to the article, but renaming it will break links, and is jumping the gun, as the Afd may decide that the topic isnt worth an article. A search on de.wikipedia.org lists this book as a reference 7 times, but it is not used as a reference on en.wikipedia.org. The book and the man both have decent google hits, so I think it could become a stub (here is a translated bio). I'm wondering if it is actually the book that is notable (in which case this article should be renamed to Antennenbuch), in which case the author bio can go on the book's article. John Vandenberg 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the book seems insufficiently notable. An article about Karl Rothammel would be fine, and this book can be mentioned there. --Ezeu 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article about Karl Rothammel would be fine (and I agree) why can't that article be here, and hopefully renamed from Rothammel to Karl Rothammel pending a successful Keep? Keesiewonder 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is about the book, not the man. What I mean is that the article should be about the man, and the book should be mentioned in that article. --Ezeu 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone familiar with the book is available to write about it. There's no article about the man in the German WP. However Karl Rothammel's Antennenbuch is in the reference list of de:Antennendiagramm. The German article is said to have an English equivalent at Radiation pattern. However the latter does not cite Rothammel's book. I'm not sure we would just add Rothammel's book as a reference on the English article without knowing more about its content. So, just Delete, without prejudice against re-creation in case someone familiar with it can write it up. Since there's no English translation available, it's not certain that this book is notable enough for the English WP. EdJohnston 05:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had most of those thoughts too - when I voted for Strong Keep, it was hoping that people/portals who care about the article would come forth and make it worth keeping since my findings were that in its field, it is worth keeping and is notable and verifiable (if the article is renamed to Karl Rothammel). The people who best know about this material don't seem to have appeared yet. So, I can also be a neutral on this one. AfD's are not the time for article improvement drives if proponents aren't even present (IMO)! Keesiewonder 11:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Red mutton" in the page is a machine translation of the surname Rothammel: ref a German to English dictionary. Contract this page down to a routine reference note and put that ref note in Antenna (radio). Then keep (as a page about the man Rothammel) or delete according to how notable Rothammel's radio and other work is. Anthony Appleyard 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the machine translation (my mistake). John Vandenberg 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied the Rothammel book reference into Antenna (radio). Anthony Appleyard 07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Keesiewonder has put into Rothammel matter about Rothammel's life story, not merely about the book. Anthony Appleyard 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks a lot better now thanks to everyone involved in the Afd. Im still not 100% sure the man is notable, but I would be happy for a keep or no consensus outcome. John Vandenberg 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletions.
If this is kept, it must be moved to Karl Rothammel, but other than that I have no opinion. Bearcat 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Manning Bartlett. MER-C 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Disco Wiz[edit]

Rescued from speedy. WP:COI claimed, though that is not a speedy candidate and the author disputes COI. Also claims G4, but references have been added, so not the same article anymore. You can see the main reference for yourself here, it's based on an interview. Neutral. ColourBurst 07:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - The person this article is about, admitted on my and another user's talkpages that he "felt that I should have my own page" and threatened a lawsuit against me and others (please see User talk:Ronbo76, item 47. This page had been previously deleted and a sockpuppet case opened. Ronbo76 07:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend caution over sources; Neutral for now The article's main claims to encyclopedic notability - that DJ Disco Wiz was the first Latino hiphop DJ and that he was the first DJ to create a "mixed plate" - these both rely on references to the book Yes Yes Y'All: The Experience Music Project Oral History of Hip Hop's First Decade. While this book in itself appears to be a legit academic work, it is primarily an oral history. So the claim that DJ Disco Wiz was the first Latino hiphop DJ of any significance comes from an interview with DJ Disco Wiz where he himself makes the claim(see p128 of the book). The same goes for the claims about being the first the mixed plate (p129). We do not know if the authors were able to verify (or even made the attempt to) these oral history claims by Wiz himself. I would note that on the DJ summary list at the front of the book (page 4), another chap named "Charlie Chase" is called the "one of the first Latino hiphop DJs" while Disco Wiz is merely described as a "Latino DJ" (no "first" or "early" etc). Bwithh 08:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is the sockpuppet case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DJDWIZ. Ronbo76 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on a line from the article, "He was also instrumental in the making of Jim Fricke and Charlie Ahearn’s rendition of the early years of hip-hop entitled Yes, Yes Y’all", I'm uncertain if this source is actually independant of the article's subject. Serpent's Choice 11:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that WP:MUSIC is met. Autobiography. MER-C 12:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for now, as per info from Bwithh. Would like to see more sources, as I have my doubts that he meets the notability requirements. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 13:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article has already been deleted 3 times. The person behind it has created multiple accounts not only to recreate this article, but to back himself up in discussions. The behavior of the writer aside, this does not meet the notability requirements. If this article is deleted, I would strongly suggest protecting it from re-creation, as well as variants of its name (like "dj disco wiz" or "DJ DISCO WIZ") as this person seems determined to have an article about himself. GhostPirate 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GhostPirate if the sock puppet charges are valid _SUBWAYguy 17:26, 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 12:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Repulsion Force[edit]

Not notable as a theory against WP:N. It doesn't seem to have been accepted in mainstream international science. There is a mention in a Harvard abstract[19] but Google hits are very few. Probable conflict of interest by editor User:Dr.N.Chandra.Shah. See also proposed deletion of Dr.Navinchandra K.Shah dated 2007-01-08. Is the theory worth a debate in the context of Dark matter?? Mereda 08:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the List of science-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An admittedly brief effort to find sources was futile. I don't expect to find much, though. As I read this, it claims that stars emit a repulsive effect with four times the intensity of their other energetic emissions combined and "0.9 million times" more force than their gravitational presence. I don't need to be a published physicist to know that would present a problem for things that orbit them. Serpent's Choice 09:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pseudoscience. Bollocks. MER-C 12:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication this is in any way a mainstream theory. For what it's worth, the "Harvard abstract" mentioned above is only a listing on the Astrophysics Data System, which lists the proceedings of essentially every conference in astrophysics ever, so doesn't really establish notability. Cheers --Pak21 10:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Mike Peel 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. The part about the mass is ridiculous. Danski14 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO REASON TO DELETE THIS ARTICLE. THE DISCOVERY OF STELLAR(S)THERMONUCLEAR(T)REPULSION IN SHORT STREPULSION FORCE IS LONG BACK ESTABLISHED FACT. THE BOOK TITLED "INTRODUCTION TO THE STREPULSION FORCE" WAS REVIEWED BY INDIAN UNIVERSITIES AND WAS RELEASED BY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA'S MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. THE THREE RESEARCH PAPERS WERE REVIEWED BY SMITHSONIAN-HARVARD UNIVERSITIES CFO AND THE ABSTRACTS ARE ENTERED IN THREE NASA-ADS.THERE IS THE LARGEST SCIENCE WEBSITE IN THE WORLD PREPARED BY WITH COLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL STREPULSION-PHYSICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THIS IS " www.strepulsion.com" FOR REQUIRED INFORMATION AS YOU FEEL PUZZLE WITH "DARK-MATTER' OR ANY OTHER FACTORS, PLEASE READ ALL PAGES OF WEBSITE. THAN ONLY DECIDE. I FEEL DELETION IS GREATEST INJUSTICE IN PART OF SCIENCE WORLD. BY DELETION, AUTHORS WILL NOT BE THE LOOSERS BUT LOOSERS WILL BE THE WIKIPEDIA AND ITS READERS.DISCOVERY OF STELLAR REPULSION FORCE IS CONSIDERED BY MANY SPACE SCIENTISTS AS THE REVOLUTIONARY EVENT IN MODERN SCIENCE. DONT DELETE BUT INSIST AUTHORS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL FOR YOUR PROBLEMS. THANKING YOU, SINCERELY YOURS PROF.GEORGE ROBINSON, E-MAIL:[email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.155.202 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nomination and all above. Anville 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. Also it's complete bollocks. HEL 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Also violates WP:N. And the proponent hasn't discovered his caps lock key. HEL 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will admit that this being "complete bollocks" is not a reason for deletion. However, it's blatantly violating WP:V and WP:N are. I would also reference the the proposed WP:SCIENCE guidelines, and the failure of this subject to meet any of its listed criteria for inclusion. --EMS | Talk 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). EMS | Talk 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no citation of any published work whatsoever, just the claim it was presented at several congresses. If the proceedings were published, give the reference so we can look at the evidence that the theory even exists except in WP.DGG 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: [20] --Pak21 09:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Pak21. It is easy to see from the abstract to which you linked that the creators of Stellar Repulsion Force deny, almost in the same breath, universal gravitation and inertia both:

In the solar system, the sun exert SRF while planets exerts Gravitation. The sun repells planet-satellites while they attracts the sun. So planets-satellites neither fall upon the sun by gravitation nor flungaway by Repulsion. At orbital distances both reverse forces counterbalances each other. So planets and satellites remain at mean distance in their orbits.

Interaction of SRF with gravitation resulted into retraction force (RTF). RTF keep bodies at mean distance in orbits and keep them in spherical motion. RTF acts on planets at ratio -inversely proportional to square-root of distance from the sun. So planets revolve at this velocity around the sun. The mass of the sun is 99.85% of the solar system, If the sun also exerted gravitation, then, all planets-satellites should have collapsed into the sun and that would be the end of solar system. centrifugal is fiction. The sun repels planets - it does not attracts.

This is a shockingly high degree of nonsense. We're talking surreal numbers just to describe the magnitude of it — transfinite ones for the bollocks, and infinitesimal ones for the logical coherency quotient. I said delete before, and I'm saying it again. . . . Anville 22:03, 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 all. —Centrx→talk • 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Tower Hoyt[edit]

also nominated are Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Devers and Eastern North Carolina Broadcasting Tower. These prods were contested without improvement by User:Unfocused with the comment "we already had this discussion years ago, and concluded that these were harmless, yet useful to those looking for 'em." However, bearing in mind the successful deletion of useless stubs in this category per overwhelming concensus, it is clear that consensus can change. For rationale, please refer to User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. - Delete. Ohconfucius 08:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 12:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge all or tell me what is flawed in the logic of these "are harmless, yet useful to those looking for 'em."? What actual harm do these do? --Doc^g 12:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per previous deletions. "What actual harm?" is not a good keep argument and AfD is not a vote-count. Zun aid ©® 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "What actual harm" would it be to have an article for each of the mailboxes in my town (address, color, height, date installed, pickup times)? It would debase and devalue the Wikipedia project. If someone wants accurate and up to date info about radio/TV masts, they would be much better advised to look them up in the databases these articles were cut and pasted from, because these articles contain stale data. Edison 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the logical problem with the "what harm" argument is that large amounts of articles on non-notable and non-encyclopedic material all take up space in the wikipedia database, and search complexity (and therefore server load and CPU demands) rise exponentially with a linear increase in the number of articles. Large numbers (how many have been deleted so far? 50? 100 in towers alone?) of articles on things such as unremarkable towers of the kind that dot every city in the world do nothing useful to justify the space they use. Wintermut3 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The devs have instructed us not to concern ourselves with server space. Deleted articles are still on the server anyhow.--Doc^g 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem necessary or notable in the least.Gan fon 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We DID have this discussion ages ago, and concensus was to keep. I don't see how, if they were deemed notable then they can be less notable now. I doubt I'd get away with trying to get Abraham Lincoln deleted on the basis that he's dead and no longer notable. (ok extreme example but.....) Jcuk 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

concensus was to keep Wrong. Consensus was to merge these things into a list of masts. Stand-alone articles? Not even close. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all "Not harmful" is not an encyclopedic criterion. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason for deletion is....?--Doc^g 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those keep votes are relying on bogus arguments akin to "I like it". Please refer to the clearly listed pertinent links in the above nom showing the discussions which took place last year, as well as the very clear and unambiguous recent concensus on deletion of useless stubs. Nobody so far has clearly shown that these are any different to those which have gone before them: They clearly fail WP:N, and I contend they also fail WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. So far, for the US articles alone, in excess of 300 stubs have been deleted (and 8 redirected) through AfD, and another 37 eliminated through prods, but who's counting? ;-) Ohconfucius 01:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what 'bogus' argument I've used. Actually, I don't like this article, it sucks. But the ownus isn't on the keep voters - keep is the default. So far I've seen no compelling argument for deletion. I've seen irrelevancies about the servers, and now an argument that says since you deleted the last lot (which I voted to keep), I'm not supposed to object to the deletion of this lot. You say lots of this has been deleted? Indeed, who is counting? --Doc^g 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "These are harmless" is exactly like "I like it". Anyhow, whilst you may be right about WP:NOT#PAPER, I contest your assertion that consensus in 16 separate AfD debates doesn't matter. In addition, I did not notice your participation in any recent debates, contrary to your assertion. I argue once again for your benefit that these fail WP:N, fail WP:NOT#IINFO, fail WP:NOT#DIR Ohconfucius 05:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: I know that server use isn't a valid reason for deletion, but it is a counterargument to "it does no harm" because tons of mostly useless articles do indeed have a hidden harm in terms of the usability of the encyclopedia. Besides, we have WP:N and WP:NOT criterion for a reason. To the above, the onus is not on delete votes to prove there is some harm caused, only that some aspect of policy or guideline is violated. In these cases, as they fail WP:N the towers pretty much would require an outstanding exception to keep, one I don't think is waranted under these situations (but I reserve the right to state that other articles may deserve that on the basis of other policy at some later time). Wintermut3 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per the many previous discussions. Vegaswikian 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. When a radio tower is elected president they will be notable. Static Universe 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and repeat, no indication any of these are notable. Seraphimblade 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, notable, and useful. Should be expanded, as this tower has been the subject of multiple news articles and some amount of local controversy; see, among others, "Giant Radio Tower in Rural Adams County, Colo., Called Hazard by Pilots". The Denver Post. September 7, 2003.. Not to mention that this is one of the tallest structures in the world. --Delirium 13:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. MaxSem 13:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock climbing[edit]

Everything but "history" section violates WP:NOR. Cut out the original research and we're left with a stub. Chardish 08:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy keep a very notable past time, well deserving of an article. Where do we get the idea that we have to cut any text that isn't referenced? Instead we should seek to find references. It's obviously been edited by experts in the field, we just have to coach them into providing reliable sources for their expertise. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Section 1 of core negotiable-only-at-the-Foundation-level policy WP:V (and the nutshell summary at the top) Bwithh 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made my point badly. This article was tagged by Chardish with a request for refs and verifiability, and then four minutes later nominated for deletion! --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It certainly needs an article, but frankly, this isn't it. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. No sources = no verifiability = no article. - Chardish 09:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the history section is fine, (as according to your own nomination even). It's not a stub. Even if it was just a sourced stub, that's not grounds for deletion. Bwithh 09:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep History section is sufficient to take it beyond a stub. Article needs more comprehensive referencing and long-existing unsourced statements can be removed, certainly, but the basic subject matter itself surely isn't being contested? Bwithh 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) This is certainly a subject that merits an article, even if the article needs improvement. Most of the material that you say is "original research" is not - it is just unreferenced at the moment. If anyone gets to their copy of Mountaineering:Freedom of the Hills (ISBN 0898864275) before I do, they could fix that pretty fast. FreplySpang 09:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you already claim that verifiable information exists in other parts of the article. Remove the original research yourself or add {{fact}} tags, don't bring the article to AfD.--RWR8189 09:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this article needs some work and more referencing, but deletion is not the answer. Serpent's Choice 09:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only in the most extreme cases is deletion a solution for problems with an article on such a notable topic. The verifiability pendulum will have swung too far if we equate lack of sources with unverifiability and start deleting valid and verifiable articles just because sources have not yet been added. We should not start using AFD as a cleanup tool instead of a deletion tool. Some basic research with Google to check if this is truly unverifiable is virtually mandatory before declaring something "unverifiable". Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not the place to 'edit' the article! I suggest the nomiminator takes this up on the article's talk-page. Markb 09:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a valid article to me. JIP | Talk 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sections need sources, yes, but the history section has them and the clubs link to articles that I think largely have them. AfD is not the answer, particularly for a key 'portal' like article linking to other articles on aspects of climbing. It is not OR as any climber would know. It just needs sources. If this kind of AfD was common, it would kill Wilipedia. --Bduke 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. The article needs a lot of work but AfD is not the place to bring this to light. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everybody above except nominator! Stephenb (Talk) 13:39, 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 keep due to sourcing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2007 (UK)[edit]

This article has less information in it than Big Brother Australia 2007 had when I nominated it for deletion, nothing is referenced, and there's still a season of the show that is currently airing on television. It's pretty much "crystalballism" at this point. J Di 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Well, we know that the show is going to happen. I bet it gets recreated... The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone cares to add anything to it. And yes, it will get recreated. --Majorly (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will obviously be recreated but I don't think it should happen until about two weeks before the show starts. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Last year's was created on 20 January [21]. As soon as info is available, it should be created, and if there is now it should be added. --Majorly (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I was just thinking not that much information can be known that far in advance but I guess I'm wrong. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's already information available about BB8 regarding audition locations and the "digital" housemate. Audition locations are announced in other articles, so I don't see why they can't be noted in this one. Torontois 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FireSpike 19:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This isn't a vote. --Majorly (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. I agree with Torontois. FireSpike 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as by what Torontois said.--HisSpaceResearch 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is hardly no information regarding Big Brother 8 yet. 2 Lines for an article is not worth a page right now. Maybe in 4-6 weeks but not right now. In January 2006 MORE information about BB7 was released than it is now for BB8. All we know is Big Brother 8 will be very different, it is the last year at the current locations and the Audition Dates. Doesn't seem alot, and doesn't seem worth it. Until a larger portion of information is accurate I suggest just placing this information to the main BBUK article. — Coreix (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saves hassle of creating a new article later when there is one available to add information to as it become available Jezabelda 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is now referenced. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup to remove original reasearch. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon types[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion in October 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types). It was closed as "no consensus whether to delete or merge", but very much not a 'keep'. Not a single jot of this has been merged. Three months is enough time, and so I am re-nominating it for deletion. As the prior nomination stated, this article/game guide is entirely original research and violates Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NOT, which explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a venue for game guide information. No real-world perspective, at all, way too detailed for 'aiding understanding', utter fancruft. Please don't recommend merging with Pokemon game mechanics - that article is already oversized and has sufficient information of this type already; plus, merging in unreferenced original research is a Very Bad Idea. Strong delete this. Proto::► 10:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but nuke everything that is original research, keep all that is supported by the games only.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would leave nothing. The only stuff supported by the game is the most basic facts, which exist in the main Pokemon article and Pokemon Game Mechanics and the individual articles on each and every Pokemon etc etc already. Proto::► 10:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A game guide, and completely lacking independent sources. Edison 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I regret not being able to discuss this article the first time it came around for AFD because many of the "votes" made there were not supported by any arguements and didn't add anything constructive to the conversation. First point, WP:OR, while I will personally apologize for the lack of resources (i've been editing this and related articles lately and been lazy), their absence does not automatically make this OR, most of the information is able to be used from the video games themselves and from their respective instruction manuals. The parts I would concede to removing would be things like, "Ground-type Pokémon are tough Pokémon affiliated with the soil." This amounts to something that has to be analyzed from reading a wealth of Pokedex information and does constitute OR. However, listing examples is purely descriptive and easily verifiable. As for the non-list info:
- Physical and Special Attack (instruction manual)
  - List of types in relation to Phys/Special (serebii.net)
- Pokemon types and damage multipliers (video games, serebii.net)
- Imabalance in early gameplay (video games, anime, instruction manuals)
- Differences between the anime and game (video games, anime, instruction manuals)

Please re-read WP:NOT carefully and realize that wikipedia is not a place for instruction. Where in the article is anyone being told "how to-do" anything? This article exists seperately because the information is too exetensive to appropritely contain within another article (i.e. too big and therefore distracting). IMO, there seems to exist a double-standard, have you ever looked at Monopoly? Or how about the vast variety of Category:Chess openings? And I'm sure you're aware of the example at wikimedia that talks about rules and strategies of poker. The point is that it's fine to discuss the details of a game as long as someone has done it before. Editors are just not allowed to give advice, instruction, or thier own opinions (OR).

Now on to sources (sorry this is so long, but it appears you need a thorough response or i don't have a WP:SNOW). Both Edison and Proto have now probably realized that this article is sourcable. But there undoubtedly remains some reservations about my sources and whether they follow WP:RS. Firstly, to Edison, primary sources are perfectly suitable for describing, which is almost all this article does, so complaining of a lack of them is irrelevant, especially when it's about a game. Secondly, one may notice my use of serebii as a RS. While fansites are generally discouraged I have yet to find a policy that forbids them. And this particular site meets the requirements laid out at WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references, but I'm not sure how you'd like me to do the references it makes to the anime. Would it be better to add refs for each episode it's refering to? or is a wikilink to the list of episodes with an episode number going to be sufficient? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment If we were debating the keeping of a book, a church, a professor, a choral group, an artist, or a shopping mall, the citing of fan websites would not count for much with respect to reliable independent sources, and the citing of game guides from the company or the instruction manual for a game would not count much for independent sources or for notability. Observations from looking or playing the game are clearly original research. People are always saying "If we have all those Pokemon articles, why can't we keep this article" with respect to articles with way better sources than these. Why should computer game or video game characters/weapons/equipment/tactics get a pass from notability, verifiability, and reliable sources on the basis of ILIKEIT? Edison 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason that fansites don't tend to count for much is because they are not stable, are not not subject to independent fact-checking, do not declare their source of information, are error-prone, and often-times uncorroborated. However, none of these apply to serebii.net. They are a reputable site within the pokemon community and considered reliable in their source information. Nintendo, by nature, does not tend to divulge information or talk about it's products in more than commercializing manners. And what does the source have to do with notability? You lost me on that one. Observations do not qualify as original research. From WP:OR:

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following -

It introduces a theory or method of solution;

It introduces original ideas;

It defines new terms;

It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;

It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source

From WP:RS:

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.

As you can hopefully see, my arguments are based on the policies, not on these strawmen that you've propped up, like ILIKEIT and the WP:Pokémon test. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the physical/special attacks of Pokemon (probably in the individual articles too), list of types in relation to Phys/Special, the types and damage multiplier is solely of use to those who are playing the game (and it's in their manuals anyway) is very much game guide information. The imbalance in early gameplay? That sounds like original research based on assumptions from playing the game (please correct me if I am wrong). And the differences between the anime and the game is information already covered in sufficient depth at the parent article, Pokemon. Proto::► 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so what use are things like Chess openings, and the cost of the Pennsylvania Railroad to people who will never play the game? What use is knowing exactly how many floors the Empire State Building has if I'm never going to go there? Isn't it enough to say it's really tall? Or what use is reading about Poker strategy if i'm never going to play? Jimmy said we can have that... but not a simple breakdown of Pokemon types? It's been written about, so it can be included. And FYI, phys/special breakdown and damage multipliers are not included in the game manuals. That's why they needed to be referenced. Again, WP:NOT isn't about who the article will ultimately appeal to (many of the advanced mathematics categories are much to technical for the "general audience"), game-guide is about instruction and advice. If i was to write that players should use Donphan against a Raichu because it's immune to electrical attacks, that would be game guide. You say that the differences between the anime and games is covered in the main article. Where? There is nothing that deals with the specific point that the anime treats types much more loosely, often even ignoring some of the basic principles. Nor is there the discussion of physical.special breakdown, and how it has changed since Diamond/Pearl. This small bit of info is discussed at Game mechanics, but as argued before, to include the amount of info deserving of the topic would grossly imbalance the article and distract, like Kyaa has humurously pointed out. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep article could use some cleanup but I agree with ΖαππερΝαππερ that the material is verifiable and not a howto. — brighterorange (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/smerge into Pokémon game mechanics. Most of the Pokemon types article clearly is a game guide. --- RockMFR 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- where specifically is there an instruction given? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Polkamon game mechanics (typo intended for humor). Or keep, since it appears to have been forked out of that page in the first place due to size considerations. Kyaa the Catlord 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but only after nixing all the original research scattered throughout the article. Overall I think the information is useful, but can be merged.Gan fon 22:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially the matchup chart, but eliminate FAQ-y content. Too big to merge into what is a fairly long article already. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill for the love of God. If there's anything worth putting in a pokemon article put it in there. Jcuk 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly per Zappernapper's arguments; there is plenty in the article that is worth keeping. I'm particularly fond of the Imbalance in early gameplay section, which has some interesting history about the Psychic, Ghost, and Bug types. I'm not too fond of all the lists of strengths, weaknesses, etc., that appear in each type's section, though; the table does a nice enough job of that in a much simpler fashion. More references are needed, but as Zappernapper said, lack of references doesn't automatically mean there is OR—but there will need to be more references for most of the claims in the article. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather say delete per Proto (nominator). Big top 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, but rm the original research. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sections 2,3,4 Keep THe rest. I am pretty sure it can be confirmed by the game guides that help people i the game. The Placebo Effect 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sections 2, 3, and 4?? But that would leave only a big list of types! --Brandon Dilbeck 03:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We could still leave an introduction and a short summery of how the types figure in to the game. Just condence the first three sections into one. Joiz ^A. Shmo 06:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Placebo Effect. Joiz ^A. Shmo 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been said, this is clearly to extend the Pokemon Game Dynamics. It shouldn't be deleted on purposes of OR because this is how the game type system works. It is useful information, but content on the page that are opinions should be deleted. Otherwise, it stands to be a valid article of information of how the Pokemon types interact with each other - not a game guide (there are parts that read like a game guide and should be deleted). Why don't we go around and nominate ALL the subsections in Pokemon Game Dynamics then as they are the same kind of article as this one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.120.157 (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pokémon game mechanics was created so that game information didn't clutter up Pokémon. The types are an important aspect of Pokémon that would be given too little coverage merged in. The 17x3 = 51 types need a separate article. TRKtvtce 03:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you multiply the number of types by three? --Brandon Dilbeck 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 89.120.193.125 18:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Densha-de-go.com[edit]

This article serves no purpose other than to promote the author's website. DAJF 10:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, corporate vanity to boot. So tagged. Don't forget to delete the two images as well. MER-C 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, as advertising.--Tainter 12:30, 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 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture movers[edit]

Non-wikified list of U.S.-only moving companies, truck rental companies, etc. with no supporting text. May have been cut and pasted from somewhere else. David 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Presumably, an article could be written on this topic. This, though, isn't that article. In fact, this isn't an article. Arguably speedyable A1/A3. Serpent's Choice 11:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there probably should be an article like this in the future but this one just doesn't seem worth it. --Tainter 12:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; I'd recommend a speedy, but it still needs to go. --Mhking 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move to List of moving companies? Offers three categories (which could probably be sourced from an industry list, they're valid as far as I can see, which is more than Category:Moving companies -- which could but subcatted but is not heavily populated as it is. Alternatively, merge into moving company. There's actually a template {{movers}}, too. --Dhartung | Talk 18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhking (talk · contribs) perhaps inadvertently deleted my vote[22], so replacing. --Dhartung | Talk 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A List of moving companies could work, but it would need to be a formidable beast in order to cover all countries, and this article doesnt appear to be a decent starting point for that. John Vandenberg 08:35, 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aphrodesian Warslow[edit]

Hoax. Single google hit[23] to an Ask Yahoo forum[24] where this WP article is linked to by someone named "Icecreamb", presumably the same person as User:Icecreamboy121. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. --Folantin 11:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thirty pounds of food a day, and on top of mt fuji at that. impressive. a bunch of junk --Tainter 12:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1; patent nonsense.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only thing that's interesting or verifiable about this is that it's a googlewhack. MER-C 13:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion Cellar[edit]

Contested PROD. This play only opened last month. There hasn't been enough time for it to gain any sort of notability. Joyous! | Talk 11:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All who express an opinion in this AfD are invited back on the fifth/last day, to see if any arguments presented have changed their mind, or raise new points for them to express. Lentower 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The time it opened shouldn't dictate notability. There are links in the article to several professional reviews, which I would say is an indication of notability. The article needs to be cleaned up and reformatted, but I do think there is potential for a solid topic here. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, I can't find anything that states that opening time is a criterion for deletion of an article about a play. If someone wrote a play for Wolfe's Look Homeward, Angel and it opened tomorrow, an article written last week would not be deleted because there is "enough time for it to gain any sort of notability." unsigned comment was added by KP Botany (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep. Non-trivial media coverage and notable participants seem to lean towards a keep. It may seem a bit borderline on the guidelines, but doesn't really fail any content policies. Agent 86 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this seems familiar, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clockwork Waltz, a fan production vs. this by the original artist. --Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a "fan production". The American Repetory Theather (A.R.T.) is one of the top regional theater companies in the US - recognized as such by Time Magazine, magazine[25] the NY Times, and others. And for several seasons, the A.R.T has worked with notable musical groups to co-develop and produce innovative musical theather. Lentower 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews in Variety and the Boston Globe prove notability.Eludium-q36 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An innovative work of drama that combines cutting edge music and theatre by two of America's most innovative cultural groups. A successful notable experiment according to the reviews. Can not be merged into either group's article, as it's a collaboration. The article could use more work. There are several articles in the media that notes much struggle between Palamer and the rest of the playwrights in the script's creation - a paragraph should be added on this with citations. Lentower 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I asked for an explanation of the policy whereby "opening time" is a criterion for deletion of an article about a play. I was given none. This is not a reason for deletion, it's simply a POV assertion. KP Botany 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As one of the contributors, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote, but I think this meets the three criteria for Wikipedia articles: neutral point of view, verifiability and not original research. In fact, with the 2nd, it is more than "verifiable"; it's actually "verified". The article makes refernces to "multiple, independent" sources and is about a performance of a band with a non-trivial importance at a university also of non-trivial importance. This, I think, gives it notability, although notability does not even have the same status as an obligatory criterion that the other three aspects I mentioned do have. Interlingua ^{talk email} 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)[edit]

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [26].Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the media attention it has received, including the Fox News interview that we have a link to in the external link section, makes it notable. Another thing is that negative criticism doesn't make it any less notable. That Mr. Carl Ernst has commented on it's writer, actually helps establishing the writers and his books notability. -- Karl Meier 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The book is quite notable and aside from being a conroversial book in its own right has been the topic of numerous news reports as well--CltFn 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:CltFn created a page for each of Robert Spencer's books in order to promote Spencer's anti-Islam views. His views are controversial and not taken seriously by scholars to the best of my knowledge; he also runs a website that contains material that's arguably Islamophobic, as well as legitimate material. Most importantly, he isn't notable enough to have so many pages devoted to his views; the descriptions of his books can be added to his biography. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a lousy book and a fairly lousy page. Wikipedia would be no worse without it. But it may be fixable with some effort if someone with easy access to the book tries. One problem I have with such bad books is that I don't want to create demand for them, so I don't usually get them... --Stephan Schulz 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan, my argument is that there are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica.--Aminz 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an idea worth considering as most Encyclopedias would limit articles on books to the classics and a few additional works of historical significance. Few books written after 2000 would fit that. However traditionally that's not been how Wikipedia does things. For example Category:2005 books, the year this book came out, includes things like The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch or Dead Men Don't Leave Tips: Adventures X Africa. Related to this book we have an article on the, 2004, book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.--T. Anthony 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite agree with this (Aminz's) view. Wikipedia has articles on thousands of books, including a lot of fairly obscure ones that may be less well-known than this one in the general population. See Settling Accounts: The Grapple (I'm reading this at the moment), Flying Colours (which I co-wrote), 1633 (novel) (which is fairly obscure), The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (which is more germane to this discussion - a much better book, but not, I fear, more notable), and so on. That's fine with me - WP:NOT paper.

Flying Colours (which I co-wrote). You're C. S. Forester? Cool! But I thought you were dead? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as everybody can easily see, my comment refers to the link (that I wrote all on my own ;-) and, by implication, to the Wikipedia article (which I co-wrote). I may have written the book in an earlier incarnation.... --Stephan Schulz 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the information about the books can be covered under the author's page. --Aminz 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SlimVirgin. Jyothisingh 14:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can people here actually discuss the issue of notability of this book instead of throwing around epithets like "anti-Islam" and "Islamophobic"? This is an Afd on a book, not a discussion of Spencer's website or his scholarly standing. If the nominator's reasoning is applied consistently, 90% of Wikipedia's articles on non-fiction books must be deleted. This is not necessarily a position I would disagree with, but we must tighten the existing policies to do so. Otherwise, the basis for the nomination seems to be at odds with the current Wikipedia practice. Beit Or 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book by notable author. Kyaa the Catlord 15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAmazon sales rank of #586 makes it a notable book. The fact that someone criticized it or a Wikipedia editor does not approve of the authors political views are irrelevant, since Wikipedia in not censored and we are discussing notability.Edison 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination that does not cite policy in its deletion reasoning. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). The argument by analogy with Britannica is also outside of policy, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The argument against the author's "scholarship" is a content dispute and does not belong at AFD. If the author believes a merge is warranted, use appropriate templates for that proposal.--Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a book that is not too notable (per Aminz).Bless sins 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as clearly notable book by a NY Times Bestseller; is the nominator trying to make a WP:POINT by this and similar nominations? Tarinth 19:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable book. Even taking out Wikipedia, several Wikipedia mirrors, and several bookstores it gets 62,500 hits.[27] That includes reviews or mentions from magazines that have articles of their own. It also got a few Google Scholar hits. We have articles on plenty of recent books that many, or most, might find offensive. For example In Defense of Internment, The Real Lincoln, or IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Being objectionable I don't think is seen as removal-worthy in itself.--T. Anthony 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion shouldn't be about the user that created the article, the author of the book, or its contents. It should only be about the book itself. As shown above, the book's notable. Quack 688 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone who wants articles about Robert Spencer's books deleted seems to because they criticize Islam. I wonder how that is in good faith. He is a scholar, he is notable, and his books are also notable.--Sefringle 05:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, and much as I hate to say it, I can't see any reason for deleting this article except to try to suppress the POV of the book... which kinda proves the author's point. Andrewa 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Sefringle and CltFn. This nomination is very far fetched and says a lot about User:Aminz. Arrow740 06:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the book is thououghly debunked makes it no less notable. After all, We have an entry for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and these books are about the same as far as accuracy and honesty goes. --John Kenneth Fisher 07:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dhartung. John Vandenberg 08:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - NYT bestseller! - Merzbow 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability overrides stupidity. --Calton | Talk 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone looked at the edit history of this article? There has been so much flack over Aminz doing a broadside of AfDs of articles on books by this one controversial author that the fundimental issue has been ignored ... this artice had {{unreferenced}} and {{cleanup}} because it lacked any WP:V citations ... that's what the tag said, "This article or section does not cite its references or sources." That was because the only claim of WP:N derived from simply having been written by a "notable" author to satisfy WP:BK ... several editors had independently put various tags on these stub articles, and other editors removed them ... those reverts escalted to this AfD and others, but it does not alter the fact that without citations, anything in this article (and the others) is just original research, and discussions of what the article is about, or any editor's opinions about the subject, have no place in this forum ... the real issue is, "Will we allow articles about books with no references to any reviews of the book simply because the author has an article in Wikipedia?" What happens when their claim of WP:N is based on how many articles already exist in Wikipedia about books they have written, and all of those articles were created by the same editor and/or their sockpuppets? I think that these AfDs simply represent a symptom of a systemic problem in Wikipedia, an alarming trend of bootstrapped notability without any verifiable independent non-trivial sources. —72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of sources is reason for a {{sources}} tag; if there is doubt that sources can be found, an Afd is appropriate. The article does not present any facts except that it is a book, who its author is, a quote from the author, and the ISBN. I've added a source for the quote. John Vandenberg 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeeding universally known go in. They just say notable. Furthermore, the comment that this book is controversial is not a reason to keep it out, it is a reason to keep it in. If there is such criticism, it would demonstrate notability. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination.DGG 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. DGG 02:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia policy on books is not that restricted. Being controversial Hitler's War, racist Mein Kampf, or discredited The Destruction of Dresden are not grounds for deletion. Edward321 05:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But notable criticism of the book has to be there for the sake of WP:NPOV, even if it is from partisan scholars. Of course, one must distinguish between criticism of Spencer and criticism of this specific book, with only the latter allowed in this article.Rumpelstiltskin223 10:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onward Muslim Soldiers[edit]

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [28].Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:CltFn created a page for each of Robert Spencer's books in order to further Spencer's anti-Islam views. His views are controversial and not taken seriously by scholars to the best of my knowledge; he also runs a website that contains material that's arguably Islamophobic, as well as legitimate material. Most importantly, he isn't notable enough to have so many pages devoted to his views; the descriptions of his books can be added to his biography. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This book certainly passes the college professor test. The motivations we need to questions are those of the nominator. Arrow740 06:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we were to merge the details of the books into the article on the author, surely we would merge and redirect this article, both for navigation purposes and to preserve the edit history in terms of the GFDL. I'm sorry, but delete and merge is not a very logical option. No change of vote. Andrewa 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has received more than enough media attention to be notable. This is what 30 seconds on Google provided me with: [29] [30] [31]. Another thing is that I am pretty disappointed to see that SlimVirgin seems to want to use this place to discuss her personal opinions about the writer, and to make bad faith accusations and what boarders personal attacks against CltFn. Let's stick to the subject please. -- Karl Meier 13:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should do some research before actually giving a definite opinion on whether this should be kept or not but I'm not convinced by the above. All three reviews come from blogs or websites of advocacy groups. I think they should be disregarded as non reliable per WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources. Pascal.Tesson 15:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Dobbs mentions it on CNN, but I don't know enough to vote.--T. Anthony 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Karl Meier, book is notable. Kyaa the Catlord 15:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author is notable, thus is the book. F.F.McGurk 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The reviews cited in the article lack full info as to what publication they appeared in, so they smack of courtesy back cover blurbs authors give one another. They need to be cited to reliable independent verifiable publications to count towards notability. The Amazon sales rank of #326,368 is yawn inducing. But I wish editors would stop telling us to delete it because they do not like the author's ideology. This is not "ILIKEITpedia." And the nominator should realize that Wikipedia is not Britannica, and we let in books thousands of times less notable than the few he cites as acceptable, as does Britannica. Edison 15:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination that does not cite policy in its deletion reasoning. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). The argument by analogy with Britannica is also outside of policy, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The argument against the author's "scholarship" is a content dispute and does not belong at AFD. If the author believes a merge is warranted, use appropriate templates for that proposal.--Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as clearly notable book by a NY Times Bestseller; is the nominator trying to make a WP:POINT by this and similar nominations? Tarinth 19:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and worthy of treatment as a book article.--CltFn 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a bad faith nomination based on Islamist bias.--Sefringle 05:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Karl Meier, CltFn, Dhartung, and Sefringle. Terrible nomination. This is not "Aminz likesitapedia." User:Aminz is becoming a reckless user.Arrow740 06:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must remind you of WP:NPA. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:Timely reminder, but the situation is that many good contributors doubt the good faith of these nominations. It's a narrow line to walk. The observations by Arrow740 have all been made by other users too. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the book is thououghly debunked makes it no less notable. After all, We have an entry for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and these books are about the same as far as accuracy and honesty goes. --John Kenneth Fisher 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Arrow740. John Vandenberg 08:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aminz, slimvirgin. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Spencer has had several books high on the NYT bestseller list recently, and he doesn't write all that many books. A discussion of whether his scholarship is "fundamentally flawed" or not is utterly irrelevant to an AfD. - Merzbow 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeding universally known go in. They just say notable. Furthermore, the comment that this book is controversial is not a reason to keep it out, it is a reason to keep it in. If there is such criticism, it would demonstrate notability. But I will continue to assume your good faith in making this nomination.DGG 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Book by bestselling author, whose bestsellers have also been nominated. Nomination and delete votes appear to be motivated purely by POV. Andrewa 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia policy on books is not that restricted. Being controversial (Hitler's War), racist (Mein Kampf), or discredited (The Destruction of Dresden) are not grounds for deletion. Edward321 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But, for the sake of WP:NPOV, any notable criticism of the book should be listed, even if it comes from partisan scholars. It is important to have all significant viewpoints. One must distinguish between criticism of Spencer and criticism of the book, of course. Only the latter should be included in this article.Rumpelstiltskin223 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 20:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Unveiled[edit]

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [32].Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spencer's views are controversial and not taken seriously by scholars to the best of my knowledge; he also runs a website that contains material that's arguably Islamophobic, as well as legitimate material. Most importantly, he isn't notable enough to have so many pages devoted to his views; the descriptions of his books can be added to his biography. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book has received more than enough media attention to be notable. One example is this article about the book in National Review -- Karl Meier 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The book is quite notable as one of the books by Robert Spencer--CltFn 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again As Karl points out, the book has spawned reviews and media attention. Kyaa the Catlord 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author is notable thus is the book. F.F.McGurk 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete No, McGurk, the author being notable absolutely does not make all his books notable, per our policy on notability. The reviews cited in the article lack full info as to what publication they appeared in, so they smack of courtesy back cover blurbs authors give one another. They need to be cited to reliable independent verifiable publications to count towards notability. The Amazon sales rank of about #35,000 is not very compelling. But I wish editors would stop telling us to delete it because they do not like the author's ideology. This is not "ILIKEITpedia." And the nominator should realize that Wikipedia is not Britannica, and we let in books thousands of times less notable than the few he cites as acceptable, as does Britannica. Edison 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination that does not cite policy in its deletion reasoning. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). The argument by analogy with Britannica is also outside of policy, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The argument against the author's "scholarship" is a content dispute and does not belong at AFD. If the author believes a merge is warranted, use appropriate templates for that proposal.--Dhartung | Talk 18:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as clearly notable book by a NY Times Bestseller; is the nominator trying to make a WP:POINT by this and similar nominations? Tarinth 19:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above--Sefringle 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dhartung and others. Bad faith nom. Can User:Aminz be blocked from filing AfDs? Arrow740 06:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the book is thououghly debunked makes it no less notable. After all, We have an entry for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and these books are about the same as far as accuracy and honesty goes. --John Kenneth Fisher 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per Arrow740. John Vandenberg 08:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Aminz.Bless sins 13:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned by PBS [33] and I believe was reviewed by Publisher's Weekly.--T. Anthony 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spencer has had several books high on the NYT bestseller list recently, and he doesn't write all that many books. A discussion of whether his scholarship is "fundamentally flawed" or not is utterly irrelevant to an AfD. - Merzbow 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are probably over ten thousand articles about books in WP. The guidelines do not say that only the most exceeding universally known go in. They just say notable. Furthermore, the comment that this book is controversial is not a reason to keep it out, it is a reason to keep it in. If there is such criticism, it would demonstrate notability. But I will still continue to assume your good faith in making these nominations, even though it is beginning tolook like a campaign against the author. DGG 02:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Book by bestselling author, whose bestsellers have also been nominated. Nomination and delete votes appear to be motivated purely by POV. Andrewa 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia policy on books is not that restricted. Being controversial (Hitler's War), racist (Mein Kampf), or discredited (The Destruction of Dresden) are not grounds for deletion. Edward321 05:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But notable criticism of the book has to be there for the sake of WP:NPOV, even if it is from partisan scholars. Of course, one must distinguish between criticism of Spencer and criticism of this specific book, with only the latter allowed in this article.Rumpelstiltskin223 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--D-Boy 16:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per T and Rumpel.Baka man 21:55, 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. Any merge discussions can take place on the article's talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics[edit]

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [34]. Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles. --Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spencer's views are controversial and not taken seriously by scholars to the best of my knowledge; he also runs a website that contains material that's arguably Islamophobic, as well as legitimate material. Most importantly, he isn't notable enough to have so many pages devoted to his views; the descriptions of his books can be added to his biography. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you know, the views of holocaust "revisionists" are controversial and not taken seriously by anyone... controversy only helps the article be worthy. Cannibalicious! 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The controversial topics could be always addressed in articles like "Criticism of X". --Aminz 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Seems odd to nominate Robert Spencer's books since they are quite notable and controversial and have gotten extensive media coverage. As far as spencer, he is very notable considering he appears on the media very frequently on the major networks.--CltFn 13:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book has relieved enough media attention to be notable. A few reviews: [35] [36] [37] -- Karl Meier 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not particular to this book. There are thousands of thousands books which are reviewed. --Aminz 13:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are thousands and thousands of books that has received enough (media) attention to be notable. And the problem with that is? -- Karl Meier 14:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can wikipedia, being a scientific Encyclopedia, have a page on each of them? It is like having a page for each university professor around the world. --Aminz 14:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can. having more information can only benefit teh wikky.

No it isn't. Every university professor around the world is not a notability. -- Karl Meier 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I may interject: including every university professor or every book in the world most certainly violates WP:NOT, as Aminz has noted. However, there is nothing wrong with having 1000s of notable books on WP, given that tens of millions of books have been written throughout human history. Just because there are 1000s of something is no reason to exclude them from WP: for example, heads of state, battles, chemical compounds, etc. Oh, and keep. Black Falcon 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep (per above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannibalicious! (talk • contribs)
Delete per SlimVirgin. Jyothisingh 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Karl Meier Kyaa the Catlord 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Robert Spencer and redirect. (1) The fact that Spencer's scholarship is questionable (if true), is not relevant to deletion. (2) Wikipedia:Notability (books) is fairly broad, as is the general notability standard -- assuming that at least two of the reviews Karl Meier notes qualify as significant, reliable sources, the book meets the limited notability criteria. (3) However, on the gripping hand, there is no point to the stub -- per Wikipedia:Article series, it would be preferable to redirect to Spencer's own page unless there is too much verifiable information to contain on that page, at which point the material can be spun back out. TheronJ 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is every book by this author up for AFD? Is this a POINT issue or something? Or someone not like the author or his viewpoints? F.F.McGurk 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An author can be the biggest scumbug on Earth, or a complete unscholarly (verifiable!) moron. None of that has anything to do with the merit of an article's existence covering his work. Why are editors even mentioning those? F.F.McGurk 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article about the author, since there has never been more than a book jacket blurb of an articvle. Nothing to prevent a proper article from being created in the future.The standards that only books as notable as Dante, the Bible and the Koran are worthy of articles does not agree with Wikipedia notability policies, and the arguments that the author is wrong and controversial do not address notability. Edison 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination that does not cite policy in its deletion reasoning. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). The argument by analogy with Britannica is also outside of policy, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The argument against the author's "scholarship" is a content dispute and does not belong at AFD. If the author believes a merge is warranted, use appropriate templates for that proposal.--Dhartung | Talk 18:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as clearly notable book by a NY Times Bestseller; is the nominator trying to make a WP:POINT by this and similar nominations? Tarinth 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, unverified, empty article (verging on CSD A1), completely fails to assert any notability or encyclopedic value. If there are reliable sources added to the article, if it expands beyond its current form as a library card catalog entry, and if content asserting any notability or encyclopedic value is added to the article, I may reconsider. Agent 86 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article is a stub and says nothing. But I will change my vote if article has some content.--Sefringle 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Bad faith nom. Arrow740 06:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the book is thououghly debunked makes it no less notable. After all, We have an entry for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and these books are about the same as far as accuracy and honesty goes. --John Kenneth Fisher 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, without prejudice, per Sefringle. John Vandenberg 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per slimvirgin. not every single book should appear in WP. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case the book seems significantly less notable than many other Spencer books nominated. I got about 979 hits without Google, but I get over three hundred for Dragons Lexicon Triumvirate so that's not too impressive.--T. Anthony 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge -- Not enough for its own article, but add to the article on the author, rather than delete all together. Pastordavid 23:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If I were acting as closing admin (which I won't be as I've voted myself) I would count this as a merge and redirect vote. We normally keep merged articles as redirects, both to aid navigation and to preserve the edit histories. Is this your intention? No change of vote. Andrewa 05:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spencer has had several books high on the NYT bestseller list recently, and he doesn't write all that many books. - Merzbow 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep The nominator has said the same about an entire group of books by the same author, it is apparently a campaign against the author because of the author's views.DGG 02:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Book by bestselling author, whose bestsellers have also been nominated. Nomination and delete votes appear to be motivated purely by POV. Andrewa 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia policy on books is not that restricted. Being controversial (Hitler's War), racist (Mein Kampf), or discredited (The Destruction of Dresden) are not grounds for deletion. Edward321 05:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Bad faith nomination, however the article at the moment does not assert independent notability. Shouldn't lose redirect as this is a likely search term. JASpencer 09:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has now been significantly developed --CltFn 13:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion[edit]

Not notable enough to have a page. There are thousands of thousands books. A book must be very very notable to have a page(e.g. Bible, Quran, Dante's divine comedy etc etc). I don't expect to find this book while searching in Encyclopedia Britannica for example. Aside from this, the scholarship of the author is also believed to be fundamentally flawed by university professors like Carl Ernst, please see [38]. Furthermore, if there is any controversy, it should be addressed in "Criticism of X" articles.--Aminz 12:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has received enough media attention to be notable. For example here is an interview about the book in Publishers Weekly: http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6368868.html?nid=2287 -- Karl Meier 13:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The book is quite notable, it has been featured on C-Span [39] [40] and aside from being a conroversial book in its own right has been the topic of numerous news reports as well--CltFn 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:CltFn created a page for each of Robert Spencer's books in order to further Spencer's anti-Islam views. His views are controversial and not taken seriously by scholars to the best of my knowledge; he also runs a website that contains material that's arguably Islamophobic, as well as legitimate material. Most importantly, he isn't notable enough to have so many pages devoted to his views; the descriptions of his books can be added to his biography. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The book is not notable enough to deserve an article of its own. Any useful content can be merged into authors' article or Critism of Islam page. Jyothisingh
Keep Per Karl and Comment this sort of agenda pushing mass nomination should be banned. Kyaa the Catlord 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please assume good faith. It makes sense to nominate a group of similar pages if you feel that they are all similarly deletable. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF doesn't mean to put on blinders. This user is obviously trying to make a WP:POINT. Kyaa the Catlord 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep All books by this author nominated by this user, possible WP:POINT or something? Notable. F.F.McGurk 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep #348 in book sales at Amazon.com is impressive, as is the TV coverage. Criticism that the author is wrong or an editor doesn't like him are irrelevant to this discussion, and the standards stated by the nonminator for which books we should have articles about are not those established by Wikipedia. Edison 16:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination that does not cite policy in its deletion reasoning. There is no precedent "very very notable" in the Wikipedia:Notability (books) proposed guideline or anywhere else (and by analogy, we should have almost no articles on television episodes or music albums if that were the case). The argument by analogy with Britannica is also outside of policy, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The argument against the author's "scholarship" is a content dispute and does not belong at AFD. If the author believes a merge is warranted, use appropriate templates for that proposal.--Dhartung | Talk 18:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the author is already a NY Times Bestseller, any new books he writes are going to be notable by extension. (Compare to WP:BAND which states that all the alumbs of a notable band are considered notable...I don't see the difference here.) Tarinth 19:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largely due to procedure as it seems to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). The book was the subject on Book TV on January 6[41] and another poster cited a Publisher's Weekly interview. These things I think make a book notable according to current guidelines. The nominator seems to want a stricter policy on the notability of books. I'm not necessarily opposed to a stricter policy, but I think a new policy needs to be discussed as AfDs alone will likely not create one.--T. Anthony 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable. Islamophobia is not a good reason to delete an article about a book, and neither is disagreement with the content of the book.--Sefringle 05:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Um, you do realise that this is a book that made the New York Times best-seller list? Even if we were to merge the content back into the article about the author, it would be essential to keep this entry as a redirect... and so even then, it doesn't need an AfD nomination. (And if you want to tighten the notability criteria for books, I'd suggest this one is very much a bridge too far as a test case...!) Andrewa 06:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and block User:Aminz from AfD's. Arrow740 06:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the book is thououghly debunked makes it no less notable. After all, We have an entry for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and these books are about the same as far as accuracy and honesty goes. --John Kenneth Fisher 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If it's a fact that it's thououghly debunked (and I don't doubt this, I don't know either way) then please add some references and/or external links to this effect to the article. Currently, all the links and references there seem "friendly". No change of vote. Andrewa 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep'. Sheesh. Its a banned book; isnt that notable??. John Vandenberg 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think that he himself is notable enough to have article on him. Creating article on each of his book is not justifiable. We can create section on his article instead. --- ALM 11:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This seems to be representative of the content of many if not all of the delete votes, so I think a reply is in order, in order to save everyone's time in the future. It appears to be purely an expression of a personal opinion. In terms of Wikipedia:deletion policy, it has little relevance to the decision. Having voted myself, I won't be acting as closing admin, but if I were, these votes wouldn't count for very much, even if they were numerous enough to seem significant at first glance. No change of vote. Andrewa 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Book is a NYT bestseller! - Merzbow 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia policy on books is not that restricted. Being controversial (Hitler's War), racist (Mein Kampf), or discredited (The Destruction of Dresden) are not grounds for deletion. Edward321 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But notable criticism of the book has to be there for the sake of WP:NPOV, even if it is from partisan scholars. Of course, one must distinguish between criticism of Spencer and criticism of this specific book, with only the latter allowed in this article.Rumpelstiltskin223 10:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Virginia United States Senate election, 2006#Allen's macaca controversy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macaca moment[edit]

This appears to be an attempt at neologism as there is little evidence to suggest that 'a macaca moment' is a term in general use, as opposed to 'the macaca moment' that was specific to the 2006 Virginia senatorial election and is already covered at Virginia United States Senate election, 2006#Allen's macaca controversy Cripipper 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what isn't already in Virginia United States Senate election, 2006#Allen's macaca controversy. This incident did receive a lot of press attention, but it really is not important enough to have its own article. There also isn't enough information to merit a separate article; keep it in the main article. It also is not a word in common use, as the article tries to portray it. All the references I find to a macaca moment have to do with the infamous YouTube incident. Srose (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The phrase was a runner-up candidate for some "new word of the year" award that got some press, which someone can scrape up and cite ... but it still doesn't need a separate page. Serpent's Choice 15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with macaca (slur), which recently survived deletion. There is no need for an additional article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per the comments of the other three people. dposse 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Savidan 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent dance music[edit]

This is a genre of music that in the words of one of its "references" is ' music that defies categorization'. The term is a complete neologism, and also inherently point of view. Why is this kind of dance music intelligent? The references are completely unreliable, being a few forums, blogs and a web ring. the entire article seems to have been built off the fact that an album was released in the mid 1990s called Artificial Intelligence. Aphex Twin, which this original research describes as the founder of 'intelligent dance music' is a drill and bass / ambient techno artist, not 'intelligent dance', and said himself that he considers he has nothing to do with the newly-invented and made up arbitrary name, himself suggesting it was not a fair name to use ([42]). Wikipedia should strive to avoid neologisms, avoid original research, and not be the place for things made up in school one day. Delete. Proto::► 14:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the name of a musical genre is vague does not deprive it of notability. This label (usually seen as IDM) is at least discussed at allmusic.com and audiogalaxy.com. Easily meets the "I heard of it before seeing the Wikipedia article" test. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what policy is that test contained in? I have heard of my dog, but my dog has no article. Allmusic is utterly unreliable when it comes to names of genres, as they're chiefly user submitted (I don't know about Audiogalaxy). Proto::► 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Policy" is the biggest problem with the project right now, it seems. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, failing to grasp those policies in the first place is the problem. Proto::► 18:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When "policy" is imagined to trump the observation that I had heard of this term well before seeing a Wikipedia article on the subject (and therefore, this isn't some newly made neologism, but a label with some currency), this seems to me to lead to the conclusion, not that this AfD has even slight merit, but that reams and reams of "policy" ought to be on WP:MfD. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - Excellent article which tries to explain a term, a so called superword like Punk in which it's meanings are contested, which has been used widely for the past 16 years in the dance and electronic music community. Hardly a neologism and definitely not something which someone made up in school the other day. A google search for "intelligent dance music" produces 120,000 entries and the more frequently used term idm+ambient (for example) comes up with 1.3 million entries. A quick search on ebay for idm came up with 85 music listings. Yorkshiresky 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the fact that it's linked to 400+ other wikipedia articles seems to indicate that's it's a fairly widely used term. Yorkshiresky 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that some word is linked to 107+ articles usually indicates that it sits in a template :-) `'mikka 17:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and massively cleanup. I don't think WP:NFT applies here as if this is a term made up by the music media (as are most genre designations) and then written about. WP:OR Does apply to some of the content of this article and it certainly needs some editing to take out content that doesn't meet WP:V, but on the whole I don't think the very concept or existance of the term is WP:OR and I don't think WP:NEO necessarily applies here. Inherent POV of the term is also not an issue in my opinion, any moreso than it would be with Trash rock or Emo. It is a name, nothing more or less. With all due respect to Richard David James, I don't think his opinion of what his music should be categorized as is in any way relevent here. What matters is what the music media categorizes him as and if he doesn't like it he can start up a support group of "mislabeled artists" along with the multitudes of musicians who have been lumped into the catch-all of Emo... All that said, Proto has a very good point about the reliability of the sources. Other than Allmusic, there is an audiogalaxy editorial, Usenet posts, and a couple of interviews that don't even reference the term. This is something that needs to be corrected. The fact however that in an interview with James the interviewer references the fact that his music has been called IDM and that would seem to indicate the fact that this is a known term and the way he answers the question would indicate he is familiar with the term and it is one that is common enough that it would be understood by someone who follows techno music. Of course "seem to indicate" isn't what we base articles on. I guess what I'm getting at here is that at this time I think a keep and cleanup (and if that means busting it back to a stub on the term ref'd just to the Allmusic article, so be it) is the correct course of action with no predjudice against another AfD if real reliable sources are not added to this article in the next month or so.--Isotope23 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 11 gbooks hits, 200 GNA hits, even 12 Google Scholar hits. The fact that Aphex Twin does not like the label is hardly an argument from Wikipedia policy. As with all music genre articles, it could stand major improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I see the problems with WP:OR, especially in terms of giving much credence to the effect of a usenet group without citing anything, but the article can be cleaned up. The important thing is that the article has a good skeleton to it. The concept itself was not "made up in school one day" and is certainly not a neologism--it's been around for a decent amount of time and has been fairly widely adopted. If you're going to consider this a neologism, you might as well AFD Indie pop and Drum and bass as well. --Jackhorkheimer 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work for sure, but it is a definite keeper on the basis that it is a fairly commonly used genre label. The description of the music being "intelligent" may not even accurately describe the music, but there are other music genres that arguably suffer from inaccurate labelling as well. Regardless of that, people commonly use the word and I see it often on different websites including AllMusic, and even MySpace has it as an option for artists to describe themselves as. Overall, it just needs editting and sources, and I think it can be on its way. -- Shadowolf 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Promise Ring say they aren't emo, Tarentel say they aren't post-rock, Aphex Twin says he isn't IDM. Sounds about right. There are tons of genre articles we should be deleting before this one. And it doesn't really defy categorization, you know.Recury 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on academic references, but I agree that it cries out for sourcing and removal of statements that can't readily be sourced. Gazpacho 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 'IDM' is a notable and very widely used term to describe this fairly popular subgenre of electronic music.--HisSpaceResearch 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The genre classification is very widely used, it is not "made up in school one day". The google book/scholar hits should be enough to show that this genre deserves its own article. AmitDeshwar 17:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Not commercial but quite widespread underground. While I do not liste to it, it certainly does not fit the deletion guidelines. A simple genre search returned over 1000 albums. Now if that genre came out of another one in the 90s or not i don't know nor care, since the term is notable on its own. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 18:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To paraphrase: "The odd thing about Intelligent Dance Music is that it is not all that intelligent, you can't dance to it, and it can rarely be called music." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.134.128 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep Anyone who listens to any kind of electronic music can tell you IDM is a distinct style of music. It's not something that has been created out of thin air, and just because something defies definition doesn't mean it should be deleted. Captiivus 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. F.F.McGurk 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up and sort out referencing. I've never seen something so notable at AfD. CiaranG 11:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone who is interested in this subgenre recognizes the term and it immediately conjures up a certain sound in the mind's ear. I fail to see why this discussion remains open eight months later.216.241.33.5 20:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond strong keep Important subgenre of Electronic Music. zellin t / c 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy merge and redirect to No. 52 Squadron RAF because I have big WP:COJONES. Little duplication in the two articles, very easy. Tubezone 01:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number 52 Squadron Royal Air Force[edit]

Delete? This article seems like, either a hoax, or a unnotable topic; I haven't seen anything about this anywhere, so I don't know who teh No. 52 Squadron is. BishopTutu 05:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Definitely not a hoax - 52 Squadron at RAF website. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make automatically make it unnotable or a hoax. Readro 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just realised that it's a duplicate of No. 52 Squadron RAF, so although it's genuine, the article is not needed. Readro 17:13, 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 due to rewrite. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an and miracles[edit]

Delete There are no miracles in the quran. This is not a factual article. It is not varified. See WP:V. It is bias per the title (See WP:NPOV), unencyclopediac (also per title), horribly written, unreferenced with Reliable sources. This article is aslo a vehicle for propaganda and inventions. Sefringle 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See talk:Qur'an and miracles#Un-sourced statements. It can be seen that the creator of this article made it to see if it would be nominated for deletion.--Sefringle 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, irretrievably POV. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A horribly confused article of no encyclopaedic value. --Folantin 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow. i assume it was made by a person associated with the oft cited webpage with a similar name to the article. contributes nothing to wikipedia.--Tainter 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you see here, it seems to have been a bad faith creation.--Sefringle 03:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With 1300+ years of writings on theology and Islam, I'm pretty sure an encyclopaedic article can be made on this topic, but this isn't it per all of the above. For the same reason, with 1300+ years of sources, we can do better than linking ad nauseum to the same website. It looks like link spamming to me. - Aagtbdfoua 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and stubify or restore some older not-so-much-vandalized and more NPOV version - there are such versions in the history of the article, I think. Miracles in holy books (Bible, Quran etc.) are notable field of work for both theologians (from the perspective of their faith) and social scientists who research religions from the outside point of view. We should have an article like e.g. Miracles attributed to Jesus also in this case. This does not mean that we all believe in miracles in Quran, but we must describe what the people write about them.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there are no scholarly sources attributing miracles to the quran, it doesn't make sense to have an article about them. And if the article exists for propaganda purposes, it is unencyclopeidac to have such an article. I think what you are talking about is already stated in Islamic view of miracles. I did not nominate that article for deletion, because although it is poorly written, it has a much greater potential to become scholarly and encyclopediac.--Sefringle 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your premise "there are no scholarly sources attributing miracles to the quran" is wrong: The Quran itself stresses the miraculous revelation given by Allah (God) to Muhammad (e.g. Sura 41:6), and this important claim is then analyzed in the scholarly literature - for example I have at hand a copy of Spurensuche - Die Weltreligionen auf dem Weg by Hans Küng in Czech translation, where this is described on page 269. Therefore the aricle can and should be rewritten in encyclopedic manner, in my opinion.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as irremediably addled nonsense.Proabivouac 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly legible, not verifiable, undermines the credibility of this encyclopedia. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is highly encyclopedic and, well-sourced. factual accuracy is not disputed (If you want to, you can even read quran and prove for yourself). I don't see why this article have to be deleted. But the article needs repairing on writing tone. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep

Title does not imply that there are any miracles in the Qur'an, only that the article is about those two subjects, thus is the title perfectly NPOV. Miracles in the Qur'an would be Muslim POV. Whose point of view does "Qur'an and miracles" propagate? Even an atheist could write an article with that name, only to proceed with denying every single claimed miracle.
I reverted to an older version were everything is formulated as claim and nothing is takes as factual, thus, there is no NPOV problems
There is no Verifiability problems, anyone can check even the internet to see a plethora of Muslim websites claim miracles in the Qur'an, in fact, those claims are to be found in all major websites and you can even find some websites dedicated to explore claims of miracles.
You don't need a scholarly source for a topic like this, i can't find any scholarly source for Pokemon, just a lot of people that enjoy them, if you get my point. Just how many scholarly sources to you find regarding List of Star Trek planets, Candy bar or The Headington Shark ? And even if it were necessary, which it is not, there are lots of Muslim scholars that have written about this topic, for example Zakir Nike, just from the tip of my head.
Needs better sources? Sure. So fix it. But don't claim that there IS no prominent and notable Muslim sources that claim so, for the Qur'an itself makes such a claim.

--Striver - talk 10:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ Keep: ~~Rename it like 'Islamic View on Quranic miracles'~~. --Falcon007 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article presents a very one-sided Islamic view now, but I do not see a reason why we should support it. The Islamic view should be a part of the article, but not the only part, otherwise we'll lose NPOV. There is a lot of sources from Christian and secular POV about it, too; why not mention them?--Ioannes Pragensis 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. That was just a suggestion considering the current state of the article that would have been the title. Anyway, it needs lot of improvements and other point of views should be included to make it more presentable. --Falcon007 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete The claim that there are no miracles in the Quran is obviously religiously-based POV and is not reason for deletion. The article however is altogether unintelligible, and the subject should probably be approached from a fresh start. DGG 02:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are arguing for is a editorial issue and not an argument for deleting an article. You don't need an afd to stubify an article. --Striver - talk 14:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article need work but topic is encylopedic. It can be improved to be a good article. Do not delete it give it more time and chance to develop. --- ALM 23:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ioannes Pragensis and Striver. ITAQALLAH 01:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above, good catch Sefringle. Arrow740 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK guys, the article was really horrible. Therefore I have rewritten it from scratch and I believe that by now it is an above-average stub - could you please look at it once again?--Ioannes Pragensis 09:20, 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Rockman[edit]

Asserts notability as photographer, but zero Google hits, unlikely premise (renowned photographer at age 17?) Anyway, not verifiable as is. NawlinWiki 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Book sources do not exist, gallery probably does not exist. His parents do exist and get more ghits than he does (his mother was on a plane with a disturbance in late 2001, dad's an IP lawyer, neither qualifies under WP:N). --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if his parents were noteworthy that would be no reason to have an article on him. -- Hoary 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was implying that he is less notable than his non-notable parents. --Dhartung | Talk 03:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verifiability WP:V, but also fails WP:Notability for artists or photographers even if the information could be verified. TheMindsEye 21:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what looks like something written after a beer or three. -- Hoary 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep He did win the Amateur photographer of the year 2002. Is a student at Miami University. -- Bobthefatass 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTH)
- This user ID has a fascinating contributions list: two blatant cases of vandalism, and now this "keep" vote. -- Hoary 07:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bobthefatass's comment illustrate one of the problems with this article, the lack of verifiability. Where is the documentation for his award as the "Amateur photographer of the year 2002" and who is this International Society of Photographers who awarded Rockman this title? Well a little research yields an a great deal of information about the group -- apparently they send out hundreds of these awards that come with invitations to attend their conventions where "EVERY photographer who attends is presented with an "Amateur Photographer of the Year" award." Click here for a news article on this organization's sister group, The International Library of Photography. TheMindsEye 13:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As a Junior at the Tisch School of the Arts at NYU, we are given insight into young artists , some younger than ourselves, from all over the world who are creating notable works. Maxwell Rockman is someone whose work we have looked at. In fact he visited NYU this November and shared some of his ideas on capturing what he calls ' moments of reality' with a camera. His work is very intriguing and is certainly worthy of merit. As for the books, they are exclusive art books that were only available to art institutions. We have the books here at Tisch and from what I heard from some of my professors, the books were only printed for a short time. The gallery Roy was a small gallery that featured young and old artists alike. It closed two years ago because the owner died. From what I remember( I visited it 3 years ago) the owner, who was very old and had a ton of money( again, this is what one of my professors told me), displayed all many different pieces from different artists that he thought were outstanding. He had no website and the gallery was only open for a two years. I do remember a small article in the Times about it which prompted me to see it for myself. I believe I know who this bobthefatass character is. He may, in fact, be one of our professors who proclaimed, after Maxwell left, that someone like him should have a wikipedia page. I cannot tell you why there were two cases of vandalism, but I do know that our professors are not too fond of Wikipedia and one, I'm not going to name names, showed us a page he "reworked," which was quickly changed back to its original state. From what I have read, this article is fairly accurate, and I see no reason to remove it. [[User: photogdelriowiki] 4:22, 10 Jan. 2007
- Username's first edit. -- Hoary 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is, indeed, my first "edit" for I came across this discussion when looking up Rockman just for fun on Wikipedia( after remembering what my professor said). I thought I might throw in my two cents, because this article is true( and humorous...I recieved the same award as did everyone else!). In small art circles, mainly fine arts colleges and photogrpahy groups, Mr. Rockman is considered one of the new age photogrpahers who is creating great art. Having his name, as well as a small bio, in such a public database, is an excellent way for him to become 'known.' As said before, he is recognized, but not by everyday 'casual' photogrpahers who would certainly get a kick out of his work. User:Photogdelriowiki 8:27, 10 Jan. 2007
    - This is exactly the point -- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for becoming known, Wiki is an encyclopedia or repository of knowledge. If you believe so strongly in Mr. Rockman, then wait for him to become notable and we will all happily help you create a fine article on his work. TheMindsEye 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe you miss the point that the creator is trying to make. This is an article about an artist, that at least is known by professionals. If Wikipedia monitors, like yourselves, choose to delete it, then why not delete articles relating to things like certain bacteria that only a few scientists care about. He is a reference, just like bacteria. What I meant about becoming known is that he can be accessed by other individuals without knowledge of him to gain insight into new artists. User: Photogdelriowiki 10:45, 10 jan 2007
        I'm not accustomed to the comparison of photographers and bacteria, but the novelty has a certain charm. Two things are involved here: (i) the verifiability of the facts claimed for the photographer/bacterium, and (ii) the meeting of notability criteria for photographers/bacteria. That a bacterium is unknown to anyone outside a group of scientists is beside the point. As for photographers, Pierre Rossier is probably very little known, but he gets an article because the claims made for him within it are verifiable and because of his roles both of pioneer and of teacher of photographers as notable as Ueno Hikoma. -- Hoary 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep there seem to be sufficient sources for notability, even discounting the appeals of the guy's students. DGG 02:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what might these "sources for notability" be, DGG? -- Hoary 07:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone provides reliable sources for the claims. Nuttah68 14:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Robertissimo 14:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soil (Pre-System of a Down)[edit]

Little information or notability, this does not need more than refence in the System of a Down article. Joltman 15:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were members of the above band and are similarly not of very much notability:

Joltman 15:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. One jam session and one performance in their existence. great. --Tainter 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three... & possibly merge anything useful from the main article into the history of System of a Down. SkierRMH 06:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Btw, anyone think we should make a History of System of a Down page? Or would the one on its main artical be good enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WeirdoYYY (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I wanted to note that this was the original author of all three pages. Joltman 12:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say that you may, not nescesarily have to, but possibly delete the "Soil" page, but if so, add the information on it to the top of the System of a Down page, as it being "Pre-System of a Down". I don't however think you should delete the two artists pages, due to the fact that they were technically part of one of the greatest alternative metal bands in history. Just think of them as "former members" and leave their pages as they are.
Delete all three, merging anything useful to System of a Down. Nuttah68 14:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Parker[edit]

No assertion of notability, largely unverifiable, possible hoax. Search for Alex Parker and "The Tempest" returns 30 Ghits and no reliable sources [43], search for Alex Parker and "The Forest of the Night" returns zero Ghits [44] One Night In Hackney 15:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as exceedingly unnotable or hoax. Found nothing to confirm, found other Alex Parkers in theater including a blind man and a grammar school student. --Dhartung | Talk 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above.Gan fon 21:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Le Fleur[edit]

Non-notable businesswoman and bondage model. I'm not sure how important the SIGNY awards are, but if she'd won that might have been a different story. Fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; under 20 ghits on stage name, website rank is 128,000. [45] --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. - Aagtbdfoua 03:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yin Yang Yo! (video game)[edit]

Either the info on this game is really late updating, or it's all crystal-ball stuff. Nekohakase 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced; I can't find any reliable information about a game based on this franchise, and an article can always be created if a game is announced. --Alan Au 18:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't appear to exist (a search for the name in conjunction with "Ubisoft" yielded no meaningful results), and another article by the same author was deleted in early December with similar concerns ("unsourced, truth unknown"). Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: Only if a shred of source or reference can be found. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any source Da Big Bozz 17:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily closed. Content has been merged with Aramaeans in the Netherlands, so this article has been redirected to that article. A ecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arameans in enschede[edit]

This page already has been merged with Arameans in the Netherlands by the author. This latter page contains more and wider information on Arameans in the Netherlands including information on the situation in Enschede JohannesI 16:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G7. AfD nominated by article creator, no other edits. Johannes, you can request deletion in this case by adding the {{db-author}} tag to the top of the article. Tevildo 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Moved the "in the Netherlands" article, which was at "in The Netherlands." --Groggy Dice T | C 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed from the list. This discussion has nothing to do with Armenia or Armenians. A ecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 00:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- its already been merged, which seems like the right way to go on this. Pastordavid 23:53, 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. But, anyone is free to hold a requested merge on the talk to decide where to (because there was also no consensus on where to merge to, with three articles given). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerkiew[edit]

del . 100% foreign dicdef (the 100% adequate tranlsation is "Orthodox church") with some incoherent rambling that churches can be big and small and in some languages orhtodox and catholic churches may be called by diffrent words. `'mikka 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC) NOTE This deletion nomination was changed (around 06:03, 11 January 2007 ) after it was started and after quite a bit of debate. KP Botany 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in English as a loan word. --Dhartung | Talk 17:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Church (building). (If there were a specific article abou the architecture of Orthodox churches, I'd say redirect it there, but no such article seems to exist.) Redirects are cheap and there seem to be a decent number of English hits for the term on Google books (~800 total hits, of which about 1 in 20 are English). cab 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's rather obscure, but photographs of cerkiew have a strong following in the high end art photography world--this is something not necessary going to show up on the internet. It's obscure, but has a following in the modern context, and could use with a better article, maybe a translation from Pl.wiki. I do know some Old Church Slavonic linguists, so this may also be why I'm familiar with the term, but I think it comes from dealing with gallery owners, and the art world's fascination with images of the Central and Eastern European wooden cerkiew. The word is also used in Russian, and it generally refers to the wooden cerkiew, not the brick ones, when Americans speak about it in photographs. It's the sort of knowledge of a remote topic that people may look up, but other internet sites won't be offering articles about it. I can't actually follow the criteria for deletion that Mikka is offering, but they appear to be criteria for WP:CLEAN not for WP:AfD. Again, crappy is reason for tagging for clean-up and wikifying, not for deleting. Possibly some photographs, gallery owners, and art collectors on Wikipedia can give more information--I wanted to buy a print once, but it was way out of my league. KP Botany 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncontrolled borrowing is not an argument for arbitrariy enriching English language. I am repeating (and try to prove me that I am wrong): the notion 100% corresponds to "Orthodox church". It is not simply "crappy" I dont suggesting a redirect simpy because this article does not have any content at all beyond polish-english translation. "they are small, but some are big" - very encyclopedic. `'mikka 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree that the term corresponds 100% to Orthodox church (with a small "c", so this shouldn't redirect to Orthodox Church). But that's pretty much the point of a redirect; replacing an article/search term which isn't a good title or has no useful content, to point somewhere that actually does have content and is a good title. This is a fairly well-established practise; see {{R from alternative language}}. cab 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - this practice makes sense when a word has a notable currency in English. In your lack of knowledge you even don't see an ironical mockery over the common sense: usage of a polish word to describe an Eastern Orthodox thing. Hint: poles are Catholics. As for "R from.." are you going to make a redirect from zerkiew, sterkov, cerkow, zerkov and a dozen of other languages and transliteraitons as well? Hint: poles are Catholics. While we are here, why don't we also make arkhitektura to point to Russian architecture?
    - Concluding, if you don't know a topic you are discussing, you may happily apply rules to screw up any common sense. Ever tried to translate a poem into Tuvan language using a dictionary? `'mikka 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Try observing WP:CIVIL, which you seem to have a problem with when you come on AfD lately. The word has been seen in English-language books, which is good enough reason to make it a redirect. And since you were the one who kept repeating "the word corresponds 100% to Orthodox church", I was assuming you actually meant what you said. cab 03:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "the word corresponds 100% to Orthodox church" as translated from Polish language. The word does not have presence in English but for Polonized names of some Ukrainian churches. The word is even not Ukrainian, man! (which would be tserkva, церква). That's why I am saying, if you don't know things, you beter ask people who know. Google may screw you up for good, if you don't know what you are looking at. You see the word popping up, but you fail to judge the context properly. And this, like my previous remarks, is not a personal offense, but a word of caution. But if you prefer to feel offended, suit yourself. `'mikka 07:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I suggest asking someone with more expertise, then. Please don't badgers other in these discussions. KP Botany 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for example to Church with citations provided. Redirect otherwise. --Brand спойт 02:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If merge, to Church (building), not to Church, as it is about the building, not the church, so it corresponds to part of the definition. That's the issue about borrowing words, they don't always borrow exactly--and this one as I have heard it used by Americans did not get borrowed into English to mean what it means in Polish. The English word for "Orthodox church" is "Orthodox church" or "Orthodox Church," it's not "cerkiew". "Cerkiew" as it is used in American-English, as far as I have heard, only refers to wooden Orthodox church buildings in Poland and Lithuania, not to all Orthodox church buildings, not to the ones in America, for example. If we are speaking Polish it means something different. It's like the offensive slang term "Polak" in American English, it is not an offensive term for a person of Polish descent in Polish, it means Polish man in Polish. So, we're speaking English, not Polish. What "cerkiew" means in Polish is not what is at stake for the article. What is, is what it means in English as a borrow word. I still think it is better to consult with someone in the know about the use of the term in American English.KP Botany 02:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of this English words. Of course, it is used in names eg., Biala Cerkiew (which is a shameless Polonization of Bila Tserkva). If you have a reputable reference, bring it here and we are done with this pointless bickering of POVs. `'mikka 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Mikka, you nominated it for deletion based upon it being a dictionary defintion. Are you changing your reason? And what dictionary did you find it in, btw, as your reason for deletion ('100% dicdef") is POV. What else can we discuss and to what degree but what you offered up for a reason? KP Botany 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orthodox church (building). -- Petri Krohn 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Orthodox church (building). If what KP Botany is saying is true, then it's reason enough to make this page redirect to that one and add a section there about this word and what it may mean as a "borrowed" word in a certain select segment of English-speakers. And the picture should be moved there too, of course - even if nothing else is kept, that's a good picture of a type of Orthodox church that's not represented in the pictures already there. Esn 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to ignore the basic rules of the game: WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE. No reliable sources, no merge. If there were any, this article would not have even been discussed here in the first place. `'mikka 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response But these aren't the reasons you gave for the nomination. And that's an even more basic rule of the game: nobody has to read your mind. You said to delete because it's "100% dicdef." KP Botany 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK My bad. Sloppy nominaion indeed. Updated a bit.`'mikka 06:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - However, the discussion above was based upon your original nomination, you can't just change it now as if that was what was up for discussion the entire time--you should strike out your original reason and redate the nomination--I have added a note right below the nomination to alert others that what was discussed until this post, wasn't what is currently listed for nomination. Still, you've now changed it to something that isn't so, it isn't a foreign dictionary definition, it's in English. And, again, you haven't nominated it for deletion for WP:Verifiability or WP:CITE or reliable sources, but for "100% foreign dicdef." Meanwhile Esn has provided a reasonable alternative, however, which deals with your reason for deletion, that it's a dictionary definition, and with concerns related to lack of sources and verifiability. KP Botany 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is not a court of law where you may motion to dismiss on a technicality. The article must be discussed here, not the form of my nomination; the goal here in not to prove that my nomination is without merit, but to prove that the article has sufficient merits. A discussion may reveal both merits and new drawbacks. `'mikka 02:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So, exactly WHICH nomination of yours are we discussing? The discussion above was about your first nomination, which you've now changed. Are you saying that you want to attribute all prior discussion to your first nomination? You haven't raised any criteria from the guidelines for AfD and you're the one who demanded that others play by the rules of the game. So, others play by the rules of the game and you change the rules when and where you want? Is that it now? If you're going to raise rules of the game for others, then it should be expected that other editors will challenge you to play by them also. You changed your nomination and made it look like it was some other nomination that editors were discussing. You could have simply renominated, or you could have added a line and comment. You chose neither. The issue of whether or not the article has merits is hinged solely upon the following arguments you now offer (not the same ones discussed): "100% foreign dicdef (the 100% adequate tranlsation is "Orthodox church") with some incoherent rambling that churches can be big and small and in some languages orhtodox and catholic churches may be called by diffrent words." However, your argument that it is a foreign dictionary definition is incorrect. This is en.Wikipedia and the article is in English. You decided what merits should be discussed, and the primary one you raise does not exist. Are you now suggesting the article doesn't need to be in Wikipedia for some other reason that you haven't revealed, that's it is without merit for some additional reason? Another user offered a perfectly acceptable solution that others agreed with, but you don't. So, how and why is this article without merit, and why should other editors' contributions and solutions be ignored? Is this about improving Wikipedia? KP Botany 16:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, and again, Esn provided a reasonable and useful solution to the issue of what to do. Do you disagree with that? KP Botany 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roman infantry tactics. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics of the Roman century in combat[edit]

Already covered by articles Roman infantry tactics and Roman military personal equipment PocklingtonDan 17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Quote:the tactics "are, by necessity, a matter of speculation.." No sources, no article. Edison 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork of Roman infantry tactics, which looks like a great article. Tarinth 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman infantry tactics as it dplicates the topic. -- Whpq 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel that a redirect would be appropriate here, since:

the article name is so long-winded no-one is likely ever to type it in in the hope of finding an article, and
There's nothing that links to the article either.
Despite its title, it actually contains weapons info too as per Roman military personal equipment. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - redirects are cheap, and since at least one person thought use this article title, then I would submit it is at least a plausible search term. As for the actual content, I did not suggest a merge so the fact that it contains information about wepaons is irrelevant. I did not suggest a merge because all of the information is unsourced, and the other target articels are in good shape. -- Whpq 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roman infantry tactics. Redirects are cheap, and who knows what people might type into a search box. Eluchil404 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After considering the nomination and the amount of !votes that have no bearing on consensus (such as attacking the nominator), the consensus is for a delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMS-10 Zudah[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:RS as it is completely unreferenced and has no reliable sources either to support notability or to confirm the article's content. Reads like complete cruft as it fails WP:FICT as it is written from a completely non-real-world perspective. Does not assert notability in the slightest, so it could technically be speedied. No reason to let this turn into yet more listcruft, either. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. --Folantin 18:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. Zero independent sources to show notability or to allow verification of article content. Edison 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Zeon mobile suits or similar list. This AFD is also part of a campaign to remove all Gundam related articles. --Farix (Talk) 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TheFarix. Kyaa the Catlord 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no assertion of notability even within the fictional universe. While minor characters/places/things can be merged, trivial things should just be deleted as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pak21 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I suspect that I would vote for merge or delete were this article proposed singly, the sheer volume of recent nominations for deletion in this category makes the already short time to assess and/or improve said articles completely inadequate. Edward321 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a more reasonably organized deletion discussion. AfDs in this manner are in bad taste and wastes time on both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Cleanup with the MP-02A Orgg article. Maikeru 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If contents are arranged definitely, there is not a problem.--shikai shaw 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list and get rid of the speculative writing, also: Merge AfDs on this topic --GunnarRene 20:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pak21 and Moreschi. I'd go for a 'redirect' but to what article? --maclean 07:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD vote violates WP:POINT and in addition, the Zudah gets quite a bit of screentime in MS IGLOO.

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

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Everlong[edit]

nn screenplay, no reliable sources. 17 Google hits. User:Zoe

Note that, after removing Wikipedia and the screeplay's two websites from the Google hits, it's down to four hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nobody important is involved, no prejudice against re-creation if it ever does become something real. I suppose I could be convinced this is real though, with some substantial citation. FrozenPurpleCube 06:34, 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 12:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy & logic[edit]

Prod tag removed. Personal essay - fails WP:OR. We already have articles on both philosophy and logic. Folantin 18:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another copy-and-paste of someone's homework to Wikipedia. Bad homework, at that. D minus. And "hazy congolerations" fails WP:BOLLOCKS. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article with this title should be written, but not at all like this. This is just origional research and is a complete embarassment to wikipedia.--Sefringle 03:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, some OR to correct but overall a very good start by a newbie. Andrewa 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This article is entirely unnecessary and reeks of original research. If people are looking for something on the intersection between philosophy and logic, they can go to logic, since logic is mostly a subset of philosophy. If this article is indeed based on the ideas of Rene Descartes, then any ideas (not made up by the author of the article) can go there. Please delete this and excise this original research from Wikipedia. --Jackhorkheimer 10:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. Logic is a branch of philosophy as noted in the article on logic. -- Whpq 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above, a weak essay that smacks of OR. Per Jackhorkheimer, merge any Cartesian principles to the Rene Descartes article. --Richard 00:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article now available at User:Violetriga/inprogress/Offensive comments by famous people violet/riga (t) 12:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive comments by famous people[edit]

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE This seems like a fairly arbitrary collection of indiscriminate, even if offensive, trivia. The comments may be noteworthy enough for the individual bio entries, but not for a separate entry Cripipper 18:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems indiscriminate and completely arbitrary. Just some recent examples given on what could be a potentially immense list. Defining "offensive comments" will probably involve insoluble NPOV problems too. Probably WP:OR. --Folantin 18:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#INDISCRMINATE, WP:NOT#OR. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not supposed to be a list, so that claim is simply false. The article is a general look at offensive remarks made by people in the spotlight, and serves as a central place to link to major scandals or frequent abusers. The article is a summary, not an indiscriminate list, and should be given time to develop. violet/riga (t) 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems indiscriminate. Every Howard Stern show statement should be included. TonyTheTiger 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't need to have every single example, just samples of famous controversies. violet/riga (t) 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Famous to whom? Offensive to whom? Therein lies the problem. --70.72.19.133 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Folantin. Provides absolutely no criteria as to what is "offensive" or what constitutes "famous" - the article is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Agent 86 20:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If a comment was reported as being offensive then it's fine to call it offensive. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe. --70.72.19.133 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TonyTheTiger. It should also be noted that the only Keep voter so far is the creator of the article. JuJube 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the past, and as far as I know, the present, the creator is allowed to express an opinion here. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but they are meant to declare it. Cripipper 22:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't have to - it hardly makes a difference! violet/riga (t) 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Actually, as per How to Discuss an AFD, Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. -- Whpq 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That doesn't mean that you have to. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe Leemorrison 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Janneman 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per violet/riga. Article ought to be improved rather than deleted. Ekantik ^talk 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; moreover it violates WP:OR; and moreover some famous people like Hitler deliberately used offensive commments so often that it is impossible to describe all these comments in one article :-) .--Ioannes Pragensis 15:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please highlight exactly what part of WP:OR it violates.
  - "Articles may not contain (...) any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments". Please sign your comments here.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a de facto incompelte list being called an article. The examples are arbitrary, and without the examples, the article becomes "Offensive remarks by famous people can get them in trouble." -- Whpq 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's an article that gives examples of people famous for different reasons who have caused wide-scale controversy through their words. violet/riga (t) 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - and as stated in the nomination, these examples are an arbitrary selection, for which each example would more properly placed in the article about the individual. Your claim that this article is a collection of examples means it fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (also as stated in the nomination). Without the examples, there is no article. -- Whpq 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It illustrates the power of words that people in the spotlight can have, and is certainly allowed to use examples to illustrate the problems that offensive remarks can have. The claim is therefore false. violet/riga (t) 17:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: No offence intended ;), but I am just not convinced that there is much need for an encyclopedia entry that essentially says: Offensive comments offend people and can get you into trouble. Here are some famous examples... Cripipper 18:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just as there are many articles I could name, but I feel that, with a little more attention, this could become a good article. violet/riga (t) 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This will either be an arbitrary sample, an endless list, or a theoretical observation of the matter, explaining how the mechanisms work. Only the later is a valid article, but currently we have four, very vague and trivial lines about this. This will not grow into what it could be, therefore delete it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subjective and unmanageable. Dahn 00:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above.--C J King 00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:CSD. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not entirely without merit, but not sustainable either. Biruitorul 01:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective, and would be impossible to properly maintain. They'd look bette in each individual's articles anyway. --Wizardman 05:55, 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Schack[edit]

Weak Keep - I am creator of this article. However I couldn't gather enough reliable facts about this security researcher. Hence this article may be deleted. However if this article is kept, I might be able to do some improvements. -- Root exploit 14:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7, no importance asserted. --Dhartung | Talk 02:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy is a bit harsh considering the article has been nominated by the main contributor. John Vandenberg 09:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this person any more notable than Toufeeq Hussain, Christian Seifert, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toufeeq Hussain? John Vandenberg 09:13, 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 speedy close. This is not the proper forum for discussion of redirect deletions, see redirects for deletion instead. Metros232 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Host[edit]

This page serves no purpose on Wikipedia. It is just a shortcut that NO-ONE would ever think of using. Bowsy 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or properly redirect it serves no purpose other than to hold another redirect, why doesn't it just redirect to the article instead of to another redirect? Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:15, 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. BJAODN avaliable on request if not done so already... ;) - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies with female bathtub scenes[edit]

The only purpose of this list is prurient curiosity; it's sexist and not encyclopedic. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this is obviously not encyclopedic. GhostPirate 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although Wikipedia is not censored to protect us from supposedly sexist content, this is one pointless list. It's also got WP:V problems for lack of sources. Sandstein 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this list is not interesting or notable enough. Heimstern Läufer 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Serves absolutely no encyclopedic purpose and is not necessary to support any article. Agent 86 20:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before we get cruft such as List of movies featuring female underwear drawers. JuJube 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's um...stupid... Leemorrison 21:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Hilarious that someone actually made this. --- RockMFR 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but er, please email me a copy first, cough ;) --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Might turn some people on, but this is pretty indiscriminate. Horse-riding scenes, sex scenes, bar scenes.... no, stop!Ohconfucius 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of movies with bar scenes in which females have sex with horses.... ON WHEELS! --- RockMFR 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about on horses with wheels? Do chariots count? Y'know, a couple of Egyptian kids three thousand years ago... steal dad's sweet ride... find a quiet little spot on the banks of the Nile... who knows, maybe they invented the infamous "fake yawn with arm across shoulder" move. Quack 688 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What if he placed a category on those movies? --CyclePat 06:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's a female bathtub? --Canley 11:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN this brilliance. (Oh, btw, the way I see it, a female bathtub is a high-class porcelain job that lets people slide into it with the appropriate, um, sensuality. A male bathtub is a metal one you can flip over and use to take cover from grenades.) Quack 688 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:11, 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 to delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland national football team[edit]

An unverifiable article that is also almost a {{db-empty}} candidate. If this football team exists at all - there are no immediately googleable sources, and none are provided - they are quite certainly non-notable for lack of third-party coverage. Sandstein 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I Googled Somaliland national football team and there is such a thing. On the site, it does not appear that they have had any matches since there are none recorded and there is only one respectable site there. Wikipedia comes before the other site when Googled. But since it has no information that you can even get on it and Wiki is not a crystal ball, I would say Delete for now and once they get stats and viable information then the editor can bring it back. Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When they have played a game that the world can be informed about, we can restore the page. --Madnessinshorts 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no official recognition and no games played. Qwghlm 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Somaliland national football team is a full member of NF-Board and they have played a noteworthy match. This is an African Football stub and needs completion not deletion --Rheinländer 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Referring to a match against an Ethiopian Army XI as noteworthy seems a tad generous.... ChrisTheDude 08:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, full member of NF-Board; I assume the team will play more games once the area is stable. м info 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Somaliland entity is an existing nation, yet unrecognized. Whoever launched this crusade against the NF-board seems not to recognize the difference between 'fictional nation' and 'unrecognized nation'. --Joffeloff 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rijeka national football team[edit]

Yes, you read correctly, this article has nothing at all to say about this nonnotable and unverifiable football team. The colourful boxes alone save it from a {{db-empty}}. I'm at a loss why the city of Rijeka is supposed to have a national team, incidentally. Sandstein 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it constituted a separate entity before. Punkmorten 08:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When they have played a game that the world can be informed about, we can restore the page. --Madnessinshorts 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. They're not listed as a member of the NF-Board on the association's site. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Okay, I found them. They are a member but I can't find a record of games. Delete until then. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no official recognition and no games played. Qwghlm 22:58, 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 as original research ~ trialsanderrors 09:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human territory[edit]

del, a good chunk of original reasearch. please suggest in which articles some interesting statistical data may be moved. the text is naive and in many places wrong. For example, humans are not territorial animals. And personal house is not "territory" in this sense, it is "dwelling" or "shelter", which may be part of territory and may be not. I can continue this list, but it is waste of time. `'mikka 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human territory for discussion between nom and author—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly:

"Human beings are territorial animals." is a direct quote from the Oxford encyclopedia”

A quote taken out of context and written by a sociologist who sees only a piece of an elephant (who does't know this palabre about five blinds who tried to describe an animal?) and too smart for his own good. Just as well other sociologists like to ponder that "humans are nomadic animals" `'mikka 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly: "Territory is the name given to an area that an animal defends as a living space" is another quote from the Oxford encyclopedia. The living space for a person is there dwelling.

Badenoch 10:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, what problem do you have with the page?Badenoch 09:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, Please go to the wikipage called "territory" and under the heading "In psychology" you will find that someone has provided a deffinition from the field of psychology. Please read it. Badenoch 11:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I wil not argue. I may well be wrong as anyone else. Therefore we have voting for deletion here, not just a set of "chief editors" who can just delete pages. Still, the article has no authority with the exception of the part about statistich of housing. "Human territory" here is an unreferenced speculation and overgeneralization. "Dwelling" is a term in its own, treated separately from "territory." `'mikka 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. It is a synthesis of facts to derive a conclusion. -- Whpq 16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. The factual data themselves seem to be sufficiently sourced but the conclusions drawn from them look like OR to me too. —David Eppstein 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Clear case of OR by synthesis, per Whpq. Pete.Hurd 04:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squared Circle Wrestling[edit]

Small promotion, that got very little notable google hits. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every promotion ever. Just because a promotion has featured known stars, doesn't make it known enough for Wikipedia. Many indy promotions get popular stars to wrestle, all of those promotions certainly aren't notable enough for articles here. RobJ1981 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this is someone from the Rochester area. Jealous ?

Delete. Not notable. ♠P M C♠ 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mrpality 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) The biggest weekend in 2CW's albeit short history is mere days away and only now does someone decide that the 2CW entry is a candidate for deletion. It is clear that this involves someone who considers themselves competition and is trying to discredit us in any way possible.[reply]

Keep Many other indy feds of similar or smaller size have wikis. This has only been proposed for deletion because of wars between feds. 08:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.9.128 (talk • contribs) , 6th edit, all wrestling related.
Delete, nn promotion. Deizio talk 09:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This wasn't proposed because of "wars between feds". This was proposed because it's a small indy fed that didn't turn up much on Google. Wikipedia isn't the guide to every indy fed in the world. RobJ1981 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mrpality I would invite you to do a search for '2CW' on either Google, MySpace, or YouTube and you will see that we are a fed that is on the rise and not what you would call non-notable. We're only a year old, perhaps that is the hangup here?

Another comment. Anyone can make videos on YouTube, and anyone can make a MySpace account. Both of those aren't valid sources. RobJ1981 20:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roma people national football team[edit]

Here's another one of my recent nominations of articles about non-notable and barely verifiable "national" football teams. It has the usual issues, such as no sources for its content (and none that can be immediately found through Google), as well as no apparent sportive accomplishments (even assuming they have played any matches at all). Sandstein 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When they have played a game that the world can be informed about, we can restore the page. --Madnessinshorts 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no official recognition and no games played. Qwghlm 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. м info 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VIVA World Cup. м info 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they didn't play in the Viva World Cup. BlueValour 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cameroon national football team[edit]

I'm just about to create a template for the AfDs of these "national" team articles, so here goes the short version: fails WP:V and WP:N, no reliable sources except a listing from their league indicating that they exist, no apparent sportive accomplishments, no media coverage to be found. Sandstein 20:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep if they had actually played in the VIVA World Cup. However, they never fielded a team, so delete. When they play a game that the world can here about, we could keep them. --Madnessinshorts 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 22:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no official recognition and no games played. Qwghlm 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Southern Cameroon is not a nation. Cameroon is, and plays good soccer, I'm told. Also, the south of Cameroon does not have many english speakers because that area was French under the League of Nations mandate after 1919. The northern part was British. I suspect a hoax. --Bduke 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was wrong about the language. They are talking about the southern part of the old British mandate, the rest of which was in the North. It remains that this is not a national team, so even if it is notable, the name should be changed. --Bduke 08:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this team has entered a notable tournament (even though they withdrew), which in my eyes makes them notable enough for an article. - MTC 06:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the VIVA World Cup (which visa issues prevented them from entering), they also took part in the UNPO Cup Superlinus 19:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Rename to Southern Cameroon football team as not a national team. However, it is a real team, real people, who failed to turn up at a real event, which in and by itself is a notable action. The fact that they have no FIFA sanctioned affiliations is irrelevant. --Bob 08:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VIVA World Cup. м info 22:20, 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bo and Nora Buchanan[edit]

This stub has no articles linking to it, and both characters have their own articles (Bo Buchanan/Nora Hanen). Additionally, they are no longer a couple on the program and they are not listed in the supercouple article, so I see no point for this article at this time. TAnthony 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of this AfD, you could consider just boldly turning this article (and the other one you nominated) into redirects to One Life to Live. I don't think there's likely to be a battle about it. AndyJones 14:22, 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 to close, as it is a redirect, and should go to WP:RFD. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bo and Nora[edit]

This page has no articles linking to it, and is a redirect to a page I have just submitted for deletion TAnthony 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't need to be AfD'd; if the article above is deleted, the redirect will be speedied under criterion 1 for redirects. Also, redirects that don't qualify for speedy go under WP:RFD, not here. Heimstern Läufer 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused... the redirect goes to Bo Buchanan, which doesn't seem to be up for AfD or speedy. TheQuandry 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Originally, the redirect was to Bo and Nora Buchanan, which is up for AfD. Apparently it was changed to redirect to Bo Buchanan before this AfD began, which I did not notice when I wrote my comment. At any rate, if TAnthony or any other user wants to have this redirect deleted, WP:RFD is the right place for that, so this AfD still isn't really valid. Heimstern Läufer 02:38, 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pay per chat[edit]

Already speedied once, as it was tied to advertising for AskPoodle.com, which seems to be the primary user of the term. Looks like Neologism with no Reliable Sources to indicate that it has become a notable term. Fan-1967 20:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Google searches for the terms it is compared with:

Pay-per click: Over 3 million hits

Pay-per call: Almost 900,000 hits

Pay-per chat: About 1,700 hits

Although unique results are not totally reliable once the total is over 1,000, the unique hits come to 64, many of which come back to AskPoodle.com. Fan-1967 20:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not asserted. I'm willing to change my vote if and when it is asserted, but I get the feeling that's not likely to happen. A ecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 22:40, 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishguhlish[edit]

fails WP:BIO, WP:V, and appears to have been created by its subject (created by MikeTheWebGuy and cites MikeTheMusicGuy as a pseudonym of the subject. Jefferson Anderson 20:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be self-promoting puffery. Agent 86 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fish was delish and it made quite a dish... Delete as WP:COI and WP:NN. JuJube 21:20, 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 12:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waddlemeyer Ramrod[edit]

Delete - non-notable piece of fictional technology that figures in a single episode of the Darkwing Duck series before being destroyed. Insufficient to sustain an article on its own. Otto4711 20:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside of the lone episode in which it appears. Leebo⁸⁶ 23:57, 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 12:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Who[edit]

Non-notable school play, no references to suggest this could be made into a verifiable article. Tim! 20:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs).
Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 03:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Non-notable, no sources, and origanl research. The Placebo Effect 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Unneccessary article about a school play, generally terrible, uninteresting, pointless. No sources. 17:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 00:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeland Community[edit]

this appears to be a development company spamming WP with their development plans Jefferson Anderson 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't even really say where this place is. There is no indication that it's any different from any other subdivision anyplace. No assertion of notability, no sources... Oh I see, it's in Texas (that's on the talk page). Still, no relevance. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article SHOULD be at Bridgeland, Texas - Let me redirect NOW. WhisperToMe 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! There were more revisions, but I don't know what the fuck happened to them! Help me find them! By the way, this is a real planned community in Harris County, Texas. We need to slap Tanjal's wrist (or face) for losing the revisions, if he is guilty. WhisperToMe 21:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Tanjal's edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tanjal923 WhisperToMe 21:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I reverted this to a more palatable form. WhisperToMe 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a master planned community north of Houston, similar to Kingwood. Postoak 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither cite any references. Have these places been written about in local media? I might change my "vote" if they became referenced. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes - Bridgeland article has links to the Houston Chronicle articles. WhisperToMe 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I converted them using <ref></ref> tags to make them easier to find. I would have used Template:Cite News on them, but one of the links doesn't work. Still, only two links both to the same paper doesn't quite meet the "multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources" that WP:Note calls for, but it is better than I had thought it was. Now, if you can get citation informtaion for the one that the link doesn't work... ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I fixed the url :) WhisperToMe 05:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reduced the article to the present and immediate future and removed a good deal of the advertising language. With the changes, I am willing to consider it a weak keep.'DGG' 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (nc). -Doc^g 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Crew[edit]

A seemigly non-notable bunch of hooliganisms from Cardif. I've lived in Cardiff and have heard of them myself, but that's not relevant. I've also heard of a few chip shops and exciting lampposts in Cardiff...if they can claim notability, then I'll give up the fight to delete this. Madnessinshorts 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, barring anything that establishes notability. --Mhking 21:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near notable.Gan fon 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the more notorious hooligan firms. Media coverage has included a BBC documentary and a book. Oldelpaso 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they have not been treated in multiple non-trivial independent works (the book is penned by one of the crew's members, so only the BBC doc qualifies). Some sites say there is an Irvine Welsh film about the gang planned [46] but it is not listed in his profile on IMDb.[47] With that in mind, I don't see it satisfies the 'multiple non-trivial independent works' quality. Qwghlm 23:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the subject does meet the notability criteria, as per Oldelpaso's arguments. While I understand up to a certain point Qwghlm's objection that the book does not count, as it was penned by one of the members, I would argue that reviews of that book (taking it seriously as a documentary source about a notable phenomenon). Just after a very brief search, two different reviews here, a more academic one and a webzine one: [48] [49], as well as listings from mainstream retailers such as HMV. As for the Irvine Welsh film, the BBC[50] have reported this, and while I don't know at what level a planned film becomes something referenable, a reference such as this on the BBC website certainly shows a degree of notability, and could lead people to try and find out more from a reference source such as this.Robotforaday 17:14, 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 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chagos Islands national football team[edit]

Someone else was just about to create a template for the AfDs of these "national" team articles, so here goes the short version: fails WP:V and WP:N, no reliable sources except a listing from their league indicating that they exist, no apparent sportive accomplishments, no media coverage to be found. When they have played a match the world knows about, we can restore. Madnessinshorts 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No independent reliable and verifiable sources to show they exist or are notable. Edison 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no official recognition and no games played. Qwghlm 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can prove they've actually played a match. Although I'm intrigued as to how a group of tiny islands where "the only habitation is a joint US-UK defence and naval support facility" could even have a "national" sports team..... ChrisTheDude 08:22, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Papua national football team[edit]

Someone else was just about to create a template for the AfDs of these "national" team articles, so here goes the short version: fails WP:V and WP:N, no reliable sources except a listing from their league indicating that they exist, no apparent sportive accomplishments, no media coverage to be found. When they have played a match the world knows about, we can restore. Madnessinshorts 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No independent reliable and verifiable sources to show they exist or are notable. Edison 22:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no official recognition and no games played. Qwghlm 22:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjutsu (Naruto)[edit]

Note - this is the second nomination, the previous debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjutsu (Naruto).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list as I believe it's "indiscriminate information". It's just once long list of every single ninjutsu move that’s appeared in Naruto, which makes no sense in a wider context, and even within Naruto many of the moves aren't really notable, having only appeared once or twice in the source with little impact or no impact on the plot. There are other similar pages like List of taijutsu in Naruto, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to nominate them all, so I'm just going for this one list now.FredOrAlive 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The separate subpages that make up the list:

~~You're nomianting a disambiguation page for deletion. Add the header to the rest if you want something to be accomplished.~~ Keep in either case, as the listing exists to avoid having to explain the purpose of each and every odd trick these ninja pull off on every single page they're used. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps such descriptions should not be including in those articles in the first place? Zun aid ©® 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing that. – FredOrAlive 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the list to top for clarity. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A perfectly fine article for a popular anime. dposse 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would be helpful to other editors if you could expand on your reasoning i.e. how is it a "fine article for a popular anime"? Zun aid ©® 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Naruto is a popular franchise, but to go to this much detail is to provide too much information. The series is notable, but that does not make every microscopic detail of anything mentioned in it notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Not unless for each of these Jutsu's the article's creators can furnish multiple independent sources where it is the subject. The fact that it is seen in an episode or gets a passing reference in a game guide does not show it is notable. By that token, after almost 120 years of dedicated fancruft, Sherlock Holmes' nemesis Prof. Moriarty deserves an article, but Holmes' pipe and his syringe do not. Startrek has had a huge fan base for 40 years, but we do not need an article telling what kind of imaginary batteries to put in the phasor or other details in the fictional tech manual.Edison 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Edison, this just seems like Naruto-cruft. And there's an image for nearly every ability?! It's possible that it could be greatly minimized and merged with Naruto (anime), but its current condition is not in accordance with the encyclopedia guidelines. Leebo⁸⁶ 23:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can angree that there is a lot of images in these sites but why not remowe some imgaes and just save the those who belong to moore advanced or complicated jutsus? And by the way, there is a lot of jutsus that not has a image. Jacce 22:04 10 January 2007
Keep as per Someguy0830. Holmes' pipe would more accurately be compared to an article on a character's clothing or accessory (which are not that significant), whereas his detective methods or Baritsu might be considered article-worthy, similarly to the pages in question. --Pentasyllabic 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: quick overview lead me to believe that its well documented, it would be sad to lose such info. --CyclePat 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sure Comixpedia will take it thus the info will not be lost. Also, "well-documented" does not address the concerns raised above. Zun aid ©® 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and give to Comixpedia~~ per Edison's well thought out argument, especially because of a lack of "multiple third-party reliable sources" demonstrating notability. This info is too "high level of detail" and is inappropriate for the level of coverage an encyclopedia (even a non-paper one) should be giving. Zun aid ©® 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - isn't Comixpedia for webcomics, not comic books in general? Although I agree there may be a more appropriate place for this outside Wikipedia, if anyone knows one. FredOrAlive 10:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bugger. In that case it can be deleted so long, and if anyone finds a place willing to host it an admin can make it temporarily available. Zun aid ©® 12:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP : Lots Of work went into this, and its not fake.There are loads of images because there have been over a year of filler episodes after the first season.thats almost 130ish episodes just for fillers. While its true that fillers have no major impact on the plot of the second season, they added depth to the "naruto" world. Besides the Second season is starting on the 15th of Feb.i woudl delete this page if the anime was over, but since theres a second season, i think its pointless to delete it. a bit of re orgaisation would be nice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Endriago (talk • contribs).
I'm not sure I understand your justification of the use of so many images. Doesn't the fair use template that was put on each image say a limited number of ... images. There's really no need to use that many, and it's beyond fair use. In addition, something doesn't stop being notable after it has ended. This list will either stay or be removed regardless of the current state of the Naruto television show. It's excessive detail, and its "usefulness" to a particular segment of Naruto fandom is not a critieria for keeping it in the encyclopedia. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not singling out attacks from the anime "filler" episodes, I'm saying a large number of attacks / jutsu in general aren't notable, including those in the comic / manga. As for the "lots of work" argument, I belive that doesn't really count here (I'm not an expert), but as I've said above, if there's another place that'll take the list (is there a Naruto wiki?) then there's nothing to stop it being moved. FredOrAlive 15:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you want to clean up the articles and keep only the most important, then fine. However, deletion is overkill. dposse 16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - like I said I believe the list has little use within the context of Naruto (important jutsus seem to be explained when they come up in articles anyway), and pretty much none in a more general context of Wikipedia. FredOrAlive 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You are mistaken. The articles are of great use. And do not make such judgments as "seems like Naruto-cruft" or "seem to be explained" if you didn't actually look at the articles. This is important information. Naruto ninjutsu is a complicated matter, therefore it's reasonably necessary to keep the articles with the aim of explaining the issue. Arfan (Talk) 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaiser jay (talk • contribs).
Delete all - this is detailed trivia. That a lot of work went into it, doesn't make it any less so. -- Whpq 16:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that this page and its subpages go much into details, see guidelines for the inclusion of fictional articles and wikipedia's style guide for writing on fiction. However, it would be too cruel to delete all because it's the contribution of many people. I think we should cleanup the page by eliminating all the redundant details and shorten it as much as possible. Four subpages also should be merged into one article._AbelinC A usesobad 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- ~~This is an interesting reference.~~ Without it there's no way the readers can comprehend the complex ninjutsu used in this manga, which, in turn, cause them trouble reading and understanding other Naruto-related articles. Arfan (Talk) 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, I'm sure Pokemon has an equally daunting assortment of skills and abilities that are used in the various iterations of the series. But I do not believe there is any list that details each one of them, and there shouldn't be, because that level of detail is not necessary for the reader to use the Pokemon articles and understand the concept of the skills and abilities. As long as the idea of the jutsu are discussed in general, and the major ones detailed, there is no need to mention (and picture) every single one of them. Leebo⁸⁶ 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no list for Pokémon. List of Pokémon attacks was deleted. --Squilibob 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you actually read those Naruto-related articles? Or do you just protest against something that you have utterly no knowledge of? If that's the case, I'm afraid your preposterous comparison is of little value. Arfan (Talk) 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read every Naruto-related article (only some of them), but I did not have trouble understanding them as a results of my limited knowledge of every existing jutsu. I don't think it's preposterous, I think it's appropriate; I don't see the difference in detailing every ability in one anime versus another. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a debate on Ninjutsu (Naruto), so please address your comments on this matter. A comparison with Pokemon or whatsoever isn't a good argument and therefore would be considered worthless. I recommend you refer to WP Arguments to avoid: What about article X to learn why your above comments won't help. Arfan (Talk) 05:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! I know it's "fluff", but it's meaningful fluff! It adds a lot of supplementary information to the "Naruto" universe. I really think it should be kept on, as-is.64.251.48.178 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- All of these abilities apply to all of the characters and their development. (filler and all) why throw away all of this work? Verde830 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The pages is good for new Naruto fans who wants to se how the technique has been used and who can use it and what kind of magic the Naruto characters can use. Jacce 21:42, 10 January 2007
Keep - I hate to turn into a raving inclusionist on this one, but the article is verifiable by reliable sources - the specific anime and manga (on the other hand, those are primary sources). The overall subject (Naruto) is clearly notable, so we're really dealing with a question of how much specificity should the Naruto article series contain. The closest thing to a relevant guideline, Notability (fiction) states Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. This article is well written given the subject matter, meets the core policies, and seems to be dead on with the relevant section of Notability (fiction). Ultimately, I say keep. With respect, other than the argument that it's primary sourced, which is not grounds for deletion, the main deletion argument looks a lot like some flavor of IDONTLIKEIT to me. TheronJ 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are written in an In-universe manner and there are no inline references, is that really a well written article? What part of Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Fiction_in_Wikipedia is the relevant section? --Squilibob 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Squil, you are right that it doesn't meet the "out of universe" style guideline - I only meant that it was, IMHO, well written in a more colloquial sense. I do encourage the Naruto editors to start a project to bring their pages more in line with the style guides, but of course, that's not grounds for deletion. The relevant section of Notability (fiction), IMHO, is the section I put in italics above. IMHO, this is "Minor concepts . . . merged with short descriptions" and placed in a separate article because the wouldn't fit in the main article. According to the Notability (fiction) notes, the guideline was based in large parts over debates about Lord of the Rings -- compare List of Middle-earth weapons for a similar level of fictioncruft and/or encyclopedic detail. Thanks! TheronJ 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be helpful for Japanimation fans, such as I, who actually like this. Mr. Brigg's Ink 00:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please don't let this articles being delate. I know alot of people who use this articles in their Naruto fanfiction story for the info that it gave on all the ninjutsu. I being one of them and it would be alot harded to write the way the ninjutsu work without this articles and the other type of jutsu to. Plus this articles give the fan of Naruto the ninjutsu of the show that haven't been air yet in the USA and the manga one to. Miyuki97 02:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion. Please cite other reasons besides the usefulness amongst Naruto fans. There are many things that are both true and useful that can't be included in the encyclopedia, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else. A merge wouldn't work, the article it got merged with would be too long, so it is all or nothing. Naruto was previsly #13 (or something) on the most recently visted articles list meaning that many IP's and registered members look at Naruto and Naruto related articles. This action would piss off the IP's and cause trouble for those who edit these pages constantly (myself included) and there you would be sitting pretty with not a care in the world while we sit here answering IP after IP on why we have no ninjutsu article then we would complain to you and you would be tired then everyone would get uncivil and an edit war would start and the article would come back. Ha, reminds me of the post World War 1 era up into WW2.Sam ov the blue sand 02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not francruft, and despite its length, is an important part of the Naruto universe. By the logic of this discussion, as well, deleting this section would imply the deletion of every other list of jutsu. Especially with the more complex ones, see Kekkei genkai, it is highly difficult for a reader of any of these articles to make any sort of sense of them when any of the above are mentioned. Ninjutsu, by happenstance, simply happens to be the largest article. Size can be corrected. The original intent of the article is entirely fine. Sephiroth BCR 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a necessary part of comprehensive coverage of the series. In fact, a necessary part of comprehensible coverage of the series. Far from being fancruft, this glossary page is necessary to keep the rest of the pages from becoming fancruft, in that without it they would be impossible for the non-fan to understand. They do suffer from some serious WP:NOR concerns due to their listing of jutsu by editor-invented English translations rather than the romaji forms, but that can be solved without deleting them. --tjstrf talk 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Naruto is a very popular manga/anime and I think the fans would be upset and angry if the pages with the most basic and important information was deleted. --Jacce 21:46 11 January 2007
Comment Better reasons than "we'll piss off the fans" need to be given. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very torn about that. I am starting to think that ILIKEIT is a fair rejoinder to IDONTLIKEIT. (Note, of course, that my response was chock-full of policy analysis, and, IMHO, should be the final word). TheronJ 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't so much in response to you as the shorter summaries. Such comments tend to plague these AfDs. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to comment from a neutral point of view here. There are some very good cases on the deletion side while discussions coming from the keep side are baseless. Yes a lot of people have contributed to this article, does that help it surviving an Afd? No.
Yes Naruto is popular and this collection of lists is helpful to fans - doesn't help saving it from deletion.

The articles aren't well written, they're too in-universe. Does that mean they should be deleted? No.

Do they violate any Wikipedia policies? Yes, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (#7)
Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. In-universe information, such as a plot summary or character list, may be appropriate as a brief aspect of a larger topic.

I think that the problem with this afd is that people voting on the keep side should vote with their contributions to fixing the article up. The articles need to be rewritten as per tjstrf, and in an out-universe manner with in-line references to have the indiscriminate collection of information issues resolved.

A majority of Keep votes will not save the article, addressing the policy issues will. --Squilibob 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per --tjstrf's and Someguy0830's reasons. (Me | The Article) 06:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Someguy0830's reasons. Yes, the article has some problems, but those can be fixed without deleting the whole thing. Raven23 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About the whole "try editing the problems thing" ever think we have more to do than edit Wikipedia all day long.Sam ov the blue sand 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this supposed to be for or against the articles being retained? It seems rather against as you seem to be saying that it can't be edited to comply with wikipedias's guidelines as the contributors have other things to do. Of course as the person who nomiated the article for deletion, I'm biased towards deletion of course. FredOrAlive 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant my comment as tosay that some times people don't the time to edit Wikipedia all day long, there's school, girlfriends, cell phone bills, friends, ect, ect. See my point? ^_^Sam ov the blue sand 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not helping, just so you know. This is not a valid "keep" argument." – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh well this guy assumes we all have the day to sit at a computer and edit all day long and that is not true.Sam ov the blue sand 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's not assuming anything like that. You merely think he is. Regardless, it matters not, as it is not a factor in this debate. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can't believe some people want to delete this. Xepeyon 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its Very good information, and should be kept. Krauser93 03:10, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewbuntu[edit]

An unreleased fork of Ubuntu. No reliable sources describing it appear to exist; as far as I can tell, this is more or less a joke. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oy vey! The Jewbuntu web site is just a logo, undoubtedly a hoax --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 01:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Circumcise per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a joke. Only a matter of time before someone edits "linux for jewish beings" to "Linux for subhuman beings" Achilles2.0 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it would be real, this level of forking would not warrant an another article in my opinion. (FWIW there's "Christian" forks of Linux distros that basically are identical to normal distros but happen to install GnomeSword by default - maybe, just maybe, have a different default background image...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean like Ubuntu Christian Edition? Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, something similar. That particular article sounds strongly like a merge/trim candidate - there's dozens of small forks of major distributions where the primary difference is the apps that get installed by default. (I'm not objecting to forks in general, however; Ubuntu itself is a fork of Debian, but they've done considerably more work than just tweaking the default install, namely, developed new software, new release processes, and have developer commitment of major scale.) Jewbuntu, however, appears to be on even shakier ground - there's nothing that indicates that it even exists, really... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe some day this will require a page, but not before it's released. - Peregrine Fisher 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I searched google for media mentions etc. Found nothing. Thus fails WP:RS and WP:WEB. --Quirex 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus Cool Hand Luke 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXpressDSP[edit]

Previous AfD was in May 2006. The decision was no concensus, and the article has not been updated since. This article is orphaned and its notability is, in my opinion, very low. Therefore I propose its deletion. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Topic appears to be notable; article is fairly factual. John Vandenberg 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article asserts no notability whatsoever, it is merely a description of the software. Mere existence does not confer notability, neither does the article being factual contribute anything to the notability requirement. Zun aid ©® 09:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, boarderline advertisment. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Googling convinces me that this is a solid enough thing to keep, and it's by TI. --Gwern (contribs) 20:25 11 January 2007 (GMT) 20:25, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PES Championship[edit]

This article is pure spam and totally useless for WP. It must be deleted--KaragouniS 11:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even after reading it I couldn't tell you what it was about. no sources and not notable.--Tainter 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it appears to be some kids playing a Pro Evo tournament. Nice trophy they've got though. FredOrAlive 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice tournament these kids made up, but not encyclopedic. SkierRMH 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and preferably speedy delete as patently non-notable fantasy football competition. Qwghlm 03:14, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee D'Ass[edit]

Does not even seem to try to meet WP:PORNBIO. ~ Bigr Tex 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. I {{prod}}ded the article a month ago. It hasn't improved since then. She isn't even notable enough to be included at imdb. ~ Bigr Tex 22:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Highest ratio of red-links I've ever seen in an article. - Aagtbdfoua 03:39, 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 per non-notable and indiscriminant nature . HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains, inventions and pets in Codename: Kids Next Door[edit]

Delete - nominated once before, results no consensus. An indiscriminate list of non-notable, apparently mostly single appearance items. Three months since the last AfD and the list has only gotten cruftier. Otto4711 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contents would not be appropriate as individual articles, but as an aspect of an existing show that is notable, description of them is quite valid content on Wikipedia. Complaints about cruftiness indicate a need for clean-up, not deletion. In fact, that is language I would avoid in an AfD. Can you use different, less offensive language instead? FrozenPurpleCube 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find "cruft" offensive in the slightest. If you object to "cruft," then go with "indisciminate list of non-notable, apparently mostly single appearance items." Not everything that appears on a television screen is notable, even if it appears on-screen during a notable program. Otto4711 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you don't find use of the term cruft offensive, you used it. However, I find it offensive, and I ask you to respect that feeling. It's derogatory and should be avoided. Is there some reason you couldn't have used some more neutral language instead? FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the subject at hand, since these things are hallmarks of the series, I can't understand deleting them. These things are often intrinsic to the plot of the episode they are in, not just minor things like gas stations. It's clear to me that if you're writing an article about the episode these things are in, you'd include them, so I have no problem with it being presented in this other format. So, I have to ask, are you familiar with this show? Because it seems to me that deleting this would be akin to deleting an article listing aliens in Star Trek, or places Sam Beckett jumped to in Quantum Leap. FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very well might vote to delete such articles depending on how I felt after reviewing them. I would definitely vote to delete an indiscriminate list of one-off ST aliens and pets and I'd vote to delete a list of, say, one-off outfits, cars and siblings-of-leaped-into people from QL. Otto4711 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC

I wouldn't, because AFD is not a vote. I also wouldn't argue such, as that kind of list would be highly informative about the show. Personally, I wish List of Quantum Leap characters had a description of the leapees instead of just names. I'm glad List of Star Trek races does. And perhaps you should review them, and consider this list in that context. Now I don't think every car in QL should get an article. I can't think of any car that would even warrant a description. In KND the vehicles do matter though, a lot. Again, are you familiar with this show? FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear god, are you really going to get all Peter Pedantic because I said "vote"? I know AfD isn't a vote and you know as well as I do that any number of people refer to the process casually as voting. And as I've been trying to explain, my objection to this list is that it is indiscriminate. It lists villains AND inventions AND pets indiscriminately, and it lists items which appear in a single episode and are otherwise completely lacking in notability either within or outside the series. I would not object to a list of Star Trek aliens. I would object to an indisctiminate list of ST aliens AND pets AND whatever, and I would object to an indiscriminate list of QT outfits AND cars AND siblings. If the individual villains are notable, make a list of villains. If the individual pets are notable, make a list of pets. If the individual members of this list aren't notable then slapping them all together on a list doesn't make them notable. Note them in articles for the episodes if they exist or get rid of them. Otto4711 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but did I offend you by noting that an AFD is not a vote? I didn't mean to do so. I've had people chide me for the same mistake. I realize that it is one, but I try to resist being irritated by having my mistakes pointed out. It is hard though, so I understand if you were offended. My bad. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the article, this isn't an indiscriminate list, not in general, as the episodes of Codename: Kids Next Door are about these very things. I think the problem is, you're confused by the list title, which I can see is misleading. That may be part of the problem. I should have realized this sooner, my bad. What this is, is a list of the things used by the bad guys in the show. I'm not sure of a better title, but I do agree it needs one. However, given the nature of the show, I can understand why a list might be important. But it is not as much like the example you gave of ST lists and QL lists. There's actually a pretty solid connection there, but if you aren't familiar with the show, you might not recognize it.

Which leads to me repating my question though, are you familiar with this show? I've asked several times, but I can't find a response by you on it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.
Delete. The criteria for notability is universal, not relative to the issue it pertains to. For instance, just because 1. Quantum leap is notable and 2. The description of leapees in Quantum leap is important to the show Quantum leap, does not mean that a description of leapees in Quantum leap is notable. Same goes with local issues- if an issue is only notable to a particular subset of people, it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Although "Codename: Kids Next Door" may be a notable television show, that doesn't imply that every aspect of the show is notable. johnpseudo 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about every aspect of the show, but a particular aspect of it that is as definitive as Star Trek's Aliens or Quantum Leap's leapees. I have to ask, are you familiar with this show at all? FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe the defenders can transform part of it to go into the main article, but not notable as is. highlunder 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 99% of them have only been used in a single episode so they're clearly not important enough, even within the fictional universe, for an article on Wikipedia to document every single one of them. Axem Titanium 05:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Film budgeting. Eluchil404 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie budget[edit]

Not sure this contributes in any way since we already have a Budget page and the lists could probably be found in other ways. TonyTheTiger 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont think this article should be deleted, the budget page is not discussing any specific budget regarding movie budgets.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FoundArcadia (talk • contribs)

Weak delete. I was going to go for a weak keep because I was guessing that film budgeting is quite a complex matter. However, I wonder if this article's subject matter could just come under the existing article of Film finance. (It seems to me there's nothing non-obvious in Movie budget to justify a merge.) --A bit iffy 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Redirect to film budgeting as per Steve below.--A bit iffy 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a place holder for some wikilinks to lists of movies and their budgets. And Film finance is a load of OR, unreferenced crap too, but at least has some potential! --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found Film budgeting which might be a better fit; I've added in the 'See also' section from the above --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to film budgeting. Just a dicdef, nothing worth merging. --Dhartung | Talk 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this quick. It's already at film budgeting. It's just a dicdef compared to that page. - Peregrine Fisher 09:45, 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 keep per WP:SNOWBALL. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone (Linksys)[edit]

A non-notable line of phones that only got an article because it shared the name of the (then-rumored) Apple iPhone. Now that we know the Apple iPhone exists, this Linksys product line is not of importance anymore. Cisco, the maker of the Linksys iPhone, is in the final stages of negotiations to sell the iPhone trademark to Apple Inc. [51] Scepia 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dude, your CNN article says they are making negotiations. Negotiations can go either way, and Cisco could possibly end up licensing the iPhone name to Apple for all we know. EricJosepi 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: negotiations fell through and Cisco filed suit against Apple for trademark infringement. [52] 171.71.37.171 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure how this isn't notable, but it's verifiable and factual. Wikipedia is better with this article than it would be without. Philwelch 23:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment There was only an article because of the Apple rumors. If the Apple iPhone never existed, this would never be here, and even though the name is notable, the product is not. Scepia 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems fairly notable; sure, not as notable as the (Apple) iPhone, but that isn't a criteria for inclusion/deletion. Even if Cisco is in the process of selling the trademark, that doesn't necessarily mean the Linksys iPhone will poof out of existence. schi ^talk 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable means written about in nontrivial ways in reliable sources, not important or major. It might not be the massive fame that apple's getting, but this definitely meets the standards for products. I wish I could reach through the internet to shove the actual guidelines in people's face when they abuse the term "non-notable". Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wish I could reach through the internet and shove sales figures on you. Yes, they would read - 000,000,000. Scepia 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sales figures don't determine notability. "Linksys iphone" (with quotes) gets 164,000 google hits, including nontrivial reviews of the product itself. "Infogear iphone" turns up 24,100 hits and several reviews. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Zimbabweed 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote count. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zun aid ©®
I'd go for delete unless it has sold a huge number, or has notable features that differentiate it from other models of internet phones. As for the earlier Infogear device, is it famous for anything? Internet appliance doesn't list it as a notable example of the type. The history of the trademark might be worth a sentence or two in the Apple iPhone article, but I'm not sure if either of the previous devices themselves are notable. FredOrAlive 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a real product. --Mongol 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere existence does not warrant inclusion. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zun aid ©®
Keep. People will need to know the difference between the two products anyways when they come here, and this is a real bullshit reason for deletion, which is why everyone's voting Keep.--75.57.25.194 23:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to new product name pending trademark negotiations. --Nsevs • Talk 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Linksys had the TM long before Apple registered iPhone.org. Linksys had the iPhone FIRST! It is more notable than the iPhone! Cisco Trademark Info (USPTO) EricJosepi 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable, when Cisco announces new name, then redirect. --rogerd 00:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide evidence for your claim of notability? Zun aid ©®
Keep it is a real product and it's not being mistaken for the Apple iPhone. 129.137.149.106 00:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere existence does not warrant inclusion. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zun aid ©®
Keep because plenty of lesser-known phones are catalogued on Wiki: Nokia 6131, Samsung SGH-D500, Sony Ericsson J230 etc. If you keep those, you keep this. 203.15.102.65 00:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:INN. Scepia 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, nor is the Pokemon defense useful in AfD discussions. Zun aid ©®
  - For God's sake, can you nerds PLEASE leave comments that are longer than five characters in length? Especially when those five characters are an obscure initialism to some guy's essay on Wikipedia? Philwelch 04:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:INN is an essay, not guideline or policy. 142.35.4.130 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Ben FrantzDale 00:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote count. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zun aid ©®
  - I think it should be kept if for no other reason than its name conflict with the Apple iPhone. —Ben FrantzDale 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote count. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zun aid ©®
Keep, it does satisfy WP:NOTABILITY --Mhking 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite some evidence for this claim? Zun aid ©®
Keep -- how does it not being made by Apple make it any less notable? Also it will be highly relevant once Apple gets the ever-loving shit sued out of them. --Hosterweis 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apple is finishing a deal with Linksys for the iPhone trademark. Scepia 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an obsolete, unpopular device, but it did exist and is the focus of attention due to the shared name. Dlodge 02:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 68.198.227.152 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote count. Please provide good reasoning for your !vote. Zun aid ©®
Keep. Though it's largely overshadowed by Apple's iPhone, it's still a product that's relatively notable. Ourai ^т _с 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article? Zun aid ©®
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:Notability and I liked being able to see in WP what this thing is and its history, which helped me to understand the controversy. RVJ 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable product. Looks like a landslide "keep" vote here. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... very much notable. While we are throwing about initialism, I think this qualifies for WP:SNOWBALL. Calwatch 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: beyond its mere existence and description, there is nothing much to be said about this product. The trademark and naming issues are minorand can be covered in one or two lines. I would say merge a short description into an appropriate "list of Linksys products", or otherwise into the main Linksys article itself if such a list does not exist. This info should be preserved somewhere, but is not sufficient to sustain an individual article. Zun aid ©® 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Many of the !votes above provide either:

no assertion of why the vote is being made (e.g. just "keep" without any other comment) or
provide non-encyclopedic (in a Wikipedia sense) reasoning for the vote (e.g. "is a real product") or
provide encyclopedic reasoning (e.g. "notable") but show no evidence to back up these claims

These !votes should be discounted when determining consensus, which should only be based on the strength of the arguments presented. Zun aid ©® 09:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Zunaid: I think the closing admin knows how to close without you condescendingly dictating his or her job to him or her. cacophony ◄► 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Zunaid and comment on demonstrating notability: I see above that Zunaid has commented several times requesting that notability be demonstrated. Multiple commenters here have done so, and provided sources, but for Zunaid's and others' reference, here is a consolidation:

The notability criteria for products is discussed in the guideline WP:CORP, which says that a product is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". Here are such sources:

O'Reilly review
Associated Press article
Digital Trends review
Technology Review blog review
PC Magazine article

While WP:CORP also recommends that information on a company's products should be incorporated in the article on the company itself - in this case, Linksys, as Zunaid suggested. However, WP:CORP also says that "major" products should have their own articles. "The distinction between a 'minor' and a 'major' product is somewhat arbitrary. The main point is that if a lot of information is available on a product, it should be split out, and if little is available, it should be merged into a list." While the Linksys iPhone is undoubtedly not "major" in the overall consumer electronics industry, there is certainly a lot of information available on the product and thus meets the criteria for a separate article. schi ^talk 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the Infogear iPhone and the Linksys line of iPhones are noteworthy enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The latter, especially, given that it's Cisco's entry into the consumer-level voip market, and its introduction was fairly well-covered. AP story, e.g. Linksys/Cisco is not a minor player -- a lot of their products merit articles on Wikipedia. -/- Warren 12:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The fact that the Cisco/Linksys iPhone product exists is more than enough reason to have an article on it. Wikipedia is not paper. Iceberg3k 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have liked this article from the first time I noticed it.Hannu 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say that this is a not very good reason - by Wikipedia standards at least. Luke! 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This whole AfD seems like a troll by a mactivist who is trying to remove all evidence of the "iPhone" name being used by somebody other than Apple first. Regardless, the iPhone is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. It meets the notability guidelines, get over it. cacophony ◄► 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Linksys iphone as a product itself already meets the criteria for natability as the Cisco entry into the VOIP market. The additional notoreity with trademark deal with Apple simply adds to the product's notability. -- Whpq 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More notable than the average Pokémon. -Richmeister_talk 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richmeister - Fedayee 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a real product. If name changes, change the article name and note within the article that the product had a previous name. A2Kafir 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly. It's a product and it's out there right now. Just because the article might have been created when Apple's iPhone was rumoured doesn't mean we should delete an article on a real products. It was a silly idea to bring this up for a vote in the first place Smoothy 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this is anonymous and from a Cisco IP (but I'm not representing Cisco). The controversy over the name makes it encyclopedic, and [53] story states that Cisco is filing suit over trademark infringement. I personally thing iPhone should direct to this page as Cisco owns the trademark. No one seems to have come up with a reason to delete this article.171.71.37.171 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Schi's research. Luke! 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if anything, iPhone should go to IPhone (Linksys), and the Apple "iPhone" article should be changed to iPhone (Apple). Cisco own the copyright to the name, so it seems highly POV for us to "award" it to Apple. They are also suing Apple for copyright infringement, and they remain adamant that they want to protect their brand, so it doesn't sound like they'll be rolling over and letting Apple keep it. Martin 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schi's and Martin's arguments. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 01:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first guy argues that it's an inconsequential product. So bloody what? Wikipedia has tons of other articles about inconsequential products, for example the Commodore_2031 Floppy Disk Drive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.36.136.98 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep- The page was initially deleted because it was only a rumor, and now it is a real product. The URL's on the "References" heading of the page are enough to prove notability.
Speedy Keep - Even if they didn't have notability before Apple's iPhone rumors, they gained notability because of it. At this point, the Cisco lawsuit over the name has increased the subject's notability, and that is easily verified. Per WP:SNOW, I'd say this one should be closed by an admin. -- Kesh 04:53, 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 wasspeedy deleted per G11 by Bobo192 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) 06:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DailyStrength.org[edit]

Possible advertising. Not sure about webpage notability criteria. TonyTheTiger 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per blatant spam and so tagged. Ohconfucius 05:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Should not have been listed at AFD. Manning 05:43, 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 speedied A7. Opabinia regalis 05:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pivothost[edit]

Notability/Advertising TonyTheTiger 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, Fails WP:WEB --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 (article about a website, no assertion of notability). So tagged. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:34, 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. -Doc^g 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head of Household (Big Brother)[edit]

Not notable. Come on, people... this isn't even a TV show, but rather a subcategorization of a particular aspect of that game show. Does anyone really think this article has any educational merit and is of interest to ANYONE as a standlaone topic? Strong Delete Elambeth 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insert lame AfD "vote article out of the house" pun here - in other words, delete per nom. Otto4711 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is very focused on the American implementation of Head of Household, possibly because they used it first, and the article is unsourced. Though the article has been neglected for some time, should these issues be resolved before this nomination is closed, I will reconsider my vote. J Di 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evict Sod Otto4711, I'm gonna do it anyway. I'm cheap. ;) The JPS ^{talk to me} 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother (US TV series) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete God modern culture is depressing, this is so lacking in merit I despair - PocklingtonDan 10:10, 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 Already deleted by Deskana per WP:CSD#G4. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMAR BARNETT[edit]

Delete as non-notable actor per WP:BIO. Unable to find sources indicating parts. Little to no Google presence; no IMDb profile. Kinu ^t/_c 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned, no sources about the person. MySpace page doesn't count. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No IMDb mention, not noteable as described in WP:BIO. Also, pages Omar barnett and Omar O. Barnett have previously been deleted (I don't know how to check if the text is substantially the same). Enuja 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per CSD G4 (Recreation of deleted material) as pointed out by Enuja. John Vandenberg 10:24, 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 Keep per consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bose headphones[edit]

It has been over five months since the original AFD. Despite the promises by a number of editors to clean up the advertising language in the article and provide sources, the article today still reads like an advertisement. With the exception of a single product review in a newspaper, all of the sources cited by the article are either published by Bose or by business partners of Bose.

The encyclopedic information here boils down to two sentences: "The Bose corporation produces a line of audio headphones. They are known for their use of active noise cancellation." These statements are already included in the article Bose Corporation.

Please be sure to expand the "show/hide" boxes in the article, which reveal long lists of consumercruft and links to product pages at the Best Buy web site.

This article has had long enough to demonstrate encyclopedic potential. Time's up, and as the cybermen say, delete. —ptk✰fgs 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree, the article has had long enough. Allow re-creation of a proper article on this topic without prejudice, but this isn't an encyclopedia article and isn't the start of one. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burninate once again as WP:VSCA as per my original vote. I hope we can avoid the trainwreck that was the last AfD. JuJube 02:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does have some useful information "The Bose QuietComfort 3 are twice as effective as the QuietComfort 2" but it's not enough to warrant an article. Darkwhistle 02:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Oh God Again! Why don't you just talk to me and let me know what the problems are so I can fix them instead of keep on doing this! If there is something that needs to be changed just communicate to me and I will help edit it! When the nom ended assistance in fixing this page ended also. Please help me and list what needs to be worked on since this article is worthy. Since this does pass WP:CORP there is no call for deletion but editing only. -- UKPhoenix79 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes WP:CORP so the deletion nomination is to be removed. Proof of this is listed below. here are the requirements as of WP:CORP

A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
- Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
There are many references (refer to the article and talk page. John Vandenberg 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Independent published works (refer to the talk page. John Vandenberg 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

2) The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.

I have found no evidence of this.

-- UKPhoenix79 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not paste huge chunks of text verbatim from the previous AFD into this discussion. I have already linked it above. Let's try to have an orderly discussion this time.

The problems with the article are clear and fundamental. It reads like a shopping catalog, with lists of specifications and subjective claims supported only by Bose's own marketing material. Reposting a five-month old dump of external links into this AFD is not an appropriate solution to the lack of non-trivial, independent reference sources in the article.

This community has assumed good faith for five months. It's time to take out the trash. —ptk✰fgs 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content that is intended to PROVE this pages worth. Do we really want to make another 100kb page just to say exactly what I have stated above. As I'm sure you know I completely disagree with you but I want you to help!! You say things are inatiquent then please assist us in improving this. There is no reason in doing this over and over again. If you think this pages needs improving let us know exactly what the problems are so they can be resolved and make this article better for it! -- UKPhoenix79 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reposting text that is easily accessed in the previous discussion. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It is important that you resist the urge to flood this page with comments. Ensure that you are adding something substantial to the discussion before saving your changes. (Hint: if you feel that you are repeating yourself, it is probably not something substantial.)

As I noted before, a stale dump of external links in an AFD does not fix the problems in the article. I enumerated clearly the fundamental deficiencies in the article. It lacks independent non-trivial sources. It reads like a shopping catalog, eschewing discussion of the history and impact of the product in favor of an unencyclopedic litany of product features and specifications. It brazenly includes external links to product pages at the Best Buy web site.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The lists of unremarkable information (for example, "magnetically shielded ear cup", "3.5mm stereo plug", MSRP's in three different currencies, minute variations in the rotational angles of product parts) are exactly what is meant by "indiscriminate collection of information" and should be removed. The unfalsifiable and subjective assertions (for example, "better treble performance", "much more effective at attenuating noise") scattered throughout the article serve no purpose except to promote the products of a company. Wikipedia is not a platform for free marketing.

I've already indicated that, as far as I can tell, there are two kernels of encyclopedic information in this page. Bose sells a range of headphones. They are noted for their use of active noise cancellation. The rest is cruft that could not possibly interest anyone unless he's shopping for electronics.

Lastly, there was no consensus to keep the article. The previous AFD, as you'll note, was closed with a decision of no consensus, with a recommendation that the page needed substantial cleanup. The only viable cleanup strategy I can conceive of for this page is #REDIRECT [[Bose Corporation]], so please excuse my reluctance to be instantly reverted rather than bring it here for discussion first. —ptk✰fgs 06:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the price was mentioned is in an effort to be thorough. It was not plastered all over the place it doesn't seem to be that unusual inside of wikipedia. Here is an example, I'm going to quickly list Apple Computer articles that have prices included (and some even have Multiple different prices listed) IPod IPod mini IPod photo IPod shuffle IPod nano IPod Hi-Fi Apple Mighty Mouse Xserve RAID ISight Power Mac G5 Xserve MacBook Pro IMac Mac mini IBook MacBook. Hell if you go to Xbox_360#Retail_configurations & PlayStation 3#Release data and pricing they have an entire table dedicated to listing the prices by individual country. And you will notice that the specs of these products are clearly listed also. These are standards for an encyclopedia to list facts and these are facts. Now saying "better treble performance" is listed as items that Bose claims to have improved from the previous version and should be cited as such. But such things as "magnetically shielded" is something that is listed as one of its features... Just check out other product pages that I have listed Each one has technical specifications heck just check out Wii an article that I have not even mentioned yet and you will see that this is exactly the same. -- UKPhoenix79 07:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure there is other junk in the encyclopedia, and it does not surprise me that it has appeared in Apple and Nintendo articles. That is not relevant here, because it is not those articles under discussion.

My point with "magnetically shielded", "3.5mm stereo plug" and so forth is that those bits of information don't even add anything to shopping research on the product. We've already said they're consumer headphones; it follows quite obviously that they will be magnetically shielded and have the standard plug. As Zunald notes below, if we remove the advert material we're left with little more than the first few sentences. Those bits are easily merged into Bose Corporation. —ptk✰fgs 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point with showing you all of these Apple pages with prices was the fact that I showed you only one company and they all had the cost listed. If you were to search through wikipedia you will find that almost every single one out there lists the MSRP. Like it or not it is the standard. Heck I showed you this last time and you had the same answer that its their problem. Well as you see 5 months later it was conclusive that the price should stay and not only that we should list the prices for the entire wold for some systems.... I don't see any nominations that the iPod page is an Ad I don't see the XBox 360 listed similarly...

Also if you are talking about headphones it is important to list how it connects since there are two main types out there 1/8th inch (aka 3.5mm) and 1/4 inch stereo connections. It is like saying how the Wii connects to the TV using composite, s-video or component. When one talks about technology you need specifics when connecting to another technology. The magnetically shielded is specifically listed because it is a difference between a previous model and a reason why some accessories (for the cell phone) will not work with the previous model. Actually if you remove the "adverts" as you claim you are left with simple facts including citations, R&D (cited thanks to Dpbsmith), the timeline, A long list of facts for the quiet comforts that will take up a page, Simple facts about the non noise canceling headphones (i.e. triports) that will take up another page, The Aviation headphones that fact wise is very complete and again takes up a lot of space, Blurbs about the Combat Vehicle Crewman Headset, the entire American Airlines section, and the Criticisms section that I personally think needs some expansion. This would still be a separate article since there is so much plain and simple facts about the products out there. -- UKPhoenix79 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, add maintenance tags and improve. As far as I can see, this is an abuse of Afd, as an article for this topic is clearly warranted, and the current article goes a long way to filling that need. The previous outcome stated "Those issues can and should be addressed by editing." I'm not a fan of direct links to BestBuy, and I'm sure I can find other faults, but those can be fixed by editing. Stop whining that certain people haven't done this within the time-frames you expect: be bold and help. John Vandenberg 05:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I resent this kind of criticism, as I have tried to help. The section headed "research" is essentially my work and is one of the few portions of the article not sourced to Bose. I have tried to trim the worst excesses in terms of promotional language. I have pushed and helped to find pictures that simply show the headphones, rather than earlier attractive young women dancing with headphones or handsome middle-aged men in expensive suits registering dignified satisfaction while wearing headphones. In the time since I've last worked on the article, fresh advertising-copy-like material has been added on more Bose headphones. There is absolutely no indication that anyone is seriously working on an encyclopedia article about Bose headphones or that the article is improving over time. Since the last AfD, it has gotten worse in every respect criticized in the previous AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How has it gotten worse? Those images are no longer there, much of the offending informations specifically stated was removed and as you said you went through the article and did a great job in helping... btw you were one of the few to stick around and help so thanks... Nothing so blatant as has advertising-copy-like material has been added the article since the last AfD. The only drastic change was inclusions of the On-ears and In-ears and they are very terse sections stating that they exist. They were added when they premiered and not much has been changed in those sections. I would have done more editing but I had a long wikibreak after the last AfD and personal life got in the way. Much like it still is :-( -- UKPhoenix79 11:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not whining that specific people have not fixed the article. I am asserting that in five months, even the most dedicated Bose editors have not been able to turn this into much more than a litany of consumercruft, and that this effectively demonstrates that there is no propensity for Wikipedia to produce an encyclopedic article on Bose headphones at the present time. I have already indicated my proposed cleanup of the article; it consists of the two sentences' worth of encyclopedic information I was able to find. Once one is forced to reduce an article to that length, AfD follows not only appropriately but as a matter of course. —ptk✰fgs 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per John Vandenberg. hateless 08:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This reads FAR too much like an advertisement and a catalogue for Bose headphones. If the ad-like info were removed, you'd be left with little more than the first few sentences, as well as info that more properly belongs in noise cancellation. That said, redirect with haste to Bose (company), this might be a plausible search term. Zun aid ©® 09:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP — Like I said, the headphone technologies are worthy to talk about, literally the marketing language can be foregone (though I'm not going to make radical edits unless necessary or sourced). — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 12:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason for Edit: It shouldn't be reduced to a one-sentenced stub blunder as only the existing marketing language needs to be foregone to make an article look better. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - well known brand - but needs extensive clean-up to make it acceptable to the encylopedia and suitable for a general audience. --Charlesknight 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well known product line from Bose. A popor quality article should not be deleted. -- Whpq 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Poor quality of a notable and verifiable article is never an argument to delete. There is always the option to be exceptionally bold, reduce the article to a stub, and rebuild. That said, I am far from convinced that there is sufficient notability of the product to create a free-standing article separate from the parent company. This may be a reaction to the poor state of the article, and I can't honestly advocate any particular action. Eludium-q36 18:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "There is always the option to be exceptionally bold, reduce the article to a stub, and rebuild." I just tried that. It was immediately reverted to its previous state, just as promotional as before. If the article is not to be deleted, it should be a redirect to Bose Corporation, which could contain a section on the headphone products. There, at least, the editors of Bose Corporation could help keep an eye on it. As it is, Bose headphones is practically a point-of-view fork of Bose Corporation, the point of view being uncritical adoration. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dont be ridiculous. The reason your stub was reverted is because the article is actively being worked on by many editors, and your stub was not a good stub. Your stub was purely to prove a WP:POINT. Converting the article to a stub is still a valid recommendation, if people think that the ongoing changes are not resulting in a satisfactory article. John Vandenberg 22:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must say that was akin to vandalism--64.240.163.221 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unequivocal Keep Are you saying that the Bose headphones are not notable? I believe that the last time they were proven to be notable products even passing WP:CORP. If you think this article needs editing then edit it. Work from the facts of the headphones and go from there. Nothing can go wrong if you use facts as the basis of a good article.--64.240.163.221 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that no one has yet been able to produce an article on Bose headphones that is capable of standing on its own. A section in the article Bose Corporation is surely warranted. As I've said before, there's so little in the article that is of value that it can be edited down to nothing, as the Bose Corporation article already contains the encyclopedic information. —ptk✰fgs 23:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now thats just silly especially since dpbsmith said that (s)he added verifiable information to this article. Lets do what the annon user said and work from known facts and expand the article from there. There are plenty of facts in the article and they should be worked with to make it better.

Ok... Lets try this Please go to other Product Articles and give examples how they are better and lets try to use them as templates to make this article better! The only way to move forward is to use what we have and make it into something better :-) -- UKPhoenix79 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Some of the marketing language and the upgrade pricing information can be foregone to make it a bit more encyclopedic. When I mean lose the marketing language, I mean trying to find awkward phrases that contribute to being as marketing language and forego it to make it a bit more encyclopedic. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that some editors of this article will not accept what might be called the "zero-based approach" of cutting it down to a stub and selectively adding back encyclopedic, verifiable, neutral information that is not entirely sourced to Bose Corporation sources. Those who have argued for reducing this to a stub rather than deleting it should keep this in mind. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or redirect to Bose. The mere fact that the discussion has gotten this heated just proves that agents of Bose are hard at work to keep their promotional material vested in the Wikipedia. The more heated the argument gets, the more I want it gone. Besides that, delete per Nom MiracleMat 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so the fact that there are edittors that are strongly making a case to keep an article is grounds to delete it? AFD is a discussion ,and a case for keeping or deleting should be made based on merit guided by policy and guidelines. -- Whpq 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agents of Bose?? What on earth does that mean? That only people that are being paid by Bose want to keep this page? Damn I think I have missed out... How do I contact them to get paid??--64.240.163.221 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the article makes explicit claims of notability, provides several sources to back up these claims, and represents a unique set of products that serve a specific market niche, all in full compliance with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:CORP. While IPod could be redirected to Apple Inc. or portable media player, and PlayStation 3 could have been a redirect to Sony Computer Entertainment or video game console, each article -- and I could supply dozens of others -- stands on its own based on the distinct nature and characteristics of the product in its market. As indicated in the nomination, both iPod and PlayStation 3 could have been distilled down to the first paragraph (or first sentence) in their lengthy articles and inserted onm the corporate article, yet haven't. Other than the fact that they are sending me a free set of headphones in exchange for my vote, I resent the implication that I and any of the other individuals participating in this AfD (and receiving their own headphones) are shills of Bose Corporation. Alansohn 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do I get a pair? I think you should share the love and tell Bose to send us all headphones... well those who vote to keep the page.--64.240.163.221 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't even use them, but I know that the individual products are notable. An objective description can be given, and it should have been done, and I am about to do a little of it. Deletion of the article is not the remedy for excessive commercial content. Reporting price in such articles is a dilemma. It is normally material for a catalog page or a website, not WP, but in some cases the pricing is itself notable. In this case, that the headphones are such a success despite being priced above competitive projects is relevant. DGG 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentI have now made a first pass at copyediting , mainly at the first portions. I have, undoubtedly more controversially, boldly removed the hidden product specifications. This is much better done with external links & I assume the existing external links lead to them.

It rather startles me that outside sources could not be found for documenting the various features, considering the very large number of product reviews that have appeared. DGG 01:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you agree on the articles worth and ecstatic that you decided to help improve the page. Though I do think the specifications are a necessity and if you check any well documented article dedicated to a product you will see that they list them also, with notable examples including iPod, Xbox_360 & PlayStation 3. So I do think that we should list specifications. The reason that they were using hidden text was to save space and to focus on the article itself allowing the reader the choice of reading the info or not. As one user said, these are just facts and a any good article should use the facts as the basis of everything else that appears. Do you know of any solution to including this? I wont revert back for a while to see if a solution presents itself :-) -- UKPhoenix79 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better without the specifications. The Bose Corporation has a perfectly good website where anyone interested can find this sort of details. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes the article look like advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does not list all the specifications... Go to the Bose website and try to find the decibel rating, driver size, operating temperature, impedance or the Magnet type. Bose does not list such information and it was through a lot of digging that such information was found. But like stated before is it not a common practice on wikipedia to list such tings? What I think we need is a good example to work off to make this article better! -- UKPhoenix79 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD A7 and G11 Guy (Help!) 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gish[edit]

A "cult film" which hasn't even been made yet. Produced by "Short And Sweet Films", article created by -- wait for it -- User:Short And Sweet Films. PROD tag added but removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. We can revisit this circa "Christmas 2007". —ptk✰fgs 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a "cult film", yet it "is currently being filmed"? I think not. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Check back in 2008 when this exists, or maybe in 2010 if and when it's notable! SkierRMH 03:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:N big time, and also fails WP:CRYSTAL as too many conditionals. Ohconfucius 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems obvious here - PocklingtonDan 10:08, 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. However, any recreation WITH sources should not be deleted without another debate.-Doc^g 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chreamo[edit]

Unreferenced article, possibly a neolgism. Many statements in the article are not WP:NPOV or WP:WEASEL. Fruthermore, I can personally attest that some of the bands mentioned there are not at all emo. It would be nice to avoid the trash-talking of the concept of such groups in this discussion. --Ybbor ^T 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, I had already deleted an entry of this word on the Screamo page and I've never heard of it before and I'm very familiar with sub-genres of hardcore. As stated above the bands mentioned aren't even Emo/Screamo anyway. Google search returns nothing but a Urban dictionary page, an EBay user profile, one MySpace & one Xanga profile. Not to mention the sole editor is the person who has added it to other Wikipedia pages. The word it's self also provides nothing useful as a description anyway and at a push could already be covered by the term Christcore. Diabolical 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Definitely a WP:NEO; no sources. Most of the google hits are for an ebay username chreamo. John Vandenberg 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This needs to be deleted. User made term, same as Christcore.User:PTdub
it works it is still a word in early circulation. it started just as other slangs of its type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.41.126 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC), and claimed by Samgoody777 at 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wordi've heard it frequently. i'm not sure about most of the bands listed here, but it is most definetly a 'real' word and should be included. this word is also known in Australia. This user is not the first to think of this word if this user even did 'invent' it. the definition may need some touch-ups, but it is a word and the definition is close. if the word is deleted now, it will be reposted by someone eventually —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.41.126 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, it's a word, but...should it be deleted? No. Revised, perhaps, but not deleted, be for this is an applicable word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.41.126 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Whether "chreamo" is a word or not is an issue for a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. The issue for an encyclopaedia is whether such a genre of music exists and has been properly documented. You have shown no evidence that this is the case. Uncle G 18:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now come on, deleting peoples replies is not on! Diabolical 01:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However to reply to your points, there are no reliable results on the internet, now if it was known it would appear on the internet much more than it does. If it is a new word then that doesn't warrant inclusion on an encyclopaedia as it could fall out of use as quickly as it came in. I would like everyone else to note that two of those comments were posted by the same IP which I believe is probably the same IP as the user Samgoody777, so that the page isn't deleted. Also note that all Delete votes were deleted from the page! Diabolical 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infact, I know it is the same IP, if you would like to check the History page, and changed HagermanBot's unsigned signature. Diabolical 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Altering existing text from a discussion is not to be encouraged. I've restored HagermanBot unsigned signature and noted that Samgoody777 has claimed that IP address. John Vandenberg 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you misunderstood, as reading back I did word it badly but I meant that I had restored the bot edit that was changed by Samgoody777. Diabolical 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: This should also be salted, since the author's use of both IP's and usernames to vote multiple times, deletion of votes (and poor understanding of wikiprocess) indicate that he may continue to recretate the page otherwise. --Ybbor ^T 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
apologyI am Samgoody777. I am sorry for deleting three other comments, however i have not changed any names intentionally and am unfamiliar with HermanBot. i am new to this type of thing and am not familiar with wikiprocess. I will delete all of my votes and leave this one in favor of Chreamo --Samgoody777 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While well-intended, deleting existing text makes a discussion hard to follow. John Vandenberg 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- this page will be deleted. why all of the beating around the bush? i will not repost this word if it is deleted. the points that y'all have made make it clear that chreamo is not ready for inclusion in an encyclopedia. i was ignorant as to the purpose and integrity of Wikipedia as an accurate source for solid information.--Samgoody777 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been moved and recreated here: Christian emo, I think it should also be deleted (see talk page). Diabolical 15:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also posted on the newly moved page, but I felt that to re-emphasize my point, it should be posted here as well, so here it goes:
- What happened? Is this a different page? I once remember a Chreamo page filled with a plethora of useful knowledge about the uprising, once underground genre of Chreamo. Now, I seem to have stumbled upon a page full of babbling nothingness that can be found anywhere else on the Internet.
- Chreamo is an uprising fad at my school. The punk, Goth, Emo and scene kids have vanished into the past and Chreamo is what all the cute guys are talking about. And, being the pathetic follower that I am, I decided that by researching Chreamo for myself I may actually have the opportunity to fulfill my destiny with the man of my dreams (this is, after the fact that I make eye contact with him, after the fact that I awkwardly drop my pencil and hope that he picks it up, and after the fact that I tell all my friends about him hoping they’ll keep it a secret when deep down, I know they’ll tell him I like him since I‘m too shy to say it myself.)
- The previous Chreamo page was the only website that gave the specifics about the Chreamo clique-everything from what bands are “hot and happening”, to what to wear, and how to act. True, it could have provided a picture or two of a very cute Chreamo kid with hazel eyes, light brown hair, black, white and red checkered Vans that are ripped on the left, and typical Chreamo garb, topped off with a stripped scarf, but other than that I found the previous page to be highly informational.
- As cheesy as this sounds I actually felt as if I had a feeling of belonging and self worth, something that I hadn’t found anywhere else on the Internet including EHarmony.com (why was I looked for self worth on the Internet? I have no idea, just call me a troubled soul who searches relentlessly for the next trend so I can fit in with the “it crowd.”
- Now, that feeling is no longer and I feel even worse. I feel as if I’m sinking back into my rock bottom state of depression, never again wanting to commit to any activity, only wanting to float around until I fly away, never to return to this lonely planet they call Earth.
- So much for my life as a Chreamo. Now, all I seem to have to look forward to is a padded cell…

Moniska89 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I gave this pup a good overhaul; now it focuses on Christian emo music, but also mentions "Chremo." — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 10:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't add anything that isn't obvious or at least can't be covered in one of the other Christian music articles. Diabolical 14:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And it still doesn't cite any Sources! --Ybbor ^T 15:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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