Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 15

< July 14	July 16 >

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 no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PassAlong Networks[edit]

Previously tagged for speedy deletion by Spellcast as blatant advertising (G11) and speedy-deleted by myself. I restored the article after a user contested it, and now I'm listing it here to see if we can come to some consensus on this article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep They have notability Corpx 17:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article does a sufficient job implying the company's notability. However, seems to have some NPOV issues. And a lot of superfluous information. Reads like a company brochure. Douglasmtaylor 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There is enought reliable source material independent of PassAlong Networks from which to develop an article composed of a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. The present article is not neutral, unbiased, and verifiable but it could be rewritten from existing reliable source material to be neutral, unbiased, and verifiable. Hopefully this AfD will send a message to those interested in the article to fix it. If the article is not fixed and nominated for AfD, this first AfD plus the failure to follow the consensus in this AfD would tip the scale to Delete. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia really doesn't need to contain an advert for every small or medium sized company in the world. The sole contributor to the article has made no attempt to disguise the fact that it is an advert. Thehalfone 11:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nacosta[edit]

The subject does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. They have not finished their debut ep Nv8200p talk 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom; no assertion of notability. Shalom ^Hello 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also seems WP:POV with a strong scent of WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diesel-powered delete Search on Yahoo--zero hits. Search on Google--one hit, Wikipedia. Not even close to passing WP:MUSIC. Blueboy 96 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This band has NOT been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Moreover, this band has not had any charted hits on any national music chart yet. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Internet[edit]

This isn't in common use, no citations asserting importance. superβεεcat 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and fails WP:NOTABILITY. Carlosguitar 00:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:OR. --Evb-wiki 03:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bearian 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Legalbeaver 02:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Rackabello 01:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Tower (Tampa)[edit]

Donald Trump has withdrawn his name, and it does not appear likely that the tower will be built.("Trump pulls out of plans for high-rise in Tampa". Orlando Sentinel. May 31, 2007) If something is built on the site, it will be under a different name, and an article can be started for that building, if it is sufficiently notable and sourced. Donald Albury 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. That very article about the project's supposed end implies notability. The legal dispute between Trump and the developer may persist as an interesting current event, and this defunct project's notability may endure. I know that is all uncertain, but I'd rather err on the side of keep for now.--Absurdist 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What is it about the project's ending that makes it notable?. -- Donald Albury 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The fact that there is an article, which you cited, from a reliable third-party source. This is a notable current event, involving a notable person.--Absurdist 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator makes the case for notability with a cite. The fact that Trump pulled out makes it more notable, not less. Dhaluza 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does that make it notable? I don't see a rash of commentary being published on the significance of Trump withdrawing his name from the project. This incident might be worth a mention in Trump's article, but where is the evidence that it is notable enough for its own article. -- Donald Albury 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't need a "rash" of commentary, multiple independent sources are sufficient for Notability. 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable failed projects are encyclopediac articles--Sefringle^Talk 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's failed, but what makes it notable? -- Donald Albury 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building has not been torn down and may yet be completed. It is notable as a large skyscraper under construction (BTW should be added to Category:Buildings under construction. Trump's envolvment makes it even more notable IMO. --Targeman 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have yet to see any source stating that construction has proceeded beyond drilling for pilings. The project ran into problems with soil stability, which apparently led to the problems with financing. -- Donald Albury 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's interesting. Notable even.--Absurdist 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is notable and cited --UntilMoraleImproves 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had deleted this article as an expired PROD, but restored it after User:TonyTheTiger showed me this link, a later news article (June 12) that says the project is still on.--ragesoss 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball... tower isnt built, tower may never be completed... til it is, why do we have an article about a failed construction job? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable failures are still notable. Andre (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If it hasn't been completed, then it fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. —« ANIMUM » 05:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL does not apply here. This article isn't, and shouldn't become, speculative. It is about the Trump Tower project in Tampa that exists, or did exist. The article is backed up with reliable third-party sources.--Absurdist 15:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should be obvious, but WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. No one is speculating anything about these towers. Failed projects can be notable, like this one is. Burntsauce 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Peacent 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Set Magazine[edit]

Non-notable fetish magazine. No reliable sources to verify any notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Æthelwold 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dripping with notability problems. I'm not saying it's gotta go, just that some more sources would relieve this discussion to purge the article. ~ Infrangible 02:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I feel the urge to expel some of the material, and the article could certainly use some urination. But seriously though, I think that while the magazinine may or may not be notable, it at least merits a merge to Omorashi, as it isa very good example of omorashi being present in a context outside of Japan, and indeed well into the Western world. Calgary 06:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to disagree with the nominator here with regards to reliable sources for this magazine. Isn't this webpage a source of reliable source? Moreover, google shows up quite a number of hits for this magazine. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I oppose this deletion because the reason it was proposed notability. Wet Set is certainly notable; it is the only really notable example of omorashi subculture outside of Japan. As Siva1979 also pointed out, this magazine has recieved a lot of attention in the Australian Adult Entertainment Industry. Not only was the Magazine nominated for best in its category in 2004, their Website also recieved a nomination.[1] Calgary's suggestion of a merge with omorashi would be a good one (I had actually considered it myself orginally since I created both pages) if not for the issue of length. The omorashi article is already rather long, and it would be difficult to put all the information on Wet Set's history of over a decade (not to mention the stuff on their other publications) into subsection after subsection under the "Outside of Japan" heading. For this reason I must stand by my orginal position that Wet Set needs its own page. Fsecret 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The above comments contain links to sources of this magazine being nominated for an award, which show that this magazine has received acclaim and is considered notable. The nominator's argument is lack of reliable sources and this has been proved wrong. Coop41 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was fine with the article from the outset, though I toned down the caption on the 2nd picture, it was a tad... exuberant. And now that there's an award nomination in the mix, well...! Snarfies 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fsecret and Coop41. — $PЯIПGrαgђ 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, didn't catch previous afd at alternative name. --Eyrian 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon fetish[edit]

Unsourced, nonnotable sexual clique that's been deleted several times before. --Eyrian 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, you learn every day. I had never heard of this one before, but a quick Google turned out thousands of hits. Check out the image search (with SafeSearch off, obviously). Looks like regular porn with, er, balloons. The large variety of websites covering this suggests it's not a joke, improbable as it may seem. And thanks to the nominator for making me discover the hugely entertaining article on Paraphilia :). I'd like to hear a shrink's opinion on this, but as far as I can tell this "balloon fetish" is for real. --Targeman 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian names[edit]

List is too broad to be helpful. This list can never be satisfied. This article contains no references, no reliable sources, and therefore cannot be verified. This is entirely original research. the_undertow ^talk 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is indeed badly written and unreferenced, and lacks three key features that should be expected in this kind of work: every name in its original Persian script with a transliteration and phonetic transcription. It looks as if this list was pulled from a name etymology website, so it might not be original research. And I think the subject is worth an article (many other languages have an equivalent one). So major improvements are necessary but I'd say the article should be kept.--Targeman 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: scrap my vote. Redirect to Persian names per Calgary.--Targeman 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of names, or a list of anything without any real information about them, is better suited to some body's personal website than an encyclopedia. NobutoraTakeda 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [2][reply]
Redirect Articles like this usually discuss naming conventions, forms of address and the like. As such, we already have the appropriate information at Persian name. This article is little more than a very incomplete list of names, and even if it were possible to create a comprehensive glossary of Iranian names (and by the way, how do we define "Iranian name"?) I fail to see what good that list would serve. Redirect to Persian name. Calgary 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect says that Iranians names are Persian names. I don't know if thats true. Sure, many people say that Iran is Persia, but there are many ethnic groups besides Persians in Iran, and there are many Persians not in Iran. NobutoraTakeda 14:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Origional research.--Sefringle^Talk 05:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a name dump. Punkmorten 06:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Persian name per Calgary. Obvious content/POV fork. Blueboy 96 12:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintable list & OR Corpx 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-encyclopedic trivial name dump. Burntsauce 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Peratt[edit]

This article was prodded on the grounds that it fails WP:PROF. I, too, believe it fails PROF, but think that its a close enough call that we should discuss it here. semper fictilis 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom; insufficiently notable. semper fictilis 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His research and name can be mentioned on the pages describing the subjects he researched. Notability does not "rub off" onto someone just because they found something notable, unless they did something notable to find that something notable (like Galileo or Columbus). NobutoraTakeda 22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [3][reply]

with that policy, WP would be a kindergarten-level encyclopedia. 5 or 10 scientists, 5 or so explorers, possible 20 rock bands... The criterion you refuse to accept, "because they did something notable" is WP notability. But i shouldn't bite, today is your first day on WP. DGG (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable (added by user Onceonthisisland)
Keep lots of google hits for his books and his name; lots of hits in Google Scholar - passes WP:PROF. I note too that he has been in Wiki for three years and has edits from about 20 people - indicates notability. Springnuts 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ghits are not a good way to determine the notability of an academic. I think that many people have edited the article because there are a number of catastrophists who are active on Wikipedia trying to promote and advertise their ideas. They generally choose a few obscure academics whose ideas they like and blow them out-of-proportion. --Mainstream astronomy 23:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist,[4] but also a leader in the field of Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe)[5], his academic book, Physics of the Plasma Universe has been reviewd in Astrophysics and space science, in Science, and in Sky and Telescope, and I'm sure he will be found to be notable by the 3000 professional engineers and scientists who are members of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society who receive the journal Transactions on Plasma Science (in which he is am Associate Editor)[6], and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.[7] --Iantresman 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.[8]. This is a gross misrepresentation of who has signed the open letter. Most of its signatories are Big Bang Busters with agendas ranging from Velikovsky to creationism. Such votes ought to be removed from consideration on the basis of his dishonesty. --Mainstream astronomy 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list shows 218 "Scientists and Engineers", excluding the original signatories. But you are correct that most of the people who signed their name, are not shown as either Scientists and Engineers (ie. 187 independent researchers, and 105 others). But my statement does appear to be accurate, and yours to be unsubstantiated and uncivil --Iantresman 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relying on the self-identification of scientists and engineers leads to some absurd characterizations. I see a member of the Creation Research Society identifying himself as a scientist/engineer. Oh, look! A scientist from The Noah's Ark Research Foundation, one from the US Department of Transportation, one from the Empirical Church, USA, and the glorious diploma mill Capital University for Integrative Medicine/California. This site is a parody of itself. --76.214.223.142 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. He is an accomplished senior academic, but WP:PROF requires more than being an accomplished senior academic. Raymond Arritt 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

simply false, it requires being more notable than the average academic,and as you yourself say, he meets this. DGG (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the criteria for WP:PROF require more than being "above average." Peratt appears to be good at what he does, but he's no more notable than several of the guys down the hall from me. The stuff that Iantresman cites, for example, is normal for any professor at a Research-I university. Raymond Arritt 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is perfectly possible that several of the guys down the hall from you may be notable. DGG (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely that they aren't per the Copernican Principle. Wikipedia has articles on less than 1000 astronomers living and dead. A common estimate thrown around in the community is that there are something like 6000 astronomers alive on the planet today, and something like 20,000 astronomers who have kicked-the-bucket. We're talking about 4 out of every 100 astronomers who are notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. Even if we skew towards "recent-memory" inclusivity and assume that there are the same number of living and dead notable astronomical figures (highly unlikely, but we'll go with it), we're talking about one out of every twelve astronomers who are notable. Twelve just happens to be the size of a medium astronomy department, so Wikipedia right now is catching on average about one astronomer per medium-sized department. Therefore, your argument above is akin to arguing that Wikipedia is grossly unrepresentative of notable astronomers. I don't think that this is the case at all. --76.214.223.142 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your point regarding the "Copernican principle." What in there specifically are you referring to? "The earth isn't the center of the universe" doesn't seem to apply. Peratt hasn't, to my knowledge, ever argued it is... Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a better bet to assume you aren't special than to assume that you are. There was a recent article about the local application of this principle in The New York Times. --76.214.213.166 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I fail to see how your "statistical analysis" has any bearing on whether or not Peratt is notable. It's like saying, well, since we haven't included EVERYone, no one else should be added, ever, despite being notable. Seems to not quite make sense. Now, I'm not arguing that Peratt is more notable than others, or that competency=notability. However, he has contributed quite a bit or documented notable research to plasma physics & astronomy. Whether it's more than the "average" researcher, hard to say. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was made by DGG that a few scientists down the hall were notable. However, as is pointed out below, it's more likely that a few scientists down the hall are not notable. If Peratt is really equivalent to "a scientist down the hall" then by the simple statistical argument he will likely not be notable. --76.214.213.166 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might also point out that it it seems to be the intent of many here to get "delete-happy." I tend toward being an 'inclusionist' rather than a 'deletionist.' If a topic is notable or a person is notable and people want to know more about the person or topic, it should be included. Keeping in mind that WP should be a NEUTRAL representation of people and things "out there" in the world. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peratt's views or others' views of Peratt should not automatically disqualify an article about him. IE, if someone has a problem with catastrophism and someone else uses Peratt to justify their viewpoint, that's not Peratt's fault, and he and/or his article should not be blamed or ostracized because of it. That's POV and agenda pushing (indirectly attacking an opponent's idea through unrelated or minimally related means). It would be like saying "Christians use the Big Bang to justify creationism, so we should remove the Big Bang article to undermine their Creationist position." That type of reasoning is ludicrous. I'm just saying that "agendas" should be weeded out. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do, however believe that the article should be NPOV, and any unsupported claims, or material not related directly to Peratt, his work, his notable/verified beliefs or accomplishments or discoveries should be removed from the article, and a better more comprehensive, more NEUTRAL article should be molded from the old one. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is troubling that Peratt's views keep coming up because I agree with you that they are totally irrelevant to this discussion. If anything I see a slight bias in application of this on the keep side with certain voters saying that we should strive to keep articles about unconventional ideas or accomodate those who are on the fringe by giving them a pass for WP:PROF. However, I think WP:FRINGE is the right way to think about this. The people advocating the "fringe" need to be subject to the same standards as those who advocate the mainstream. No more, no less. WP:NPOV should be applied fairly and equitably to all people and ideas. As I see it, the fringe automatically have a disadvantage because they are, by definition, marginal. However, it is not Wikipedia's place to right great wrongs such as this. --Nondistinguished 04:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Peratt is a figure in the specialty of "plasma cosmology" which is not necessarily regarded as mainstream, as an examination of the links in the article on him will show, and in the past those associated with this movement have aroused a considerable amount of possibly POV discussion on all sides. This presumably accounts for some of the comments in both directions expressed above. I want to reexamine his record systematically.

Some non-mainstream figures have in the past been considered important at AfD, based on the non-academic notability as shown by popular books, and press mentions; this seems not to be the case with him, so he must be evaluated on the basis of academic accomplishments.

The practice, since there is no formal "precedent" at AfD, in evaluation of academics is that all full professors at research Universities brought to AfD have always been considered notable, because of the work they have published and the peer reviews they have undergone--all instances where these have been investigated here in detail have been found notable, for at least the last 6 months. This correlates to the WP:PROF criterion of being highly respected by ones colleagues for ones body of work. If the astrophysicists at say, Princeton or CalTech regards someone as distinguished enough for their top academic rank, I think we'd accept their judgement. However, Peratt is not a professor at a research university. For some reason the bio in the article is somewhat sketchy: a full one on the website of IEEE is at [9]; (I cannot account for why it was not included in the article; we normally regard information from such sources as reliable for factual career details unless there is evidence to the contrary) He is a scientist at Los Alamos, and his previous career has been there and at Livermore; it is difficult to correlate positions at these labs with academic ranks, so this cannot be used as a preliminary criterion.

So we go by the publications, honors and awards. Being the editor-in-chief of a major peer-reviewed journal has been held highly notable--this are the prestige positions for the most distinguished; IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is an important mainstream journal from the most important scientific society in the general field of electrical engineering and related subjects. But he is he is not editor in chief, but rather one of the 15 associate editors. This by itself has not always been considered enough for notability, though sometimes it has been, in connection with other factors. He holds several awards as listed on that page, but no really major honors. Publications are judged by citations. Using WebofScience, as customary, I find he has 69 publications included there, not all of them peer-reviewed papers--about half seem short comments or editorials. However, they are not highly cited: the five most cited are cited 24, 18, 18, 18, 17 times He has 9 papers cited 10 or more times, for an h index of 9, not particularly impressive. However, he has two papers in Physical Review Letters, the very most distinguished physics journal.

On balance, this is borderline. The associate editorship is almost enough for notability, the publications are relatively weak. Put together I would call it a Weak Keep.

I want to add a word about possible prejudice: I have such high respect for the scientific establishment that I have devoted my career to its service. But this does not diminish the importance of the non-mainstream people for a comprehensive encyclopedia, for by confrontation with these views, progress is made. I am, frankly, very suspicious of the attempts of those in any establishment to exclude those without: I call it negative COI. I do not think this article should have been nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is good, DGG, up until the last paragraph. I think you are doing some defending of the marginalized, perhaps in the capacity as a devil's advocate or a fan of the underdog. This is not a good rationale, however. There are plenty of non-mainstream advocates that are notable (e.g. Halton Arp, Hannes Alfven, Hermann Bondi, William Tifft, Jayant Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge) who deserve encyclopedia articles. The accusations of negative COI are unwarranted, otherwise the rest of these scientists would be here at AfD too. Peratt just happens to be one of the second tier scientists with an interest in non-standard cosmology who is simply not very notable and he only has an article because there is a "positive" COI at work by people fighting mainstream cosmology here at Wikipedia. Peratt hasn't proposed any new ideas in cosmology since his toilet swirl galaxies (Rocky Kolb's description, not mine). Indeed, the only claim of notablity Peratt has is that he advocates a rather marginalized view. Pretend that the guy didn't advocate such views, would you be arguing for weak keep then? --76.214.223.142 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did two things, & I separated them. I analyzed, and then I stated my conclusions. My analysis is intended to provide data to be helpful to the discussion, regardless of the conclusion people reach from it. I think my data accurate, & I will defend the method and the criteria. But my conclusion is only my own evaluation overall, and each of us will have his own. I do not mean to imply that if you accept the analysis you should accept the conclusion. I separately state the factors for the conclusion--for people to follow or not as their independent judgement thinks best. (& when I say weak, I mean that I put forward the conclusion as an hypothesis, & regard the alternative as possible also--I think others use it that way as well.)

But in answer to the question, I say freely that I have a strong personal bias against marginalized scientific views. I don't want my bias to be reflected in WP-- I therefore deliberately counter this bias in my evaluation--I consider that is what NPOV means. Others think differently. AfD is for consensus, and I accept the results of it. To obtain good consensus, the different views should be expressed so that those who may not have strong views on the matter can see the range of reasonable opinions. When I think an article unsupportable, I say delete. When I think it so unsupportable as to be obviously, a speedy delete or a prod, I do that. I deleted a speedy for an academic yesterday, and nominated another for speedy, and several for prod. . Beyond that, you may follow my reasoning or not--just as with everyone else's reasoning.DGG (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Even-handedness is appreciated. Awareness of bias is the first step to adopting a neutral point of view. If we can't perceive our own biases, we can't keep them from coloring our opinions or expressions on WP. Took me a while to learn that one. But I think I have, finally. Mgmirkin 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I tend to think, as you appear to, that all voices should have a certain say in things on WP, so long as they're presented neutrally. I'll grant that's sometimes hard for people who come from a particular POV to write about it NEUTRALLY. But the point being, if we WP:ASSUME, everyone has a right to exist on WP to some extent. Granted, the material should be presented evenhandedly, but thats' what good editing is about. Not promoting a POV, or suppressing a POV because you disagree with it (in itself a POV-pushing violation, which I think happens more frequently on WP than is preferred or proper). Hope that made sense? Mgmirkin 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All voices do NOT deserve a say at Wikipedia. People have a right to contribute to Wikipedia, but unless the voice they are contributing is verifiable and notable, it does not deserve a place at Wikipedia. That's why Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Nondistinguished 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Question WP:PROF mentions the alternate criterion: the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor. In using this, what group of academics do we take the average of? If we take the average of all college instructors, including instructors at 2 -year colleges, people at primarily teaching institutions, and people near the beginning of their careers, then according to DGG's count, Peratt has published more than average. If we take the average of full professors at good research universities he has published less than average. Cardamon 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I've raised this question on the Talk page for WP:PROF. A strict application of "more notable than average" would give us articles on 49.999% of all college instructors, which is plainly unwarranted. Raymond Arritt 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if one uses it in too broad or too narrow a sense it becomes meaningless--the way I use it is of tenure track faculty at research universities--which more of less comes out to full professors vs associate and assistant professors, in US terms. this matches the results of afds in general, where very few US associate or assistant professors have been held notable, and almost all full ones at Research universities have. In the UK its a little different, because Professor there is only used of the equivalent of US/Caanadian heads of department. Senior Readers, the next rank down, have often but not always been held notable. (an alternative way, which gets about the same result, is all full professors at US universities and colleges, in which case the ones at research universities are the upper third or so. DGG (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Peratt comes close to the level of "full professor". If application of WP:PROF is really heading in the direction as you say it is, then this may very well be the death-blow to claims for his notability. --Nondistinguished 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'delete per comments by nom and 76.214 among other reasons. The best test for writing an article about any person is whether there are reliable sources that are about the person (as described at WP:N,WP:BIO and relevant to this case WP:PROF). There are no reliable sources about Peratt, only about his work. It might make sense to merge some of the information here to other articles. JoshuaZ 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in the article on Zecharia Sitchin you edited, which are the reliable sources that are about the person? --Iantresman 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~based on the "United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award" as shown by the previous link as required by WP:PROF~~ Corpx 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of what the "United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award" is or how difficult it is to get it? For example, hundreds of scientists won the award from LANL in 2002: [10]. Los Alamos gives out this award like candy while Argonne, for example, usually gives only about half-a-dozen or so per year. The IEEE doesn't even recognize the "Distinguished Lecturer Award" as being worth listing and, in fact, Peratt is not listed as having any award from them, despite the fact that they list hundreds of award recipients. [11]. Almost anyone can trump up a "dubious distinction" award. Does every National Merit Scholar deserve an article? Surely not. --Nondistinguished 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Nondistinguished (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bucketsofg 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (UTC)

Actually, IEEE does have a page about Distinguished lecturers, but it doesnt list the recipients. I searched around for other winners of this award in 1999 and couldnt find anyone else. Corpx 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every member-society of IEEE is allowed to choose their distinguished lecturer each year. Often the boards choose the editors of the particular society's transactions. Not a particularly meaningful "award" in that case. --Nondistinguished 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the books that he has authored? Dont you think they give notability for him as an academic? Corpx 01:36, 18 July
No, they don't. These books range from obscure texts to compilations of papers, nothing rising to the notoriety described in WP:BK. Publishing books in scientific fields is not considered the crowning academic acheivement: writing well-cited papers is what distinguishes them. Since these books are not themselves notable, it is hard to see how the author of these books can gain notability from them. --Nondistinguished 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that distinguishes Prof. Peratt from the great mainstream of (non-notable) professors, per WP:PROF. I'm sure he's smart and has great theories that he's working on proving, but so does every other professor. Carlossuarez46 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above - not clear evidence that subject passes WP:PROF. Eusebeus 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No clear evidence of notability. BTW - The research of pertoglyphs does not help to establish his credentials as a notable cosmologist. --EMS | Talk 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - accomplished senior scientist, as indicated, puts him near the borderline, but his plasma cosmology work has led to some additional (popular) notability - a check on Amazon shows that he's referred to in some other books. Also, I'm not certain that WP:PROF gives a fair shake to non-academic scientists. Hal peridol 00:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I just don't think he passes WP:PROF. Douglasmtaylor 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Is he more notable than the average professor? I can't tell from the article as it now reads. Bearian 12:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that circular logic won't dictate whether or not this article is kept. IE, the WP article doesn't in itself give notability, so I'm not sure why we're looking at the article itself to try to determine if he's notable. Hal Peridol's comments above at least try to quantify the issue somewhat. IE, references by other authors, etc. Didn't he author a textbook on plasma physics at one point (IE, he knows his stuff)? Can't find a citation, though, don't have enough time ATM... So, I guess I'll withdraw that for the moment. Though of course authorship doesn't necessarily equate to notability either, as others have said. Mgmirkin 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of multiple non-trivial references covering the subject. Burntsauce 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Corruptor (Age of Mythology)[edit]

The Vandahaal is an Age of Mythology fansite that isn't by any means notable, but is notorious for spamming links to their pages on AoM:TT and Age of Mythology. This movie is also completely non notable, and thus does not deserve an article. Giggy _U^CP 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but it needs some clean-up. --Onceonthisisland 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about it is notable, and everything I see backs up to backs up to The Vandahaal. Until/If a third party publication is found, I'm going to say delete.--Clyde (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of notability per WP:FILM also potentially WP:SPAM and WP:COI if you check the links. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - If any information was necessary, it should be merged into another page with a brief mention of the topic. I don't see how this warrants its own page. NobutoraTakeda 22:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)This user has been banned. [12][reply]
Merge - Merge with the Age of Mythology article. It will probably be more suitable there! --Titan602 - The mind of darkness 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless recognized/endorsed by AoM and other third parties. Do not merge unless third party reference is given.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator plus lack of multiple non-trivial sources about the subject. Burntsauce 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Shell Kinney (G11). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salon pod[edit]

Appears to be a non notable invention. Looks like it got a little attention in a local newspaper and radio show, but otherwise nothing. Sort as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability notability tag has been up since Oct. 06 Daniel J. Leivick 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is also a copyright violation. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe): I think that this page could be kept, if we found more information than is currently in the article. --Onceonthisisland 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and copyvio Giggy _U^CP 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, verges on G11. Unnotable custom ipod installation. --Dhartung | Talk 22:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged it for speedy G12. the_undertow ^talk 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O'Neil (comedian)[edit]

Non-notable bit actor. Only source in article was IMDb page, and a search of Google and Yahoo turned up no reliable sources. Blueboy 96 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the proposer. NobutoraTakeda 21:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [13][reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Giggy _U^CP 22:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Having an IMDb entry does not connote notability; anyone can have one. --Charlene 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of reliable sources for this article is a major conern here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. Bearian 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:BIO.Legalbeaver 02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liak Teng Lit[edit]

A stub about the CEO of a hospital in Singapore. Does not assert notability beyond things one would expect of someone in his position. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the proposer. NobutoraTakeda 21:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [14][reply]
Delete NN CEO. No RS=OR. the_undertow ^talk 22:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Absurd argument--the CEO of, say, Massachusetts General, also does not show any more notability than one would expect of someone in his position. Large hospitals are usually important. But more details are needed to show this. DGG (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would not say that the CEO of any hospital, even a large well-known hospital, is automatically notable solely by virtue of his position. There must be some other factors contributing to notability. ●DanMS • Talk 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject in question had received a major distinguised award from the Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. of Singapore. Surely this is a noteworty event. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I cant find anything notable about this person and I dont think the position being held is a notable one either. What award was it and is it a notable award? Corpx 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nominator, fails WP:BLP with a complete lack of reliable, non-trivial third party sources. Burntsauce 18:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete doesn't even assert notability to my eyes. SamBC 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't assert notability. Keb25 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crimewatch. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rav Wilding[edit]

Simply not noteable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Dalejenkins 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Host of a long-running BBC program--seems that hosts of major-network shows are notable by definition. However, this article is in major need of work. Blueboy 96 21:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the proposer. NobutoraTakeda 21:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [15][reply]
Keep Per Blueboy. Note to nominator, how does he fail WP:BIO and WP:N? "Simply not notable" does not give me any indication of why he isnt notable, and shouldnt have an article. Jcuk 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Crimewatch. Very few reliable sources found. Potentially could meet WP:BIO but a very borderline case. --Dhartung | Talk 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dhartung. This article contains no sources, and therefore does not belong here. the_undertow ^talk 22:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Dhartung. The article doesn't assert it's notability with sources, whether it is or not. DraxusD 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Agree with Blueboy & Jcuk. RW has been presenting for around three years so not unknown. Zir 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on his notability as a TV show host. Corpx 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it appears he's notable; agree with Blueboy96, Jcuk and Zir. It needs refs. Bearian 12:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article as it is written now. We can not have an article about a living person that does not have reliable sources to cover the content. Borderline notable...I doubt that a well balanced full biography can be written about this subject so a redirect to Crimewatch is best. (Suggestion: when this article is deleted, someone might try a to create one that meets notability...before creating a new one in mainspace...start one in a user sandbox first to see if you can find enough reliable sources to justify notability.) FloNight 11:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed the unsourced content and added a link to the very brief profile on the Crimewatch web site that cover the remaining material. FloNight 12:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article still fails the very basics of WP:BIO and WP:CITE and should be deleted. We can create a WP:BLP compliant article at a later time. Burntsauce 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priory Green Quadrilateral[edit]

A local first-aid group; the article fails to establish notability and reads, in parts, like an advertisement. Kwekubo 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its not notable on its own. If the information was truly necessary it would be a part of the St John Ambulance page. NobutoraTakeda 21:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [16][reply]
Delete Agree with user above. By this logic, we should have an entry for every single division, and that'd be madness. TheIslander 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established Corpx 17:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. John's Ambulance. No reliable third party sources mentioned this division. And is definitely a violation of WP:CORP with regards to local divisions of non-commerical organizations.--Kylohk 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland Badgers[edit]

A local first-aid group for children; the article fails to establish notability. Kwekubo 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete pre nom. Dalejenkins 21:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree the article does not assert it's notability by the standards of WP:ORG. By the way Dalejenkins, didn't you mean "Per nom" and not "Pre nom"? Just asking. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Oyster guitarist 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No need for article, covered in main article. TheIslander 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Test Card F. But what of Test Card J? 8-O Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles the Clown[edit]

The sources are not about the clown, but the card. The clown is not notable in itself, possibly?-Bubulina8888 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Test Card F. Dalejenkins 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Merge - The clown by himself is questionably notable. The nominator brought up the point that the sources in the article primarily focus on Test Card F. The best soloution to this situation that I can see is to Merge with Test Card F as suggested by Dalejenkins. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with -- Test Card F this sinister clown is a British cultural icon (of sorts) yet much of the article focus on the card not the creature. Bigdaddy1981 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. While we're at it, Carole Hersee should also be so merged. JulesH 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am was one of the main contributors to this page when it was new, so I would like to make my thoughts heard. If this article and Carole Hersee are merged, they should be merged into Test Card F to make it a large article. Riatsila 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Test Card F. Carcharoth 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and Carole Hersee to Test Card F per everyone else's comments. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Smith (NASCAR)[edit]

Fails WP:NN. Non-notable NASCAR driver. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, two-time winner of a well-known road race (in addition to NASCAR, where he's a team owner, former or not). I don't know how well he stacks up in NASCAR terms but this appears obviously notable on its face. --Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Very notable as a winner and ex-team owner. I would think that since all professional sports players are notable, that by extension all NASCAR drivers are too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. Meets all notability standards. --D-Day 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. Oyster guitarist 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable "athlete" and businessman. Article should be expanded to have a little longer biography, though, if anybody knows anything about him. Useight 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I can't even fathom how the nom would believe this individual is not notable, even if the source did not exist until after the nomination. Resolute 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand if possible - the Baja wins are definitely notable, and his work with NASCAR expands on that. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 23:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he helped founded the Craftsman Truck SEries and former Nascar team owner. That passes notability.--JForget 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on [17] it is possible that the nominator wants to withdraw the nomination, and it looks like WP:SNOW anyway. The nominator has not made edits since my reply at Wikipedia:Help desk#Withdrawal of AfD?. PrimeHunter 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFW[edit]

I believe this is or may be a neologism. Fastfinge 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of internet slang phrases, although it is of interest to note (1), List of internet slang phrases already lists JW as meaning "just works", and (2), the author of the article attempts to justify the addition of the F ("fucking") to the acronym, leading me to be suspicious of the article's factual accuracy. I'm going to do a bit of googling and see what comes up. Calgary 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable term. JulesH 18:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't merge into List of internet slang phrases unless non-trivial sources can be found.--Absurdist 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Supported by FOUR ghits[18], all collections of acronyms rather than primary occurrences on Usenet/Blogs. Don't replace it with a redirect to my userpage please :-) JFW | T@lk 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEO, since no independent reliable sources are discussing it as the main subject of an article or book. Even if it were used in ten million blogs, it wouldn't be enough for WP:NOTE; independent non-trivial sources, in other words not blogs, have to be discussing the abbreviation. Edited. --Charlene 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism of WP:OR and without any cultural refs. Bearian 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per JulesH Harlowraman 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel (framework)[edit]

This article was created by one of Amorrow's socks, I looked for independent sources but found it hard to find any at all. The few Google hits for isobel and "knowledge management" include a goodly number of unrelated items and I did not see any decent independent sources in there. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable open source project. Sourceforge reports that the project is in "alpha" status[19], and has had roughly 1,000 downloads[20] since the last version was released at the end of 2005. JulesH 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just a thought... I should probably declare a COI here, in that I am part owner of a company that sells information management software. JulesH 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomCandyfan 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Hopkins[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE. The subject is not notable outside The Apprentice (UK),a reality television show. She has been featured in the press, but so do all reality tv stars. Apart from the content on the show, the article just contains tabloid rubbish. Anything noteworthy should be merged with The Apprentice.Legalbeaver 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossibly strong keep (and I'm not even the article's creator!): it's notable in that it's received coverage by independent sources.--Rambutan (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter how many independent sources are used. You can get tabloid sources for every reality television participant. That does not mean they should all have an article on Wiki.Legalbeaver 20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It satisfies WP:NOTE by its variety of sources, so that's fine.--Rambutan (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, firstly-she only left The Apprentice little over a month ago. Does not fail ANY of these WP:NOTE guidlines, and passes the guidlines at WP:BIO. Fair play if the article was a un-noteable and un-sourced stub, but this article is a noteable, fully-sourced, B-class article. Dalejenkins 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, the article is not a stub, but that doesnt mean that it contains anything that makes Katie Hopkins worthy of an article on Wiki. It should be summarised and merged to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK). Why should it make any difference that she left The Apprentice "little over a month ago"? The article simply should not have been created in the first place. She is not a notable business person, she currently has no media career to speak of, she is purely famous for being in a reality tv show, thus she is not notable enough for her own page.Legalbeaver 20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're wrong. Your claim for nominating was "she hasn't done anything since The Apprentice", she's only been out of it a month. Give the girl a chance-did you expect her to become a huge TV presenter or actress in this short space of time? According to WP:BIO, Reality TV contestants (however long they stay in, however little an impact after their departure), may still have their own articles. Dalejenkins 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like all reality contestants who get AfDed, why can't this one go the same way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallicash (talk • contribs)
KEEP. Is Wikipedia short of space. 99% of the info on the site is trivial. It is interesting and informs pub discussions but little of it is likely to change the world. It is only Wikipedia so get a life and don't be so precious.--MJB 19:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not entirely clear what your vote is.--Rambutan (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, easily passes WP:BIO as a very well-sourced B-class article on a highly notable person. Article could use a bit of tidying and trimming, but the number of sources alone is enough to have me convinced that she's a person of note. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate if subject does something notable outside of The Apprentice. Having an affair with a married man is not notable on its own.Candyfan 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this user appears to be on an ant-Apprentice rampage recently. Having threatened to put this article up for AfD for some months, he now has and has also opposed The Apprentice (UK)'s FA promotion for no apparent reason. I detect a Bad Faith Nomination. Dalejenkins 21:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume this is directed at me. Please try to keep your comments on topic and not about me. I have expressed concern about the notability of the article in the past, as have other editors (which can be seen here). I am perfectly within my rights to nominate the article for deletion and my reasons for opposing The Apprentice (UK)'s FA are legit and unrelated. It's fine that you disagree with me, but it is wrong to suggest "bad faith". Please try not to take it personally.Legalbeaver 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't understand how a short term appearance on one tv show is notable to have your life story in an encyclopedia. It reads like a local gossip magazine article as oppose to a serious biography about a serious individual. NobutoraTakeda 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [21][reply]
- Comment: This appears to be an account created for the sole purpose of vote stacking. Burntsauce 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, then suerly the page should be placed on {{cleanup}}? Dalejenkins 21:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete being one of hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have been on a single reality television show is not "significant coverage". VanTucky ^(talk) 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate Keep per all of Dalejenkin's comments. Please don't quote WP:CRAP, but if you look at articles like Brandon Rogers (singer) you'll see how worthy this article is. Bravedog 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VanTucky and NobutoraTakeda's comments. --Onceonthisisland 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I don't watch the programme, but I heard about her. Wikipedia exists to provide reference material on things that people will wish to look up. Æthelwold 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly it passes notability, looks very well maintained and sourced as well.--JForget 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Specifically, what aspect of WP:NOTE does this article fall foul of? --Dweller 08:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moreover, it ought to be remembered that WP:NOTE is a guideline, not a policy, and as such allows an element of flexibility. The Rambling Man 08:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Inappropriate, unexplained nomination. Subject clearly passes WP:BIO. Comments about "tabloid rubbish" reveals much about the nom - I spotted refs from The Times, The Guardian and BBC Online, none of which could be considered "tabloid rubbish". This woman is highly notable in the UK right now, with an ability to make headlines that far exceeds your run-of-the-mill reality TV contestant, including, ironically, either of the actual finalists of the show. --Dweller 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a thoroughly researched and documented article that provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because she hasnt done anything notable outside her appearance on a reality show. Corpx 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the Wright brothers didn't do anything notable except inventing aviation. WP:NOTE is still satisfied.--Rambutan (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you compare inventors to reality show participants? Corpx 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like it or not, and apparently for many people WP:IDONTLIKEIT is being applied, the subject does meet WP:BIO and notability guidelines, and the article is more than sufficiently referenced to keep around. Burntsauce 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Apprentice (UK Series Three). I watched the series, and I have now, by reading this article, become aware of all the tabloid stories written about her. I have also been able to read the names of her children. This is not encyclopedia content. There may be people who want to read this sort of stuff, but why can't they read it in tabloid newspapers, and not in Wikipedia? Carcharoth 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If she's not notable, I don't know who is. If this is not a B bio article, I don't know what one is. All those reality shows are, IMHO, Brain Candy, but WP has both high and low culture. I agree especially with comments by Alansohn, Burntsauce, Dweller, Bravedog, Dalejenkins, Æthelwold, and Jforgot. Bearian 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By your standards every single reality television star could have their own page on wikipedia. Press material is easy to find on all reality television stars, but they are only notabe if they go on to sustain a media career. The subject has not.Legalbeaver 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you're wrong. They're notable if they pass the notability test.--Rambutan (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Highly referenced and thorough article and well within notability. Seaserpent85 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Granted, that the article does need some tidying and trimming, but there is no getting away from the fact that it is a B class article. There is a current total of 76 sources from a range of documents, newspaper, tabloid and BBC News articles, which are very well organised and complete with every retrieval date. This should not be deleted per WP:BIO as "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources". I can see the reasoning for this nomination, but I think that she is just about notable enough for the article to be kept on Wikipedia, and if these rumours of an appearance on another reality show prove true, then the article will have to be re-created anyway. Eagle Owl 13:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 6 or 7 other articles on people from past series of the apprentice. If they are notable, so is Katy. In fact there are hundreds of Wiki articles about people who have featured on reality TV. The apprentice is one of the most notable UK reality shows, and she is perhaps the most notable person from the recent series, so again she must be notable enough to keep. Willy turner 17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD A7. --Deskana (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Ojamajo Doremi[edit]

Article about a fanfic which does not meet notability guidelines or WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (web). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTE Snarfies 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomCandyfan 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the proposer. NobutoraTakeda 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Rancho High School[edit]

Not a notable place. Biased. Malan89 16:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Notable. Some cleanup performed. — RJH (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on consensus that High Schools are notable Corpx 17:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with User:RJHall's beliefs that high schools are generally notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do a major cleanup. I'm almost inclined to say delete and start over, but I'm not sure that's really necessary. I dissent with RJHall's suggestion that the school notability is policy, but consensus around these parts is that high schools are indeed notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete while the article asserts notability, it is not verified in reliable, independent publications. Thus, it patently fails WP:Notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are notable. No justification has been given for treating this one differently. Æthelwold 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant history and sports section although as others mentionned this article needs some cleanup.--JForget 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comments that claim all high schools are notable should be ignored, because clearly not everyone agrees, and they won't make it consensus by repeating it, unless they give a reason based on policy. It is arbitrary statements like that which prevent rational approaches to articles. In this particular case the school seems clearly notable, because of the athletic accomplishment.It should be sourced, but the requirement is only sourcable, & its clearly sourcable. DGG (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As modified, this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability per the Wikipedia:Notability standard. As with almost all high schools, there are many more sources available to add to this article, and all are invited to chip in on further improving this and other school articles. Alansohn 05:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable school. Eusebeus 21:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete I disagree strongly with VanTucky, not even what it claims is notable.

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

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

The result was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. Nandesuka 11:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Carlet[edit]

Since first AFD and the merge discussion much of the text in this article is now duplicated in a subsection of the National Union of General Workers article
Person is not notable outside the context of the union
Person is not notable in Japan
Page seems to be promotional for the Union
He is the deputy General of a small Chapter of the Union
The Union itself is borderline notable with only a few hundred members

At the very least this page should be redirected to the Union page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the second time the same editor has nominated the article for deletion (first time there was no concensus leaning towards keep), this time on the heels of a unsuccessful merge. The person is notable, and the article contains sources for everything contained in it. Statisticalregression 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously a notable person, passes WP:RS and WP:V. Everything in the article is sourced, doesn't seem promotional to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep notablity established and referenced. More than just a branch official. On further examination of sources it appears that some of them reference only the union and others only the march -- moreover, none establish that he is the organiser of the march (which attracted just 300 participants) - delete. Bigdaddy1981 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/MergeA virtual unknown outside of a extraordinarily small group of union activists in Tokyo. Maybe 300 max. Apparently persons who know the subject are using the internet to promote their friend or fellow union member. Nothing prevents these advocates from setting up their own home page in honor of Mr. Carlet---but it's inappropriate to use the Wikipedia for this kind of activity. And you will notice none of the "keep" posters have put anyone else of the same level of significance into the Wikipedias. Spellin 13:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Spellin[reply]
Strong keep. - As per Ten Pound Hammer. David Lyons 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge I haven't participated in previous discussions, which there have been two, and I am open to the suggestion that process is being abused in this situation. However, while I hope one day Mr Carlet becomes notable and more power to him and the union, however, sources 2, 3 are self written and 5 is nothing more than an advertisment for the union's march, source 4 has nothing to say about Mr. Carlet. Like I said, nothing against the union and Mr. Carlet and I am sure he can be an excellent source as for reports, but I can't see why he is notable under WP:BIO at this time in his career. Sorry, Mr. Carlet. XinJeisan 02:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close without prejudice. Apparently this AfD may be a WP:POINT problem per this [22] (scroll down to near the bottom). --Charlene 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USER:Sparkzilla, The originator of this AfD, engaged in WP:CANVAS here and here in an attempt to get user to change votes after they had already voted. There are real WP:POINT issues surfacing, and the conduct of USER:Sparkzilla on another BLP currently has him blocked with no expiration pending discussion.[23]Statisticalregression 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, it should also be pointed out, that the recent exchange about deleting or merging this entry, arose shortly after it was attempted to have a "controversies" section ADDED to the alleged notable's Wiki entry. At the time, in fact, it was StatisticalRegression who decided it was not appropriate.

That was a single unsourced comment that violated BLP, if the AfD was done in retribution to the removal of that material see here then there's all the more reason to close this AfDStatisticalregression 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd that Mr. Carlet is allegedy notable enough to have an independent entry. Yet, because he is a virtual unknown in the mainstream media (Japan or anywhere), you won't find any countercriticism on him personally---virtually no one knows who he is.

So getting back to the Controversies section, why is that NOT worth including, if this person is so well noted (even if that would just be among a handful of foreigners in Japan?)Spellin 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just review WP:BLP and discuss the issue on the articles talk page, bringing it up here is not appropriateStatisticalregression 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply brought up in the context, that there would not be many independent media sources reporting any contoversies, on someone who is not notable. Not to dispute whether such a section is merited or not. Additionally, reviewing the material and your comments regarding Sparkzilla, it is difficult for me to see how you are applying an even hand with this entry and its debate. From the other discussion, it appears you simply want to limit Sparkzilla's influence, regardless of whether the poster has made good points. You even go so far as to insinuate the identities of OTHER posters when you challenge what Sparkzilla does within the Wiki community. Please do more reading of the Wiki rules, and not just make broad references to other users about them. Such a break might be worthwhile.Spellin 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Deputy general of a union. If WP:V and WP:RS apply, remove to stub or cleanup--ZayZayEM 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)~~ Ooops... only a subsection head eh? Delete unless there is something else they are known for--ZayZayEM 04:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kendo the definitive guide[edit]

Non-notable book written by an apparent non-notable author. Article was prodded; prodding was immediately removed by creator. A few days later, no new changes. -WarthogDemon 16:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, book isn't notbale if author isn't notable. Author doesn't appear to be notable, so the book should go. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no real assertion of notability independent of the game itself. Shalom ^Hello 02:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and merge with the Kendo article. Bearian 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete and merge" violates GFDL. 14:50, 20 July 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 no consensus as the AfD has been superseded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BulletBall 2. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 00:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BulletBall[edit]

Speedy Keep - The product was featured on national TV and a website is listed with information on the game. Plenty notable, considering other sports/games with wikipedia articles. Malan89 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes it was on TV but did you notice it was rejected? It's a non notable game, the fact that there is other stuff thats on Wikipedia thats just as non notable isn't a valid argument see OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Whispe ring 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any reliable sources asserting its notability. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wasn't sure if non-admins could post here. Anyway, the article should be deleted, as it is not very notable, but someone should make an article called "List of inventions shown on American Inventor" and put it there. Codelyoko193 _Talk 18:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-admins are absolutely welcome to chime in at AFD discussions. That said, beyond the appearance on American Inventor, where it was quickly eliminated, I don't see it as having any notability. AFAIK, none of the other inventions from either season of the show have their own pages, including the first season's winning invention. The first season's winning inventor has a page, but he's the only inventor with a page. So IMHO simply having appeared on AI does not make an invention notable. I could change my mind if someone came up with reliable, independent sourcing that is also independent of AI, but as it currently stands, it simply is not notable. - TexasAndroid 20:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, it's simply not notable. BB was rejected, and the winning invention doesn't have an article. When I see it on Walmart's shelves, then we can recreate it. --User101010

Keep If random no-name guys from a no-name band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Davenport) can have an article, Bulletball can have an article.

It even has its own website! http://www.bulletballgames.com/

Why do you feel the need to delete articles? It's not hurting anybody, it's not clogging up the main page or search. -- N3k74r42

You do realize that they can't possibly assess every single article at once? There are over a million articles. That article you just linked could rightfully be deleted, it's just that no one has time to find every single non-notable article and put it up for deletion. By the way, it may not clog up the main page or search, but allowing articles on everything non-notable (e.g. Mike Davenport, Bulletball) makes organization impossible, and clogs up the hard drive ($$$). By the way, "non-notable" isn't my silly opinion, notability is coverage in a reliable non-official source... like a news site. If -one- news site talks about Bulletball, it's allowed to have an article. Unfortunately, it's just an invention that's become a fad on ~~LUElinks and 4chan~~ebaumsworld. --Teggles 05:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Douglasr007 04:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a blanket article covering all American Inventor inventions. Although the inventions themselves are not popular nor significantly covered by reliable sources, they are covered in a list-like format, validating a list article. --Teggles 05:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you want a list of more non notable inventions mentioned in a list? The list would fall under WP:NOT#INFO. Douglasr007 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are consistently used to merge non-notable information, forming a notable article. It's not indiscriminate because they are a primary factor of a notable television show. --Teggles 04:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the proposed list would not fall into WP:NOT's indiscriminate section. Did you even read it? --Teggles 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of lists on here have been deleting deleted for two main reasons: 1. The list falls under WP:NOT#INFO and 2. The list fails verifiability (WP:VERIFY). One good example would the List of sampled songs. The list would still be considered indiscriminate information because all of the sources would point to one television show. Douglasr007 06:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail verifiability, the reliable source is American Inventor itself. Other sites have also discusses inventions. They have not significantly covered them though, which is why a list and not individual articles are ideal. Also, this does not fall under indiscriminate information in WP:NOT. I urge you to read the section, because it makes no mention of any of this type of information. --Teggles 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 101010 Will ^(talk) 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Delayed Decision - It has now gained notoriety within multiple online and offline communities. There is clearly something developing as a result of his appearance on American Inventor. I propose that we allow that to develop for a short time, two weeks to a month, and revisit the deletion issue. It is gaining notoriety and is inadvertently gaining traction and steam because of it. --Mystalic 23:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article does achieve widespread popularity (which it hasn't; 10,000 hits on Google), it can be recreated. Waiting it out is a bad idea because we don't know what will happen - imagine if we kept every (currently) non-notable article because it "might" develop into something big - it'd be a mess. --Teggles 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge per Mystalic/Teggles —shoecream 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say keep it because 100 years from now I'll be smiling down from heaven knowing my game has made it. - Marc Griffin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Frank- (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 July 2007.
- This argument is invalid, and obviously influenced by his personal POV (the inventor will obviously want the article), therefore does not count. Besides, if it makes it in 100 years, we'll get the article in 100 years (if Wikipedia is still up by then). Slartibartfast1992 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BULLETBALL BULLETBALL DAT'S A BULLETBALL B3nnic33 02:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC) — B3nnic33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Possibly vandalism and if it isn't, it's an invalid argument. Does not count. Slartibartfast1992 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mystalic. 24.247.13.227 02:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Inventor or similar, as it might be useful as an example of a rejected proposal from the show. At present, its only virtue is utter failure on a moderately popular American TV show. Per Mystalic, that may change in time. Best, ZZ 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable game Zalgt 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any proof for its notability? Websites and having appeared on a tryout (and failing with four judges against it) definitely does not count. Therefore, invalid argument. Slartibartfast1992 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders off set episodes[edit]

Per WP:NOT#PLOT, an article full of trivial and unsourced infomation. Dalejenkins 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unref'd plot summaries. Bleh. Shalom ^Hello 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concerns should have been brought up with the editors first, or at least mentioned on the article's talk page. We should have been given a chance to clean the page up and reference it first. I have already began referencing and adding sourced analysis and i will continue to refence in full. The page is not just trivial information, and I doubt it was even read before being nominated. There is info on production, writing and filming etc. Criticism and popularity will also be included.Gungadin 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This article also fails the notability criteria, specifically since it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis mine). There is one source that is neither a direct citation of an episode or affiliated with the BBC (which produces EastEnders), and that link [24] appears to be dead. --Phirazo 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is no longer the case. There are now numerous relaible and independent sources, from press and various other media. Plus there is much more critical analysis. It no longer violates WP:NOT#PLOT or Wikipedia:Notability.Gungadin 14:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I wouldn't call The Daily Mirror and The Sun "reliable sources". --Phirazo 16:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - National newspapers are perfectly acceptable sources to use and provide adequate coverage on the topic. Please don't let your apparent desperation to see this article deleted cloud your judgement. Can you prove that those newspapers are unrelaible? Clearly you are trying to discredit the sources as you want to see the article deleted, but you cant back up your claims. Precisely what sources would you deem to be reliable then? You discredit ones provided by the BBC and independent sources from newspapers merely because your reasons for objecting are no longer viable. They arent the only media sources that have been included anyway. I detect Bad Faith on your part, because of your dislike for me. Note that this user has had numerous disagreements with me in the past and has a tendency to purposefully antagonise editors who are merely working to improve wikipedia.Gungadin 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The Daily Mirror and The Sun are tabloids. These papers aren't exactly known for objective, fact-based reporting. I think the lead pictures for their respective articles say it all. --Phirazo 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They are reporting on a television programme not the war in Iraq! You may not like the newspapers, but that doesnt mean that they are unreliable, this is just your POV. If you can Prove that those sources are unrelaible then they will be removed, but you and I both know that you can't do this. There are also sources from The Guardian in this article anyway, or do you also have a problem with that paper too? Seeing as you failed to address any of the comments put to you above, I will just dismiss this as yet another failed attempt to antagonise me.Gungadin 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment This isn't personal Gungadin. Please stop making ad hominem attacks. Tabloids "emphasize sensational crime stories, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and junk food news." (see Tabloid). Coverage of soaps is a matter of course for these publications, whereas more reputable publications will only cover soap opera plots when there is a significant cultural impact. This coverage of soap opera plots is junk food news. The article still doesn't make a claim of notability outside of EastEnders continuity. The few things that are notable outside of EastEnders continuity (like the reaction to the episodes set in Ireland in 1997) can be merged into the main EastEnders article. --Phirazo 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your newspaper snobbery is irrelevant to this AFD. Whether you like them or not, tabloids are acceptable to use as published sources on Wikipedia and Millions of articles use them. This article has plenty of real world context, discussing production, impact, actors, awards, popularity, criticism, writers and filming, which are all perfectly acceptable inclusions for an article about a fictional topic. Going by your standards every article about a television programme, film or character would have to be deleted unless they exclusively use broadsheet sources (which this article has by the way). I think this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT being applied.Gungadin 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is going in circles. My point about the tabloids stands, but I'm not getting dragged any farther into a flame war. Let's look instead at the asseration that this is notable due to "real world context", year by year. I'm going to take this sections, there is a lot to cover.
  - 1985 About half is plot summary and half is "storyline intention", doesn't assert notablility above the usual "soap opera stuff". Covered by Mark Fowler.
  - 1986 About half is plot summary, and half is trivia. Doesn't assert notablility above the usual "soap opera stuff". Covered by Angie Watts.
  - 1987 The real world context is covered by Frank Butcher, the rest is a plot summary.
  - 1988 Plot summary. Not notable. (Yay! The zoo!)
  - 1989 Plot summary, with a bit of storyline intention. Only assertation of notablility is that these episodes scripted to be funny. Covered in Marge Green and Ethel Skinner.
  - 1990 Somewhat notable. The first part is somewhat covered in Diane Butcher, the second part is covered in the individual character articles. --Phirazo 17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is a topic as a whole, and not purely based on just one episode. If each episode had its own article (like other series do) then you might have a point, but they dont. The topic is notable as it has been covered by numerous secondary sources, but you keep changing your arguments (as usual). Firstly you say "not notable" due to no sources. Then when sources are provided you say "not notable due to tabloid sources". Then when that doesnt work you try to discredit specific episodes for not being notable (despite numerous sources proving otherwise) and you then wrongly suggest that all the information is covered in other articles. It is not. We will just have to agree to disagree, there really is no point continuing this further and i'm not interested in doing so.Gungadin 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, I'm working my towards a point about the topic as a whole. There is nothing notable about the fact that a few episodes were shot off set. You haven't shown that shooting off set is notable, but have instead tried to show the individual plots are notable. You then criticize me saying they are not. What information is notable in this article is or could be merged elsewhere. The tabloid arguement still stands, I just don't feel the need to rebut an arguement as ridiculous as there are "millions" of Wikipedia's 1,891,126 articles that cite tabloids. --Phirazo 18:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You can continue to try and childishly discredit me as much as you want to, but it is once again totally irrelevant to this AFD and is almost as bad as if someone were to mock you for poor spelling (ahem!). That number was not meant to be taken literally as well you know, or did you really think i had actually tried to count them all? Like I said, i'm not interested in discussing with you further, it has become repetitive.Gungadin 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have two questions Gungadin. What articles other than this one use The Sun or The Daily Mirror as a source? Which reliable, independent sources show this topic, as a whole, is notable? --Phirazo 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Phirazo 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep normally I would say delete, but the editors seem to be making an effort to turn it around and there is sufficient real world context for it to be kept.Legalbeaver 02:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1812 Overture in popular culture[edit]

Delete - this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The things on this list have nothing in common with one another past using the same piece of music. The bare list of uses tells us nothing about the music, the composer, the instances from which the list items are drawn, how those things relate to each other or the real world. Because the information is of no more value in the main article for the piece, strongly oppose the inevitable suggestion that any of this be merged anywhere. Note that this AFD has nothing to do with whether or not the 1812 Overture is itself notable; it clearly is. The AFD addresses whether the list of every use of the Overture in a movie or TV show is suitable for Wikipedia. Otto4711 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into 1812 Overture, because article demonstrates strong cultural influence of one of the most recognizable works of classical music. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Obvious Keep. The 1812 Overture is one of those musical pieces, like Chopin's funeral march, the opening bars of 'Also Sprach Zarathustra', of Beethoven's 5th, etc, that has permeated our modern culture, whether popular or high-art. This list should stand. But where's the reference to the 1960's Quaker Oats campaign: "This is the CEREAL that's SHOT from GUNS !!! Rhinoracer 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Directory of loosely associated topics, tells us nothing about 1812 Overture itself. Sure, the 1812 Overture's notable, but the fact that it was featured in (insert topic here) is NOT encyclopedic! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per WP:DIR. hbdragon88 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Roi and Rhino. The article would probably benefit from from some link to a .wav file or the like. As with Zarathustra, William Tell and Carmen, the 1812 Overture is well known and part of pop culture nearly 200 years later. In fact, I predict that it will be heard more often as '12 approaches. Unlike most pop culture lists, this is an instance where the cultural references have increased the fame of the subject. Thus, 1812 has a familiarity that, say, Capriccio Italien does not. Most classical pieces won't lend themselves to and "...in popular culture" list. If it's not kept, then merge it into the main article, but I think this can stand alone. Mandsford 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete If the information really matters, it could be put on the 1812 Overture page. Besides that, it is just trivia. NobutoraTakeda 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Demonstrating cultural significance can be accomplished without a listing of every mention of it in a separate article. The article on 1812 Overture is rather undeveloped at present. If reliable sources exist for the impact the 1812 Overture has had culturally, a good prose section could very easily be added there. Resolute 22:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list. I don't see how it is useful. Trivia is interesting, but certainly does not belong here. the_undertow ^talk 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another list of trivia with little sources, although some of the more pertinent info can be merged into the main article.--JForget 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there appear to be no WP:RSes that the 1812 Overture's place in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "X in popular culture" articles are unencyclopediac and shouldn't exist on wikipedia--Sefringle^Talk 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect to main article... Ranma9617 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete I concur that relevant information should be included in the 1812 Overture article, under a relevant section heading. Moreover, I've noticed articles that include a "trivia" section.
By the way, what is the Wikipedia policy about "X in Popular Culture" and "Trivia"? I cannot believe that the topic should be dismissed just because is non-encyclopedic, IMHO. DPdH 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still very hotly debated. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:RELEVANCE, and their discussion pages to see current arguments. --Android Mouse 19:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the large majority of this getting deleted in the process. --Android Mouse 19:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs with very long names[edit]

Hopeless list of "longest names of monarch" without any references. In miserable state since created in 2006. I don't think it is useful or encyclopedic. Renata 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT#INFO, specifically "Long and sprawling lists of statistics". Very limited geographical scope, as well. Tevildo 17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails WP:IINFO and WP:DIR as a hopelessly sprawling list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, pointless list. An article about monarches with long names is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. --RandomOrca2 18:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should point out that this AfD is incorrectly targetted - the article itself is List of monarchs with very long names, and the subject of the AfD is a redirect. Tevildo 19:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because it was moved on 16:23, 15 July 2007 by Calgary. Corrected. Renata 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOT#INFO and also WP:DIR. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As with Scooby Dooby Doo or John Jacob Jinglehimer Schmitt, this is harmless fun for children, and the type of thing that probably ought to stay in for no other reason than to introduce a younger child to Wikipedia. Wiki is, for the most part, aimed at children, and this is every bit as encylopedic and worthwhile as Scooby and Shaggy would be. I'm not sure how many of the people in this forum are parents yet, but this is fact-based, fun to read, and learning in the guise of entertainment. In all fairness (see WP:BIAS) we should include long regnal names like "George V Frederick Ernest Albert, King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms, Emperor of India and Defender of the Faith" Anyway, lighten up, stop taking yourselves so seriously, let this one go. Mandsford 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't this article be put in WP:BJAODN and have a joke alert put on it? It is a amusing article, and like Mandsford said, it is harmless. --Onceonthisisland 22:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is very amusing. However, it's an arbitrary list. the_undertow ^talk 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and insert the full reign names in the appropriate articles where not done yet. This list is a tedious and pointless exercise, and its scope is limited to SE Asia only. Amusing? Might be, if only I understood what the titles mean. Such a list without translations is 100% useless.--Targeman 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I find this very amusing. If I had such a name, I would be very scared when it came time to fill out an application, apply for a driver's license or make dinner reservations. the_undertow ^talk 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah, OK :). Although I would imagine royals are rarely asked to fill forms or organize their dinner themselves... ;) --Targeman 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much every royal from anywhere in the world would have a long name like these, so it's really not a particularly discriminate list. As currently written, it's more just a case of "Oooohhhh, look at these names!" which doesn't seem like a good basis for an article either. It might be amusing, but that's not a reason to have an article on it. Additionally, I'm not sure that "Wiki [sic] is, for the most part, aimed at children". Neither do I see the link between two notable cartoon characters and a list of long royal names. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one goes simply by the numbers of articles, "Wiki" is indeed like a library with a large teen and YA area, and a few shelves worth of reference books. I agree with the idea that there should be more to the article, such as an explanation for the lengthy titles. But you know what? If a child were to look at the list and say "Oooohhhh, look at these names!", or if a child's mom or dad were to say the same thing in pointing it out to a child, there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps sarcasm was intended, I can't be sure, but if it's an article that appeals to curiosity-- that makes someone ask, "Why is the name so long?" or "What does that mean?" or "How do you say that?" or myriad questions that your kids or mine might have that would never occur to me -- then it's a good start. Who among us hasn't read the "silly" Guinness Book of World Records, and its celebration of those places in Wales and New Zealand with no other claim to fame but a "long place name", yet been inspired to find out more. Wiki has to have more for kids than Pokemon cards and Rugrats episode guides. The link between the cartoon characters and the list of long royal names is that they are essentially entertainment, but serve less obvious purposes as well. Mandsford 01:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I admire your good-heartedness. But, (unfortunately), Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a playground for kids. The article might have a chance at survival if it was properly researched (giving references, translations, naming customs in different countries, etc.) and not just a simple dump of dubious information. Renata 01:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I second that. Wikipedia may be full of kiddy stuff but what attracted me to editing was the realization that grown-up, educated people had actually created a very interesting body of quality articles, and those are the one I would like to see developed. Articles such as this one, on the other hand, smack of an unworldly amusement at names that for some (unexplained) reason sound unusual to the author's ears. If we continue down this road, we may end up with List of people with funny names, List of weird foreign traditions, etc. Now I don't have children (AFAIK...) but I doubt a kid could a) ever find this orphaned article, b) derive any information from it beyond the notion that "kings in Asia have, like, totally weird names". Sorry if I sound cranky but it's 4 in the effing morning here and I'm off to bed. Good night :) --Targeman 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To your point, we do have an article which is a List of unusual personal names, which I think is an example of this kind of page done right. Calgary 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. That article is much better in the sense that it lists people who changed their or their children's names on purpose as a publicity stunt etc. (On the other hand, several people with inherited names that just happen to sound unusual to English speakers should be deleted from that list IMO). But royal names are not chosen for their shock/amusement value; they are given following strict formal rules. They may sound funny to some, but they're not "unusual". --Targeman 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial and not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this a joke?--Sefringle^Talk 05:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:N and WP:RS. --Malcolmxl5 13:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Blacketer 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian (disambiguation)[edit]

Only refers to three things, not very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubulina8888 (talk • contribs)

Keep as a proper disamb page. --Evb-wiki 15:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep An appropriate disambiguation oage. Also Comment, take note that this is the second homosexuality-related disambiguation page that Bubulina8888 has nominated for deletion in a little over an hour. I think someone should leave Bubulina8888 a message to the effect of "Welcome to wikipedia, stop nominating these pages for deletion" (I don't have as much of a way with words as some of our other editors), as if these nominations are disruptive, and if it continues I could see it as borderline vandalism. Calgary 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per Calgary above, who beat me to it ;). In my opinion as long as a disambig page has 2 or more sensible entries (this one has 3) then its serving its purpose. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as speedy keep, possible bad faith nomination. User to be advised. Sam Blacketer 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus and improvement Peacent 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Shot Phil?[edit]

Delete - article survived previous AFD only because the Keepers insisted that the article would be cleaned up and made something other than a plot summary. In the intervening month there has been nothing done and the article remains a plot summary in violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those comments on the previous AFDs, and the fact that this is the biggest plot in Eastender's 22 year history. Dalejenkins 16:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that it is an incredibly notable plot doesn't mean that it's not a plot summary. If there's a significant amount of non-plot related information please add it, and maybe we'll have some grounds for keeping the article, but entire Wikipedia articles (especially the very long ones) that focus on the plot of a storyline of a television series (with one exception). Calgary 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a plot summary, which is in violation of WP:NOT. Being the "biggest plot" in a show's history should not be an exception for WP:NOT guidelines. Corpx 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dalejenkins. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the biggest storylines in one of the biggest soaps. It could have a cleanup tag on it for the next decade, thats not a good enough reason to delete the thing. —Xezbeth 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article was not nominated for deletion on the basis of having a cleanup tag. It was nominated for deletion because the promised improvements to the article--which is all that saved the article last time--were not made. The article as it stood then should have been deleted as a clear-cut policy violation and the little dribs and drabs being added now aren't IMHO making any great deal of difference. Otto4711 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable plot element of a major work of fiction about which a valid encyclopedia article could be written -- and when that article is written, it will need a plot summary. Third party sources: [25] [26] [27] [28] JulesH 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles should be mentioned in the show's article. Corpx 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just added a section of commentary to the article, based on the sources I listed above. JulesH 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We said we'd clean it up, and we will, one month isn't a fair time to give us, we have lives too, and it's summer - some of us may be on holiday, and most of us are working a lot too, cut us a bit of slack and please don't nominate this every month. -Trampikey^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history indicates you've made close to one thousand edits since the last AFD of this article closed. Not sure why if you've had time to make 25-30 edits per day you haven't had time to direct a few of them at an article where you knew there was action mandated. Otto4711 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Normally, I would say delete but per Trampikey's request, I suggest giving them 3 months, and then propose for deletion again. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it was the biggest thing for EastEnder, shouldn't it be more suitable on the EastEnder page instead of its own? NobutoraTakeda 22:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [29][reply]
Keep This afd nomination is only a month after the last one closed. We have not been given adequate time to make the improvements.Gungadin 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A month is a long time. I would say that a week would be excessive to see if the page could be cleaned up. If you couldn't rectify the situation in a month, how can others expect more time to make it so? The page doesn't belong for philosophical reasons and the justifications put forth could easily be overridden by saying that it should be mentioned on the show's page, not its own. NobutoraTakeda 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really long enough when you consider that there is only a couple of active members of our project, and we have unfortunately been preoccupied with improving other AFDs. I have just added some sourced analysis. It is in its early stages and will be extended, but hopefully this at least shows that we are prepared to make the changes, we just need more time.Gungadin 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history shows close to 500 edits since the last AFD closed. If you need more time, then move the article to userspace and take all the time you need. Otto4711 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How childish. My edit history has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have been preoccupied with other things and should not have to explain myself to you. Futhermore I have just added content to the article in one of those "500 edits". It is clear that you are desperate to see these pages deleted, in fact your account appears to exist merely to put pages up for deletion. Your autocratic behavior goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for.Gungadin

Actually, my account exists to try to improve Wikipedia. As it happens, a large measure of what's wrong with Wikipedia is shite articles like this one that people defend because they're fans. What you call desperation I call exasperation at the piles of garbage strewn about Wikipedia passing themselves off as worthwhile articles. Otto4711 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your idea of improving Wikipedia is to restrict other editors from actually editing and improving articles? I think you are on a power trip and Wikipedia is not a suitable place for dictatorial people. Try improving wikipedia by actually doing some editing instead of branding other people's efforts as "shite". Perhaps you would find Wikipedia more satisfying if you did something other than contributing to AFD's or pointlessly counting other users edit history. Clearly you have a lot of time on your hands if you choose to count people's edit histories just to make a point. Put that time to a more productive use.Gungadin 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my idea of improving Wikipedia is to add information that is sourced where I can and suggest removing articles in violation of Wikipedia policy when I find them. The last AFD preserved the article solely on the basis of what the supporters promised it would become. Lo and behold, as happens in pretty much every instance when earnest editors earnestly promise there will be improvements made, the articles sat there untouched. And so here it is again, with the same pleas of 'we need more time!' and 'don't delete it because it's so important!' If it takes another AFD to light a fire under you and do what needs to be done to get this article into some sort of shape that approaches some minimal inclusion standard, then so be it. Otto4711 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that you actually admit to using AFD's to manipulate other editors like this. Clearly you are abusing the AFD process and you even admit to doing so.Gungadin 18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your words, not mine. Your phony accusation in a desperate effort to save the article, not mine. Otto4711 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are Backtracking now because you realise that you have foolishly admitted to abusing the AFD process to manipulate editors. I shall be taking this further as I don't think any editor has the right to abuse the AFD process in such a way.Gungadin 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can try all you want to make this about me instead of making it about the article. I'm sure you'll even convince some people to buy the line you're trying to sell. It says a lot that you can't defend the article on its face so you have to attack the nominator. You feel free to take your phony accusations any damn place you please. I stand by this nomination and I stand by my use of the process. Otto4711 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do, and thanks for giving me persmission, not that I need it. I think it is you who is the attacker and your comments and total abuse of Wikipedia privileges proves it. You decided to counter comments I made about the article by actively looking up both mine and Trampikey's edit count to discredit us in some way. Totally unnecessary when all we want to do is improve the articles. You have a history of offending editors, perhaps you should ask yourself why.Gungadin 22:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, seeing as you seem to be a fan of quoting policies, take a look at this one: WP:DICK. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much you two want to try to make this about me, it's still about the article and the article still sucks. But, since this has already become far too much of a battleground, what with editors falsely accusing other editors of bad faith and calling each other dicks and all, and since I've said my piece about this article already, I'll leave y'all to it. Otto4711 04:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a strong believer in judging the article for its contents now, and not what it will be in the future. Corpx 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankfully not everyone follows your philosophy then, because it would lead to every single stub on Wikipedia being deleted. Extending and developing articles is the whole point of Wikipedia. Many great articles have developed from short, unreferenced stubs. This article has already improved since the nomination and now has sourced analysis, which can be extended. It is no longer a breach of WP:PLOT.Gungadin 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the back ground and reception sections are clearly not plot summary and therefore this article does not violate policy. Tim! 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the rationale given above by Tim!. InnocuousPseudonym
Keep as there are multiple sources providing real-world context. QuagmireDog 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Phirazo 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a good article. When I first clicked on it, I expected nothing but plot summary, which it originally was, but now this article has gone from this...[30]...to what it is currently at this moment, as in a lot better. This article now, besides plot summary, provides creation, reliable sourced references, and real-world impact. I must really applaud JulesH and Gungadin in how they fixed up this article and whatever, if anything else, they do to improve this article. Now if only I can get half of the soap opera articles to be up to this standard, I'll be a tad happy with soap opera articles on Wikipedia in general. It's not even just the soap opera articles, but a lot of television-related articles that need to be brought up to this standard on Wikipedia. Thank you all who improved this article. It just further proves that a lot of these articles need clean-up rather than deletion. Or at least, when they are deleted, to be re-created in better format by an editor and or some editors who will fix them up better than they were before. Flyer22 07:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Toubin[edit]

(Upgrading contested speedy delete). Fails to assert notability. The B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham is notable; but the identity of the caretaker of a small-town place of worship doesn't seem separately notable. Gordonofcartoon 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO guideline. Lack of reliable sources is also a concern here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm more concerned about a lack of sources to back this up. My opinion is that 99.9% of the time someone who meets noteability requirements has the ability to be sourced and verified. This individual does not seem to and therefore does not meet noteability or credibility requirements. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, all of the above, and {{db-bio}}. --Evb-wiki 15:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Here are three additional sources for notability. Thank you for considering the below.

Leon Toubin is cited as a Jewish Texan source for the book Growing Up Jewish in America: An Oral History, just google it with the name Leon Toubin and it shows up. ""As Leon Toubin comments on a Texas community in this entertaining oral history" [[31]].

He is a business leader as noted by the Toubin Pocket Park Project [[32]]

He is a civic leader as he is secretery of Blinn College Board of Trustees. [33]

There's more info, but I feel the above more than backs up the validity and notablility of the article. Thanks. Bhaktivinode

But there are zillions of small-city business/religious people who are on local committees. The Notable Residents section for Brenham, Texas gives the flavour of the level of notability expected for inclusion here: some kind of national, or at least wider regional, reputation. Gordonofcartoon 17:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established. Very small scope for popularity. Corpx
Delete Not notable, just another local interest story.Montco 20:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has sources but still not good enough to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, and I agree with Gordonofcartoon that there are lots of "small-city business/religious people who are on local committees" (unsigned comment by User:Onceonthisisland)
Weak delete Concentrating on the strongest point, secretary of the Board of Trustees of a local college, its a two year community college, and I do not think this is quite enough. DGG (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, fails much more than just the WP:BIO guideline in my opinion. Burntsauce 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BIO. The statements about him here and in the article do not support claims to notability. --Metropolitan90 03:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although I am sure he is a mensch. Bearian 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omorashi Sakura[edit]

A doujinshi - thus not published by an actual Japanese publisher, WP:NOTE. Snarfies 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also appears to be promotional spam. --Evb-wiki 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes no claim of notability, clearly not notable. Calgary 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doujinshi is a form of fanfiction, which we also typically delete unless it is notable. However, there is no indication that this doujinshi is notable. --Farix (Talk) 18:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Farix. Someone (preferrably someone with a strong stomach) better comb through the creator's contribution history, as he appears to have created a bunch of article about non-notable doujins (either invovling omorashi, lolicon or both) or non-notable magazines covering such fetishes. Yech. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually already have done so, which is actually how I found this article. Looks like he's written three other articles on single-volume manga (as in, NOT doujinshi) on the same topic. I did not nom these. I know the general procedure for single-volume manga is to merge to an author's page, but I don't know that there's an author's page to merge to in this case, and I'm content to leave them alone for now. The guy seems to have a bit of an obsession that doesn't do much for me, but a lot of his other articles seem pretty good to me. Well, you know. Considering. Snarfies 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Omorashi Riko-chan (another article he created) isn't a doujin? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?id=155 and the article infobox would seem to indicate this was serialized and later reissued legitimately. Snarfies 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, I've put the magazine article he created, Wet Set Magazine, up for deletion, just FYI. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was curious at to whether or not this is a published and sold manga, or if it was actually a fanfic as another user here suggested. If it is an actually published manga based on the Card Captors series (no matter if it used the characters with permission or not), then the notability is clearly established based on the Card Captors popularity. It does look like it was actually published and the author has in fact done many high profile spin offs, including a Neon Genesis Evangelion spin off. I think the page should not be deleted, that it should be updated and that the pages creator should be cautioned to do a bit of research into these new pages so notability and useful information can be added during the first draft of the new page, rather than after a deletion nomination. Also some pages for notable authors of these mangas would be nice, I'll speak to a friend that understands kanji a little better than me to better help find sources, reviews and profiles on these men and women that draw these. Also, does Wikipedia have a under construction tag, or am I thinking of a different wiki? JayKeaton 21:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "hangon" tag, yes. The article itself says, explicitly, that this is a doujinshi. I'm fairly certain that you are incorrect about this NOT being a doujinshi, so I would like to see your source, please. We will ignore, for the moment, that the cover image is watermarked with a "doujinshi.it" banner. Snarfies 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well if it is certainly a doujinshi that is not notable, then perhaps the page should be redirected to doujinshi, so it describes what it is if anyone where to search for the title and puts off page recreation JayKeaton 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article, the Omorashi Tenshi and Omorashi Riko-chan all contain images (and links to) images of underage characters in sexual situations (Lolicon) which is illegal, shouldn't that be enough to get them deleted?

You may also want to delete some pictures of historical artifacts that contain images of underage humans in sexual situations, ancient Greek pottery has a lot of them and there are quite a few 18th century paintings that will need deleting too JayKeaton 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the images aren't illegal in Japan - they were actually published just like that, along with THOUSANDS of other manga and anime (see also lolikon, shotacon, and, if you want an animated example, Boku no Pico). The images aren't illegal in the USA, where Wikipedia is based. You cannot cite a law to the contrary. If it is illegal in YOUR particular country, tough, the internet isn't bound by your local country's laws. Snarfies 10:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is illegal in the United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legal_status_in_the_United_States

Delete Even if it's not a doujinshi, it's an unofficial derivative. And I'm of the opinion that most H manga are not notable. _dk 04:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. Sandstein 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - article was kept at the first AFD based on the argument that no one had been given the opportunity to perform cleanup and tagged that cleanup was required. In the intervening month there has been no work done on the article. It and its two sister articles remain excessive plot summaries in clear violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 14:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extensive plot summaries. I'm not even sure if there's grounds for expansion. Calgary 14:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If userOtto4711 had bothered to discuss this with the contributing editors, or even had a look at the project talk page, then he would have known that a rewrite is already underway. It is in its early stages here. It appears that I am the only one who is actively changing these articles, therefore expecting it to be completed in a month is totally unreasonable.Gungadin 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to write the articles over again then there is no need for these articles to exist in the interim. Otto4711 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Violation of WP:NOT. You can move these pages to a user subspace while its being rewritten. Corpx 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the info on the pages is needed while they are being written, which is already underway. The nominator does not seem to have done his research before nominating. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERFY-ing it does not lose the information. Corpx 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a paragraph summing up an entire year of shows is not an excessive summary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is when the entire article is just about plot summary. Corpx 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has to be seen in context of the entire group of articles. putting the plot summary in a separate article is permissible, and I think generally desirable. It is enormously better than having separate articles for the episodes. DGG (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting individual articles for every episode of the series, so implying them is a false dilemma. Decade-long plot summaries were deemed unacceptable for a show with a much longer history than this one and the editors of these articles were placed on notice that the articles had to be improved or deleted. If the editors want to use these articles as a basis for a ground-up rewrite then the articles, as has been noted, can be moved to user space. But as they stand they are a violation of WP:PLOT, which allows for a brief plot summary as an aspect of a larger topic. Three articles that are plot summaries devoid of any context are not brief by any possible stretch of the word. Otto4711 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles must be able to stand on their own, and this one does not. This argument only comes down to "better here than there", "other stuff exists", "notability is inherited", and "Wikipedia should be about everything" --Phirazo 18:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Trampikey Stephenb (Talk) 09:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is little more than a plot summary, and the underlying concept of the article is such that it will always be mostly a plot summary. The userspace draft here is still unreferenced, mostly plot summary, and excessively in-world (it took me a minute to realize Reg Cox wasn't a real person). Also, no one has done easy fixes like, say, removing the red links to Christmas in EastEnders, which took me less than five minutes to fix. --Phirazo 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have reservations about admitting an inability to separate fact from fiction if I were you. It is an incomplete draft. It does not need to be referenced yet as it is in my sandbox. It will be referenced when it is published. It is almost entirely in out of universe perspective. You need to actually research what In-Universe persective is before making such comments. Discussing writers, production, impact, actors, popularity and criticisms is not In Universe perspective. Also, your assertion that the rewrite is "mostly plot summary" contradicts what you said here, where you mention that it includes "creator's intent with certain storylines, popular reaction, behind-the scenes information" (none of which are In-Universe material). Failure to remove red links from an article is not grounds for deletion.Gungadin 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The lead sentence of the draft slides from non-fiction to fiction without missing a beat. I've never seen an episode of EastEnders (heck, the only soap I've ever seen a full episode of is the one with witches and zombies and midgets and stuff). From my perspective, Reg Cox could easily be a real person who really died and influenced the story. I was saying on the EastEnders Wikiproject page that the out-of-world stuff had to be referenced, not that it made up the majority of the rewrite. However, upon re-reading it, the bigger problem is the breathless "isn't this wonderful?" POV of the draft. The draft asserts all sorts of POV opinions or credits an opinion to the "audience", which is almost as bad as "some argue". --Phirazo 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So now you're changing your argument, probably because you now realise that it is not "excessively In-World" as you so wrongly suggested earlier. You seem to just make things up as you go along to fit whatever stance you have decided to take that day, which is why I have no interest in your opinions (which you insist on forcing upon me whenever you can). The article is incomplete, but as you have an issue grasping that I will address your clueless assumptions. None of the information included in that draft is my opinion, I was only a year old in 1985 so I dont have an opinion on the impact of those episodes. Absolutely everything has been taken from secondary sources. Crediting an opinion from writers, press etc is perfectly acceptable so long as it's referenced and quoted where applicable, which it will be. Some of the storylines featured were controversial, some received acclaim, some characters were popular, this is not my opinion but the opinions of authors, critics and journalists. The show has been criticised widely over the years, but I cant find any criticism for those particular storylines, so unless you can provide me with alternative sources you'll have to make do with mine. I've never come accross an editor who manages to quote policies and guidelines as inaccurately as you do. I dont think you even understand what you're quoting half the time. Quite frankly my userbox is not really your concern, I have not put my userpage up for GA or FA you know, so your review is not necessary. When I publish it to main space feel free to critique it, until then find another user to harangue. I'm looking forward to seeing something you've written so I can pull it to pieces, but I wont hold my breath, seeing as you dont actually contribute anything to Wikipedia other than pointless comments that no one wants to hear.Gungadin 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, Gungadin. The reason I am criticizing the draft is that it is the only indicator of where these articles are going in the future. The articles have not otherwise changed in the last month. --Phirazo 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Not sure how I feel about this one yet, but I would like to point out that WP:PLOT does allow for an article to be mostly plot when it is apart of a larger article series or topic. At first glance it does seem to need more real world context to justify the amount of plot, but it could be there. Talking about what writers were on the show at what time, how the changing cast and crew effected the story line and production, and other real world information could be summarized, along with the plot, in this format. -- Ned Scott 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT also goes on to say "but not as a separate article". Its OK if this plot summary is inside Eastenders, but not on its own Corpx 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think WP:NOT takes into account just how much plot a long-running soap opera has, which would be inappropriate to add to the main article. Stephenb (Talk) 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think WP:NOT should take into account of this. An encyclopedia should not be a plot summary database. Corpx 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale given by DGG. InnocuousPseudonym 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Phirazo 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, again may and could doesn't cut it, same with ome mention in a newspapers, there is no harm in recreating the article with mutiple reliable sources. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Kornfeld[edit]

Subject of the article fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in independent, reliable publications. No major awards. Nothing noted that is new or significant about his works and they are not part of any permanent collections. Nv8200p talk 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick google search shows that this subject could have significant coverage in the German language. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By 'no reliable publications', I think you meant to say google. Nonetheless, I'm going to go with keep because if there may be significant coverage in another language, that should be explored before making the decision to delete. Spazure 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"May" and "could" don't cut it. Without verifiable sources (which means English for this Wikipedia), notability cannot be affirmed. -Nv8200p talk 11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think may and could do need to be considered given that an editor conversant in German would be able to explore the sources. There are many articles that are not sourced in any language and are given a chance to improve. --Stormbay 22:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The German page[34] has a quote from the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung (which is admittedly his hometown (Heidelberg) paper, but it circulates 100k) which is pretty positive. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything at all notable about this artist. No stature has been claimed for him, no major awards, no high-priced sales, no public controversies, nothing. I think it would be a conservative estimate to state that there are at least ten million artisans throughout the world who are working on his level. He plays with shadow and light? If that's the most that can be claimed for his notability, give me a break. All of the world's amateur artists from the age of 99 all the way down to toddlers with their fingerpaints can be said to be doing that much! Qworty 08:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaltura[edit]

Only editor removed seconded {{prod}} without addressing concern: entirely unsourced neologism that's barely disguised promotion. — Coren ^(talk) 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, a neologism and advertising. --Malcolmxl5 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A webside disguised as a neologism. Calgary 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possible hoax at play here? NSR77 ^T_C 15:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search of this 'new term' returns so few sites it recommends an alternative spelling ('kultura' - a now defunct polish literary journal). Additionally it seems to suitably coincide with a video distribution agency similar in principle to youtube, which is currently in its beta at, no suprises, www.kultura.com. Perhaps the term is non-english but I doubt it, else a google search would yeild larger results. Even dictionary.com fails to have an entry for it. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate if the term ever becomes notable.--Absurdist 19:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thinly disguised advertisement for the company. All Google hits wind up going back to the company or its product. ●DanMS • Talk 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanispamcruftisement. DarkSaber2k 08:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; also, Neologism -- the article even admits it is a "new term". Bearian 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result of the debate was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. --SunStar Net ^talk 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay (disambiguation)[edit]

Doesnt really serve any useful purpose.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubulina8888 (talk • contribs).

Strong Keep, um it helps disambiguate articles associated with the term 'gay'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to keep an article, "it's not useful" is not a valid reason to delete. Blueboy 96 14:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep its a DAB page that disambiguates. And the nominator's first edit was yesterday. Pats Sox Princess 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Otto4711 14:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. this article is crap isn't a valid reason for delete btwJaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boolean programming method[edit]

Orphaned stub which is not notable and fails the Google test. Not to be confused with Boolean Programming Method (uppercase), which I am also nominating.

I'm not sure exactly what this article is talking about: using a lot of if statements? A lot of nested ifs? If anyone knows what the article means, perhaps this can be merged to an appropriate article. Tualha (Talk) 14:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Boolean programming" gets a fair number of Google hits. ugen64 16:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you leave out the word "method", then yes, there are many hits. But they all seem to be about advanced algorithms and heuristics, and to have nothing to do with whatever kind of hack technique this article is talking about. Tualha (Talk) 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect I believe the article is talking about the same antipattern we already discuss at coding by exception. Although given the apparent non-notability of the term, I'm not sure a redirect would be entirely appropriate. JulesH 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, or possibly superboolean logic as listed in Anti-pattern: "unnecessary comparison or abstraction of boolean arithmetic". Tualha (Talk) 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've seen the type of hack it's talking about but I don't see that it's called this. We should have an article on Boolean programming itself, though, and we don't. Otherwise I would make it a redirect there. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I googled "boolean programming", I got the impression that the term covers several different areas. There seems to be one kind associated with fuzzy logic; and possibly a distinct kind called quadratic boolean programming; and something called pseudo-boolean programming, though that might be simply a variation. I also got the vague impression that perhaps "programming" was used in the same sense as in "linear programming", as opposed to the sort you do to a computer. Hard to say for sure, since a lot of the links require subscriptions to read. Tualha (Talk) 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are all related topics, and much more mathematical and logic topics than computer topics. I'm not a CS or Math major, but I do know it has to do with set theory and at least in some versions calculus comes into play.--Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (In any case, we agree, the article is not a good article on the topic by any means.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is crap -- Whpq 18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boolean Programming Method[edit]

Orphaned, very small stub which is not notable and fails the Google test. Not to be confused with Boolean programming method (lowercase), which I am also nominating. Tualha (Talk) 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable, may be the authors own terminology for a trivial concept. JulesH 18:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable concept or term. We should have an article on Boolean programming itself, though, and we don't. Otherwise I would make it a redirect there. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - term is not in use for what is described in the article -- Whpq 18:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Eve[edit]

no evidence of notability Deb 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds of non-notability. Feeling that this was a little harsh, I replaced it with the notability tag, which the author of the article removed without making any significant changes to content. I have requested expansion and references, but there has been no response. It seems like a case of self-promotion. Deb 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 12 criteria of notability for musicians at WP:MUSIC of which meeting one is sufficient. Regretfully, Charlotte Eve does not appear to meet any of them. Delete, I'm afraid. --Malcolmxl5 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one album released. Come back when it makes a major chart. Blueboy 96 14:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable performance artist. Pats Sox Princess 14:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an artists'directory, and there is no assertion of notability, and does not meet WP:MUSIC or even WP:BIO. --SunStar Net ^talk 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After the speedy tag was removed I tried to find some evidence of notability, but couldn't. pablo :_{: ... hablo ...} 15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delelete. Frankly, I am baffled as there are quite a few relevant Ghits that might assert marginal notability - see [35], [36], [37], [38], etc. Why has the creator not added these cites? I hope I am not being too harsh. Bearian 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 longest duration films of Bollywood[edit]

Unnecessary list. NawlinWiki 12:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. feydey 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It is listcruft and unnecessary. Neranei ^T/C 13:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the essence of listcruft, and "X Longest" lists are not notable, nor encyclopedic. --SunStar Net ^talk 14:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly listcruft in content. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as guy who marked article for speedy delete. Complete trivia and listcruft. Useight 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft and unnecessary. --Onceonthisisland 22:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above--JForget 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amusing but worthless. Bigdaddy1981 02:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Include on the List of the 10 most quickly deleted lists in Wikipedia. It's so misguided, it has 11 films listed. Clarityfiend 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA and WP:LC. Carlosguitar 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable sources found and no consensus to delete JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GlavUpDK[edit]

There are no independent sources that make this organization pass WP:ORG. Expert review request did not turn up any sources or possible merge targets. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neranei ^T/C 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While its possible that as its a russian entry a noteability search would be low, i'm more concerned that the article doesn't make much sense. Its provides adiministrative to the 'DIplomatic Corps' (note mispelling). It seems to be part of a whole series of articles that are hoaxes in my opinion. It seems that not only is Ivan Ivanovich Sergeyev GlavUpDK's director general but hes also a founding father of russian golf...infact, amazingly, it seems GlavUpDK (a corporation??) own there own golf club in greater moscow... an 18 hole golf club... in greater moscow, a region perpetually covered with snow? Alexander S. Zinoviev, the first director of GlavUpDK was amazingly also part of this. It all just seems to be a shambles to me. I look forward to seeing the opinion of other editors on this. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if reliable sources are not to be found. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have found an article in the St Petersburg Times[39], which corroborates some of the content of the article. --Malcolmxl5 23:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And an article in The Moscow Times[40] about GlavUpDK (which stands for 'Glavnoye Upravleniye po Obsluzhivaniyu Diplomaticheskogo Korpusa') --Malcolmxl5 23:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge four related articles GlavUpDK, Moscow Country Club Resort, Alexander S. Zinoviev and Ivan Ivanovich Sergeyev. GlavUpDK is an Government agency of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, which would seem to be notable. There are at least two references, there may be more. Merge the four articles and build it up. BTW Greater Moscow isn't perpetually under snow. --Malcolmxl5 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum The Moscow Country Club hosts an event on the PGA European Tour in August and is apparently ranked in the 'Top 100 Courses in the World'. --Malcolmxl5 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I still don't understand the matter. Is GlavUpDK a government agency or a golf club? --B. Wolterding 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A government agency. It created and owns the golf and country club hence the two articles could probably be merged (along with those of the individuals involved). Sorry for the confusion. --Malcolmxl5 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I got the point now. So what you want to write is a more detailed article about the golf club, or something similar. That's fine for me. For the GlavUpDK article, I must say that the current article doesn't have much to do with what GlavUpDK actually is, judging by the sources, and is rather confusing. (GlavUpDK seems to be more like a government-owned real estate company, that's currently not even mentioned.) Therefore, I would still say: Delete or userfy for the moment, without prejudice to recreation at any time as a complete rewrite, based on multiple independent sources. (One source with in-depth coverage is granted from the Moscow Times article above). --B. Wolterding 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged and redirected after adding a sentence to the subject's father's article. Sr 13 06:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles West (major)[edit]

Article does not assert why exactly the individual is notable. Also, sources cannot be verified. A google search 1 did not yield any encyclopedia information about him. xC | ☎ 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not assert notability. --Malcolmxl5 12:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But Major West is the only one who can keep Dr. Smith from murdering the entire crew. ~ Infrangible 13:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notablility not asserted; the only encyclopaedic information I could find was on Wikipedia. Unless someone can find a source and quote it or show the website that talks about why Charles West is important, it should be deleted. Neranei ^T/C 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a deletion seems the most likely outcome of this AfD, perhaps this information could be incorporate into another page such as the page for John West III, his father. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 18:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only thing significant seems to have been some minor action as a junior officer and as Captain, commanding a regiment that was temporarily moved to Virginia in case of a rent revolt that never came. --Dhartung | Talk 18:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Superstars to Hold the WWE & World Heavyweight Championships[edit]

This along with four other pages are just lists, not needed. Darrenhusted 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all just lists like the page above:

Delete the top one. Be bold and do the following redirects:

Redirect List of top World Heavyweight Champions by combined length. to List of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) reigns by length.

Redirect List of top ECW World Champions by combined length to List of ECW World Championship reigns by length.

Redirect List of top WWE Intercontinental Champions by combined length to List of WWE Intercontinental Championship reigns by length.

Redirect List of top WWE United States Champions by combined length. to List of WWE United States Championship reigns by length. Lugnuts 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think that a redirect is unlikely to ever be needed as the titles are so long. Darrenhusted 17:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Davnel03 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all, It doesn't make sense to redirect them because no other articles link there. Nikki311 17:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I can't even tell what any of them even contribute to anything. It looks more like something fitting for a plaque on a wall than in an encyclopedia. NobutoraTakeda 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user is banned for disruption and sockpuppetry, and his vote has been stricken. [41][reply]

Delete all They are just recreated lists of redirected pages. The same info is already on the List of reigns by length pages.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn indiscriminate info, and there's still plenty more of these "combined length" or "longest reign" pages that have no place here either. Biggspowd 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP these articles are always commenting on who's held both titles. And now when someone finally creates an article for it you want to delete it. Does that make sense to you?--Hornetman16 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at the risk of getting in to a 35k argument, have you looked at all the articles? They duplicate information available elsewhere, and the list of who have held both titles is replicating the information on each of those wrestlers bios, and none of them have an intro or any references. They are just lists which duplicate lists. Darrenhusted 11:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disians[edit]

Disians are humanoid characters in the Draim universe. A Google search for Disian Draim comes up with no sources at all outside Wikipedia and its mirrors so severe problems with verifiability Capitalistroadster 09:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails verifiabilty. I couldn't even verify the content on the Draim web pages. Whether Draim and Draim arena are themselves notable is another question, but the Disians clearly aren't. --Huon 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispe ring 11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already - if no one responds after the first relist it's undoubtedly safe to say that no one strongly opposes the deletion. Otto4711 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. ugen64 16:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is too much jargon and nothing that could help me understand if the page was in English or in draimish. The page doesn't have any real world information about the disians. NobutoraTakeda 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [42][reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Sr 13 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azurewrath[edit]

There is no out-of-universe context for these fictional items; simply not an important subject for an article. We certainly shouldn't be listing in-game statistics (WP:NOT a game guide.) Marašmusïne_Talk 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 11:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. --Evb-wiki 16:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would put these as game-guide level content Corpx 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NobutoraTakeda 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [43][reply]
Delete both per nom. --Onceonthisisland 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I never got it in the game anyway.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr... a weak reason to basis deletion on, not getting it yourself! Mathmo ^Talk 07:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a significant item in one of the world's largest ever RPG's. Mathmo ^Talk 07:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peace, Mathmo. I stand on the nominator's reasons. I just added the other reason for fun.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It what way is it significant? Please provide independent citations per WP:V policy and the WP:N guidelines. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable fictional weapons wrapped in strategy guide. GameFAQs is down the hall. QuagmireDog 01:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but mention in Diablo II article. Vultur 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hervey Bay Bombers AFC[edit]

Apparent vanispamcruftisement. In any case, club appears to be on the lowest tier of the Aussie rules football ladder--fails WP:N per precedent. Blueboy 96 10:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local club Recurring dreams 10:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly not notable. Note that User:Bombersstatbat who created this article has already removed the AfD notice once. I have replaced it and warned him. --Bduke 10:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they don't meet WP:N nor WP:CORP.Ga rr ie 22:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate content to AFL Bundaberg-Wide Bay and redirect. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 23:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question How does AFL Bundaberg-Wide Bay meet either WP:N or WP:CORP?Ga rr ie 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That article is not (yet) up for deletion. If you think it should be nominated for deletion, then nominate it. I do think that the best way to get an article up and running on these types of competitions is to have information on the clubs listed there and to split the clubs into their own articles only when enough information become available. If you want my opinion of the notability of the competition, then my opinion is yes, I think it is notable and yes, I think secondary sources can be found to establish this. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to merge AFL Bundaberg-Wide Bay, please discuss here.Ga rr ie 00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Mattinbgn. There is no material currently making the case for a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mattingbn. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn and all delete !votes reversed. Nice job on the rewrite. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slut Night[edit]

* Delete The "article" on Slut Night is really nothing more than an advertisement. Tovojolo 09:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

This AFD was malformatted, it is fixed now. Blueboy 96

*Delete Not enough independent sources, via a check on Yahoo or Google. Blueboy 96 10:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to strong keep per Benjiboi's yeoman's job. Blueboy 96 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". Not notable and unencyclopedic (a "social gathering"). --Malcolmxl5 10:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to strong keep. An excellent piece of work by Benjiboi and I'm pleased to change my response from delete to strong keep. --Malcolmxl5 19:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this is a second nomination. The first discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut night. Aleta 16:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be an ad for one particular organization's parties, while ignoring other uses of the term (such as swinger parties found in a Google search of the the phrase). Aleta 16:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC),[reply]
Keep - Benjiboi has done a good job taking a crappy ad and turning it into a real, informative, sourced article - probably the best thing that can happen with an AfD. Aleta 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless this can be Keep as rewrite has shown this to be a general term for butch-femme nights rather than a term used by a single organisation. Bigdaddy1981 03:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is definitely not notable as a general term and is basically unsourced. TAnthony 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Revised opinion below)

~~::I didn't think it was. I've certainly never heard it used by any lesbian friends of mine. Bigdaddy1981 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: 13:43, 18 July 2007 - Article rewritten.

Keep The minority within a minority group of butches and femmes are purposefully elusive to mainstream society as a general rule and their traditions and celebrations would be hard to find just as if any other group held an "insider's" event but welcomed new members and the general (supportive) public. I've added to the article and I hope it clears up notability issues. Also the "sponsoring" organization (and authority) is simply the mailist server which hosts the various mailists these communities use. In my experience these mailists are routinely dropped from Yahoo groups et al as hey deal with adult sexuality so the email lists are now home at Butch-Femme.com which does hosts the annual "Butch-Femme.com Bash." Also, Butch-Femme.com is free and commercial-free which I addressed in the article. Benjiboi 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Benjiboi has just done an excellent job changing this article from a neologism/advert into an actual sourced article, including locations from around the US, history, refs, etc. Amazing job, Benjiboi! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Benjiboi, if you could see the stunned look on my face right now .... this expanded article definitely asserts notability. TAnthony 14:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I must agree with SatyrTN and TAnthony. Any comments on this article prior to 13:43, 18 July 2007 are no longer relevant and, IMHO, should now be ignored. Benjiboi has indeed done an excellent job! Pdfpdf 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brilliant job! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend speedy keep – Very nice. Article obviously fixed. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am glad that my nomination for deletion has resulted in an advertisement being turned into an article. Benjiboi deserves a slap on the back. Tovojolo 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced article, clear notability. --Beloved freak 12:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Peel (London)[edit]

The Peel (London) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Article about a non-notable nightclub. Can't find reliable sources written about this place, so it fails to meet the notability guideline for businesses. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further nominating Peel (club), a carbon copy of this exact article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You might want to add The Peel which started as the other two but has subsequently been made into a disamb page. Delete all, spam and advertising. --Malcolmxl5 09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability Corpx 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial inventors[edit]

List of controversial inventors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This (so far) short list article is problematic because neither "controversial" nor "inventors" are defined. Since I would argue that they can never be satisfactorily defined, I am suggesting deletion for this list. CIreland 08:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to catalogue here: of the three "controversial inventors" listed, two are redlinks and the other is a redirect. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yep, hard to define what is meant by the title. Or merge into Perpetual motion. Lugnuts 09:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comments above. --Malcolmxl5 09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Subjective as all hell--this is a BLP problem waiting to happen. Blueboy 96 09:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no clear inclusion criteria Hut 8.5 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete criteria for inclusion on the list seemingly violates WP:OR. Pats Sox Princess 14:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything said here could be said in the Perpetual motion article. The article title just does not fit a very short list out of the thousands who tried to invent perpetual motion and the charlatans who claimed they actually had. And it leaves off the controversies of Thomas Edison inventing the lightbulb versus myriad other claimants, the controversies over Marconi or Tesla inventing radio. Morse or Joseph Henry or Weber and Gauss inventing the telegraph, Fitch or Fulton inventing the steamboat, Bell or Gray inventing the telephone, the controversies over Tesla being Croatian, Austrian or Serbian, of Atanasoff or Mauchly inventing the electronic computer, etc. Edison 20:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Targeman 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is obviously incomplete and has no references nor does have any criteria whatsoever to support each entry.--JForget 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this is pure subjectivity. "Controversy" is probably inherent in doing something others haven't done before - or couldn't get working - or couldn't make a commercial go of. Carlossuarez46 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When creating the page, i had one particular intention. Some time ago i have downloaded few controversial videos. Some where really scientific, but some others were fakes. And it took me a time to distinguish which fall to which category. So, i wanted to help people by creating a list of fake/imaginary scientists, to help people without good knowledge to decide whether particular information/video is it worth matching or not. Raigedas 09:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Though I appreciate Raigedas's intentions, this is not the place. It violates both WP:OR and WP:POV. Dan Gluck 05:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom., and all comments in agreement.--JayJasper 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per above. Bearian 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For what information is actually there, a teeny list of people who claimed to invent perpetual motion, we have History of perpetual motion machines. Someguy1221 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 12:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsy Siegel (rapper)[edit]

Bugsy Siegel (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

See [44], I moved the page from Bugsy siegel(rapper) while another user was nominating it for deletion.
Original nominator states: Article gives no mention of why he is notable, but he may well be. Benefit of doubt = AfD instead of CSD, so here it is! pablo :_{: ... hablo ...} 08:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". The subject of the article is an 18 year old who is not signed to any label and is thus unlikely to be notable. Additionally, it seems to be an autobiography. --Malcolmxl5 09:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: does not assert notability. Hu 11:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability. Tagged. Hut 8.5 12:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Leech[edit]

Monica Leech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is not a biography but concerns only a single event in this person's otherwise non-notable life that received a small amount of press coverage. CIreland 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is all we'll ever know is this incident, which is unfavorable.. think we have an issue of do no harm here.. see WP:BLP1E --Spazure 09:45, July 15, 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with the comments above. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid..." may also apply here. --Malcolmxl5 09:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The case appears to have had some political significance in Ireland. This article would have to be rewritten to be about the case itself, though, and less about the incident or about Leech. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response If a new article were written about the case itself instead of the person, would it not be a completely new article, not one named "Monica Leech" ? Spazure 09:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Essentially, this case concerned a vulgar jibe made by a caller to a radio phone-in programme at this woman's expense, who was perceived as receiving excessive remuneration for work carried out for an Irish politician. The jibe was reported in a newspaper, she sued the paper for libel and lost. It would appear that there were no political repercussion, e.g. no resignations. It seems to me that the event and case are of only temporary interest and do not hold any long-term notability to warrant a new article. --Malcolmxl5 09:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is not the vulgar jibe which was of prurient interest to the public, it was the ruling's importance in terms of Irish libel case law, which was much discussed in the media (and will probably be adjudicated by the Irish Supreme Court, as she plans to appeal). There are also potential repercussions with regard to Irish compliance with EU directives. Not all "political repercussions" involve people's careers. Spazure, the point is getting to a compliant article, either through rewrite or from scratch is immaterial. Renames are minor, not really an obstacle. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't seem to make any point about the importance to libel law in Ireland. It just discusses that the case was filed and decided in the newspaper's favor. As it is, the article is nothing more than the tale of an offended person suing a newspaper and losing. If it can be demonstrated that there was something legally significant, Monica Leech would probably pass notability as the instigator of the case.Montco 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article must be blanked and/or speedily deleted as a clear violation of WP:BLP because it contains derogatory statements about a living individual which are clearly libelous and completely unreferenced. If it were referenced, then it could be deleted as a violation of WP:BLP1E since it refers to one embarrasing incident in her otherwise non-notable life. I have removed all text except "Monica Leech is a self-employed communications consultant, who runs her own company." which, while unsourced, is at least not libellous. This action was performed as a member of Wikipedia:Living People Patrol. Edison 20:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom and Edison. If the underlying event is mentioned in an article related to her previous employer, she might merit brief mention there if there are sources to support it, but otherwise, she should not have a biography. - Crockspot 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination and other delete opinions withdrawn due to article revision GRBerry 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspergum[edit]

Aspergum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Perhaps if WP:INTERESTING were a notability criteria, but no. The article itself claims no notability (and started off as an advert), furthermore I can't seem to find any reference to it anywhere except for unreliable websites, and no media coverage whatsoever. I also couldn't find any notability criteria that applies specifically to medication or OTC meds, so apologies in advance if somehow this does deserve to stay and I just haven't seen the related policy.. Spazure 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominating individual, after reviewing the revised article, I withdraw my nomination for deletion, and now elect to keep it as well. Spazure 07:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Er, I nominated this like I always do -- what did I break?? See me on my talk page to avoid clutter. Spazure 08:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". --Malcolmxl5 10:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Change to keep. It's much, much better now. Well done. --Malcolmxl5 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I've expanded and referenced it. Its notability lies in its role in the recognition of aspirin's usefulness as an antithrombotic agent. Gordonofcartoon 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great, but what if the pain is in your jaw? ~ Infrangible 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And does it lose its analgesic effect on the bedpost overnight? Gordonofcartoon 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The notability criteria that applies to medication and everything else on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Notability. Aspergum has received enough coverage in independent reliable sources so that a verifiable artice can be written on the topic. Thus, keep. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The product has been on the market for decades, and may even have lost its trademark by now. It's (a) an effective method of treating sore throat pain in that its design keeps the analgesic in the mouth and throat; (b) a more sensible alternative than antibiotics for treatment of minor throat discomfort; and (c) the ultimate in "keep out of reach of children" products, with each piece of chewing gum containing a dose of aspirin. And yes, Gordon, it does lose its analgesic effect on the bedpost overnight :) If that's not a part of the warning label, it should be. Maybe there's no media coverage, but how often is Tylenol in the news these days? Mandsford 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, has been rewritten and now passes WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Jreferee. Tim Q. Wells 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic and well written article with good refrences, satisfies WP:N and WP:A. Edison 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Keep clearly an encyclopedic topic that passes WP:Notability and WP:V. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see how it wouldn't serve better as merged with the other analegic chewing gums. NobutoraTakeda 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [45][reply]

Keep Why not merge all the wine articles together? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename. The usual guideline at WikiProject Drugs is to headword the generic name and create redirects for brandnames, which would seem to support renaming it as something along the lines of 'aspirin-based chewing gum' and merging in any other aspirin-based chewing gums (none of which appear to exist currently), with appropriate redirects. It might be worth noting that, per Martindale, Aspergum as a brandname doesn't appear to be used outside the USA & Canada. Espresso Addict 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both as a brand name and a generic, it crops up on a few UK NHS documents: see Google. Never actually seen it here, though. Gordonofcartoon 03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the top few hits at least appear to be a list of drugs NOT to be prescribed within the NHS. Espresso Addict 05:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - should have explained. They do exist here; these lists are the so-called "Black List" that was introduced way back to save the NHS money by banning prescription of brand-name drugs in favour of generics. Gordonofcartoon 09:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; I wonder why it's not listed as a UK brand in Martindale? I do still think it might be better moved to a generic title, but I seem to be in a minority here... Espresso Addict 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, excellent WP:HEY by Jreferee and Gordonofcartoon, notability is established. --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expansion work done on article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability per the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 06:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No problems at all ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 08:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly redirected to List of passengers on the Mayflower. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Brewster[edit]

Love Brewster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual, article is fairly unencyclopedic. I can't imagine that anybody would have heard of him or be interested in hearing of him. Rambutan (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coming over on the Mayflower was a big deal (weren't there only about 100 or so people on there total??). I'm sure we could get additional reliable independent sources to sustain notability in this case. As it's a historical figure from the distant American past, most sources will most likely be in print, and thus not easily obtained via google. Spazure 08:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect perhaps a line to List of passengers on the Mayflower. I found practically nothing but genealogical references searching Google Books. Brewster came over on the Mayflower, yes, but did nothing of significance thereafter. --Dhartung | Talk 09:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you might want to look at Wrestling Brewster too. Gordonofcartoon 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close early. As with Almodad (cited by John Vandenberg below), merging the single citation of Lebonah into a topical list might be useful. However, consensus seems to be that, because of the intense scholarship that has been done on the Hebrew Bible, all names and places mentioned in the Bible are inherently notable and easily referenced. Non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lebonah[edit]

Lebonah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a word-for-word copy from a dictionary, but its content is completely unsourced. It's orphaned, uncategorised, and doesn't need to be here. I'd also say that it's non-notable. Rambutan (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is typical of a number sourced from the Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). The text is in the pubic domain. It has some relevence in that it relates the biblical account to the present day geography. Often the place names in Eastons are not the current ones, which is an issue. Is it notable? Not very - its only mentioned once in the bible. Is it categorised? Yes, I've done that. Is it orphaned? No - it is linked from local places like Shiloh (Biblical). Is it unsourced? No, its from Eastons. I've changed the stub to a more specific one. Ultimately, do I care? No. Happy to go with the flow of thinking. Welsh 08:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The place exists, and may have been renamed. This asserts nothing in the way of notability. Nonetheless, people literally live their entire lives based upon the book this place was mentioned in, so just because I don't care if it's in here or not doesn't make it not notable to the millions of religious people around the world who have probably had month-long bible study sessions based around it.. Spazure 08:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smite. One Bible mention hardly constitutes notability, and it's not going to get any larger. Clarityfiend 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an entry in the Columbia Desk Encyclopedia, a much smaller one than ours (we're not paper). Numerous historical references discuss it, it's a real place even if location is disputed, and real places are notable. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If its good enough for other encyclopedias, then its more than good enough for here. —Xezbeth 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nom is invalid as the content was sourced to Eastons per the {{Eastons}} tag. Also refer to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almodad: even the most obscure biblical characters and places are studied endlessly. John Vandenberg 11:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ummm, the Bible is only the most well-known and highly read book in history. And Dhartung noted Lebonah is in the much smaller Columbia Desk Encyclopedia. Pats Sox Princess 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, passes WP:RS. Nom is no longer valid as article has been rewritten. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be perfectly fair, the only changes since the AFD edit are a new category and a references template. --Dhartung | Talk 18:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by means of consensus, and no real justification for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livery Dole[edit]

Livery Dole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic, not particularly well-written. Was prodded; prod removed by an IP who removed all prods I made yesterday. Rambutan (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a real place with a history going back nearly five hundred years. What's "unencyclopedic" about that? It now has four sources and a lot of extra information. The Alms house has stood since 1591, and remains to this day, and it was also a place of execution which saw several protestant martyrs burned at the stake. A memorial to two of them is also on the site. The user who removed the prod had a good point. Nick mallory 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It could use some better formatting, but the topic certainly seems worthy of inclusion, and it's not written as a travel guide (which is always a plus when talking about place). Spazure 09:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourced (albeit imperfectly) and encyclopedic. Valid historical topic. --Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Encyclopedic though could be improved. --Malcolmxl5 10:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no justification given to delete; just saying "unencyclopedic" doesnt make it "un-information", and unsourced can be fixed. John Vandenberg 11:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Hawkestone 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but ... and I don't want to be libellous ... "a place of bustling modern commerce" is rather fanciful. Gordonofcartoon 13:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator provided no good reason to delete. Even if he did, the subject is notable enough. Pats Sox Princess 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M-nitroaniline[edit]

M-nitroaniline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contains no genuine content whatsoever, just a table of info copied from the reference. The cleanup/orphaned/uncategorised/expert tags take up more space than the material altogether! From the fact that it doesn't have a single sentence in it, I would suggest that it's not notable. Rambutan (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A3 External links don't count as content. Blueboy 96 10:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning keep 838 Google hits ... seems notable. Would like to see more evidence of where it's used before changing to keep. Blueboy 96 10:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has content now. It's a perfectly legitimate chemical substance and the article can be written in the time it takes to nominate it for deletion. Nick mallory 10:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick mallory. --Bduke 11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chemicals don't get much press, but they certainly are encyclopedic. This is what encyclopedias are for. ~ Infrangible 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benzenamine has over 200,000 ghits. (Though the article seems to be missing a redirect) 70.55.88.166 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the compound in question is 3-nitrobenzenamine, not benzenamine. Espresso Addict 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think this is what's WP:FIVE referring to when it says "specialized encyclopedias" Corpx 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Relatively simple chemical compound used in dye manufacture. I see no rationale for removing. It may need renaming -- the WikiProject Chemicals style seems to be to omit the initial m-, which certainly looks very odd in caps. Espresso Addict 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick mallory. Dan Gluck 05:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, have moved it to the correct name 3-nitroaniline. Rambutan: please read the Wikipedia deletion policy and do not propose perfectly valid articles for deletion just because they need to be improved. Cacycle 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, used for making a variety of dyestuffs. Walkerma 23:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landlubber[edit]

Landlubber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT - we're not a dictionary, and the article doesn't really add anything to Wikipedia (I mean, "Talk like a Pirate Day" as a source?!). Rambutan (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's just a definition and we're not a dictionary. Spazure 09:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Blueboy 96 10:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary definition. --Malcolmxl5 10:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arrrh! This be a dicdef, ye scalleywags! ~ Infrangible 13:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, words are for there, not Wikipedia. --RandomOrca2 18:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a template:Copy to Wiktionary earlier, and it was Transwikied. 70.55.88.166 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Bearian 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lean office processes[edit]

Lean office processes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unclear subject matter, says practically nothing. Was prodded yesterday; prod was removed without a clear explanation. Rambutan (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says what it is but "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". As an aside, I didn't understand any of that. --Malcolmxl5 10:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the foregoing comments. --Evb-wiki 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the only info known about this group is a hostage rescue, other than that the article isn't unverifiable, and policy is key here. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Miracle Crusade[edit]

Jesus Miracle Crusade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This organization doesn't seem to be very notable [46], and may not fit notability standards. --HAL2008_TK ^CT 06:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per notablity standards. Maybe even db-corp. Giggy _U^CP 06:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ switching to keep, see below --健次(derumi)^talk 06:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — Not notable; other than the criticisms, the majority of the information appear to come from the church itself. --健次(derumi)^talk 06:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on the talk page does claim this group is notable in the Philippines. --健次(derumi)^talk 06:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have blocked the account of User:Wake up saul for continued disruption. This is not a place to evangelize. Keegan^talk 06:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this group is notable in the Philippines, proper reliable sources is needed for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also per notability standards. One quick Google search isn't the gold standard for notability (WP:GOOGLE), and per WP:NOTABLE, Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Numerous news articles have been written about it and its founder, particularly in connection with the 2000 Abu Sayyaf kidnapping incident. It's a religious organization established in multiple countries, which can be verified via multiple independent sources. What more is needed? The recent NPOV edit frenzy shouldn't affect notability/non-notability decisions. Tlesher 06:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tlesher's comment. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) — per Tlesher. I'm convinced it's notable. As Siva1979 says, it will need reliable sources. --健次(derumi)^talk 06:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems notable, but needs more sources. Have also requested semi-protection--judging by the vehemence of the anon blankings, there's more vandalism likely while this AfD is underway. Blueboy 96 10:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he group has attracted enough notice to have several news article written on it. Pats Sox Princess 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of these news articles are written "on it". They're written on a hostage rescue, and mention this organization only in passing in connection with that hostage situation. I can find no sources whatsoever which are about this organization, and notability is solely a function of how much source material there is on the subject. The information in the article is thus unverifiable, so it's got to go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The religious constellation is not internationally known, rather no references may found on it. It might be created intentional for some vanities. And no strong informative body, the doctrine section is copy edited same to other pentecostal pages. Poor sources of details. Jonas'VM ☼ 11:16 18 August 2012 (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 redirect. Sr 13 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance-based view[edit]

Ignorance-based view (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This does not appear to be a notable topic. A google search[47] returned only 317 entries. most were to the phrase in a non-philosophical context. The few real entries derived from the Wikipedia article. A quick look through the Pan and Penguin dictionaries of Philosophy found no corresponding entry. No entry in the Shorter Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Banno 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds to me like agnosticism. Either way, I think the nominator established that the term itself is either nonexistant or rarely used. Calgary 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to have this article here without crossing over to WP:OR Corpx 05:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One must take note that a google search is not a gold standard to determine whether the above article is to be kept or removed. When using Google to test for the importance or existence of the above article, one should note that this will be biased in favor of modern subjects of interest to people from developed countries with Internet access, so it should be used with some judgment. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response True, but if it is a notable philosophical term, a google search would reasonably turn up some sort of reference to it. I've also taken the liberty of looking into some internet-based philosophy glossaries and still nothing. In this case the google search isn't being used as the key element of the assertion of a lack of notability, it is simply one of many supports. Calgary 07:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I also checked on several other paper resources. I thought it might possibly be a term from Islamic theology - but no info in the Penguin Dictionary of Religions, either. It could be a new-age term; but I see no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt. Banno 07:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the New Fontana dictionary of Modern Thought, either. Banno 07:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect to Conservopedia ~ Infrangible 13:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's very good. Calgary 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The technical term for this subject is acatalepsia, incidentally. Tevildo 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and redirect to Acatalepsy. Bearian 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rei Kimura[edit]

Rei Kimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User:Askari Mark sent this article to WP:COIN, noting that the original author's name is identical to the article title - suggesting a conflict of interest. The content of the article is uninspiring at best, and of the 1400 Google hits, the first 10 do not provide adequate evidence of notability. Shalom ^Hello 05:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be noted that conflict of interest edits are strongly discouraged. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should contain only material that complies with its content policies. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising, nor a vanity press. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are actually only 192 non-duplicate GHits; of which almost all are retailers or trivial mentions in bibliographies/lists. [48] To the extent I can tell, she primarily writes in English, not Japanese (e.g. see the last item here [49]), so I doubt there's any Japanese sources either (and anyway it's impossible to find them if the page author doesn't bother to include the name in native orthography). cab 01:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, as notability is not even asserted, and WP:V, as there are no sources other than the subject's own website. -- But|seriously|folks 03:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons.--Fabrictramp 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she does not assert, in her own autobiogrpahy, her own notability. Bearian

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to renomination, nominator sockuppet of indefblocked user SirFozzie 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Space Marines[edit]

I was going through wiki as I normally do and I saw that there were a lot of pages connected together that had no sources besides a primary source and contained information that was all in-universe and seemed not to exist beyond in-universe. I had to create a name to go through the deletion process, so I don't really know if I am doing it right and its really confusing. NobutoraTakeda 04:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be subsets of the first page, lack third party sources, written from an in-universe and biased source, and are not encyclopedic: h:Night_Lords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[reply]

Emperor's_Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

Black_Legion_(Warhammer_40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

COMMENT The person responsible for this nomination has been banned from Wikipedia for disruption. a[50]

Delete per WP:NOTE - None of these fictional things have received "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to the parent article. You're talking about one of the 7 major factions here in one of the most popular tabletop board games on earth. It has sourcing problems, yes, and could probably stand to be re-written, but the parent article should remain. I'm sure people more well-versed with tabletop gaming could add good references. --Haemo 06:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If its about a game, why isn't there anything really mentioned about the game? I know there is mention of a game, but it seems to be fiction about characters from a fictionary world. The Mario page, another well known game character, has almost no comparable fiction. It goes through the history of his development and the different incarnations, and then includes many non-primary sources. I'm also noticing that many of the other related pages to the Chaos Space Marines seem to be equally involved in fiction and having little actually gaming. Would a merge even solve the problem? There are three pages related that seem to talk about the gaming, but even they are confusing: Chaos Weapons, Equipment and Vehicles, Vehicles of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), Vehicles of the Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). This whole thing is confusing and I don't know if a Merge would salvage it. NobutoraTakeda 06:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's complicated. The Warhammer universe is a tabletop board game, at its heart. But, it also is a series of books, video games, and other stuff. So, it's not only a game, it's a story as well; people get caught up in it, and write a LOT about the story. The material there is very, very crufty, which is why I'm advocating a merger of all the articles. However, there is a Wikiproject devoted to Warhammer 40,000, so they might chime in; knowing more than me. --Haemo 07:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, what is cruft? I've never heard of it, but it sounds like important jargon. If it is a story, where is the one book that its from and how do you reconcile that with the game? Would a page on Star Wars have to have fiction pieces from Star Wars video games? Or from the Star Wars card games? Or from the roleplaying games? Shouldn't there be some seperation? I suggest that the different novels listed on some of the pages include the information on their novel page instead of being lumped in with a boardgame page, or would that be wrong? NobutoraTakeda 08:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Fancruft. Clarityfiend 09:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of computer or video games-related deletions.

Keep. Policy wonkery gone mad. —Xezbeth 07:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy exactly and how? Corpx 07:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-articles need some editing to be less in-universe, that's all. But do you not find it worrying that a brand new editor comes straight to AfD to get a whole set of articles deleted, despite admitting to not knowing much about Warhammer 40,000? —Xezbeth 08:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, I only created a name wen I realized that you can't put an article for deletion without creating a name. And you don't need to know anything about a topic to see that its written like a book and doesn't include anything but primary sources. But what police has gone mad? Aren't you concerned that there is no third party source and no objective information on the topic? NobutoraTakeda 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Warhammer 40,000 is unquestionably notable, and the Chaos Space Marines are the equivalent of a major character within the Warhammer 40,000 universe. The example given at WP:FICT of a character within a universe suitable for having a separate article is that of Noonien Soong, and there's more at Chaos Space Marines than there is for Soong. Independent reviews of Chaos within the miniatures game itself is somewhat lacking due to the fact that Warhammer 40,000 essentially has no competitor in the market, but check any of the reviews of Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War or its sequels for numerous mentions of the CSMs. Above and beyond that, we can find the official strategy to Winter Assault, an independent publication giving details of how to play the CSMs in Winter Assault, and the equivalent for Dark Crusade. Yes, the page needs a big WP:WAF cleanup, but AfD isn't the article improvement drive. --Pak21 08:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read what you wrote and the Noonien Soong page has sources that aren't primary. I also looked at the Amazon page and those aren't legitimate reviews. Anyone could have written them just by logging in and there is no mention of the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War on the different pages that I listed. And wouldn't this information better suit a Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War page and not a page on, lets say, the Night Lords?NobutoraTakeda 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The books are independent publications, both of which have significant coverage of the Chaos Space Marines. That's the fact being noted here, not the reviews on the Amazon pages. And with regard to Noonien Soong, it has one cited fact in it, that's all. --Pak21 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which books? The Strategy guides? If the books are the strategy guides, then aren't they more primary sources? I know the "Official Strategy guide" probably is. There are no independent magazine articles talking about the Night Lords and no scholarly books talking about how Chaos Space Marines are a vital part of gaming. I like Haemo's idea of merging, because no one has stated that the individual groups are mentioned in the strategy guides. Question: if the information is coming from a stategy guide to make a Wikipedia page, why not instead have a page that discusses the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War game talk about it and not have a second page? I doubt that I can justify making a page devoteed to a character from Resident Evil games with my only source being a strategy guide as oppose to justifying making a page for the whole game itself. Question 2: If the topic is unquestionably notable, how come I could only find fan pages and primary sources when searching the internet on the individual groups? I looked through over 100 pages and nothing really notable popped up. NobutoraTakeda 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really trying to claim Warhammer 40,000 isn't notable? Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer Fantasy and Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game (the latter two also being Games Workshop productions) dominate the miniature wargaming market, and have done so for many years. If so, you need to re-evaluate your definition of notability. --Pak21 16:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where I listed any of those pages on the above list. If those items are notable, then why don't you instead merge the information into the pages? Also, I would like you to provide some third party sources to the notability of the pages in question, if you think they are notable. I would like to see what they say and I am sure it would better inform everyone else. You also didn't address most of my questions or my points, which makes me think that you are practing fanwank argument. I am sorry if that term may be deemed offensive, but I say it only to summarize what is said on the page describing fans who see something as notable when the community doesn't have any way to determine it. NobutoraTakeda 16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said "Warhammer 40,000 is unquestionably notable". You said "If a topic is unquestionably notable". What else am I supposed to think you are referring to? Anyway, as you are now verging on personal attacks, I will discontinue this debate with you. --Pak21 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my analysis earlier, because the page mentioned that the fans tend to be touchy about the subject. I did not mention Warhammer 40,000 at all. I mentioned pages that may relate to the subject though. You over responded to something that I didn't originally say. The least you could do is apologize instead of accusing me for confusing you on the word "topic" refering to the article for deletion that is the page's topic. NobutoraTakeda 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... continued from my questions below, where I am tentative about the point is that I do not see the distinction between this article and the Noonien Soon article, once you throw a secondary source into the mix. To address the point that Pak21 tangentially referred to, the "official strategy guide" is produced by an independent publisher likely authorized by the game manufacturer. It would be akin to citing an authorized "Making of..." production on an article on the film itself. I do not know if you would consider that primary or not. If we do include a secondary source such as this article from IGN, which I would say is as credible as the imdb citation for Noonien Soong, does that justify the remainder of this article? Granted, the citation there is a throw-away line, it is actually more relevant to the full article included here than the Soong citation is to the Soong article (which deals with only a spot of trivia contexted within the whole article). Please keep in mind that I am not trying to refute your assertion as much as understand how we delineate notability for the sake of an "encyclopedic" nature. --70.91.8.169 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and relist individually. The articles cite references and do not all have the same Wikipedia policy violation in common. Each article needs to be evaluated separately. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the one basically the topic for the rest, like a page devoteed to Tolkien's horses and then a page devoteed to an individual horse from Lord of the Rings? NobutoraTakeda 15:23, 15 July 2007

Keep all they may need some individual work, but within the 40K universe they are notable. If these are deemed non-notable, then the vast majority of 40K/WFB/LotR/other GW articles would fall under the same hammer. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the vast majority of those pages are written in-universe and do not have third party sources, then the vast majority of those pages don't belong on Wikipedia. While looking through the link on fancruft, there was an essay on Pokemon used as an excuse to keep other pages. Saying that some other page would need to be deleted for not complying with Wikipedia is not an excuse not to delete this page. If you feel that the vast majority of the pages have the same inadequacies, maybe they should all be added to the list. NobutoraTakeda 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this account has just joined today, for the apparent single purpose of deleting articlesDGG (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh. I stated that at the very top of the page. You can't put an article for deletion without a user name. Thanks for being condesending about me on every page you can possibly find. NobutoraTakeda 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Merge. As a random visitor to this page with no Warhammer background, I find the page rather useful. While I agree that having other pages that do not appear to adhere as well to policy does not, in itself, justify the presence of this page, I will hazard the controversial statement that perhaps the interpretation of the policy is too strict. Learning of this policy just from this comment -- I have subsequently realized that an innumerable number of pages on the wikipedia fail this policy and have provided me with a lot of substantative and important information, and I would hazard to -- as you contextualize it -- challenge them all. I suppose it is the community's call -- but I for one find that the strict application of that particular policy to be counterproductive to (what I assume is) the basic tenent of the site. If we do strictly adhere with the policy, I'm sure that there must be some Warhammer aficionado that knows of some tabletop rpg periodical of sorts that notes this topic. Though, in many degrees, I feel like the relevancy of the citation will likely be relatively weak in comparison to the content of this article. With that noted, I believe that is, perhaps, the crux of this policy -- that even in topics where secondary sources do cite the topic, it is often the primary sources that provide the most pertinent information to be cited, and the secondary sources, in effect, become superfluous. --70.91.8.169 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If primary sources are providing information, why do I have no clue about their actual connection to a table top game until after I spent four hours to try and track down history and third party sources for the page? And which version did you read? Encyclopedias are all about third party sources, not primary. A page about the Bible isn't a summary of the Bible, but how it impacts others, which requires a third party. Encyclopedia's are not plot summaries and shouldn't be plot summaries. If someone wants one, why don't they buy footnotes? NobutoraTakeda 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point tentatively conceded. What we then need is a wiki-cliffnotes... Outside of that, please see my comments under the Noonien Soon thread... --70.91.8.169 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would put up an AFD for it but I already have two controversial ones right now active and I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. I'm already knee deep trying to rationalize to people so they don't think I'm just spamming a delete without having a legitimate reason. NobutoraTakeda 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles need clean up, but this is not cause for deletion. Notable within their own universe and sources can be provided from such easily. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable within a universe isn't notable without. What do you think of a possibility of a merge and cut excess information? If the excess is needed, why not have a generic history page, because many of the people seem to overlap with their relation to that Horus guy. NobutoraTakeda 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how one can argue non-notable for groups that appear in: Dozens of novels, 4 editions of one of the most popular table top game, various spin off table top games, a collectible card game, and at least 3 recent computer games (and others previously). Lack of outside sources might be a valid criticism, but that's one you could apply almost universally to works of fiction that aren't top tier popular culture.

--Falcorian ^(talk) 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are mentioned in those books, then why don't you put the information on the pages about the books instead of seperating it, making OR claims that they are the same group as the other, merging information from a table top game and fantasy fiction and having a page without third party sources? By having those pages, you are creating OR, creating redundancy with book pages, and lack verifiable sources.

I'm sorry, I can't follow what you're saying, could you go over it again? I don't see how claiming that the same group which shows up in multiple works is the same group is OR, nor do I see how a lack of third party sources makes the numerous primary sources useless, as the information presented in the pages is citable with book/game/card/etc. sources without interpretation by the contributor. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you combine multiple texts not written by the same author and only loosely connected by the publisher and then use them to write a fictional history and call it "canon", then you are performing OR synthesis.NobutoraTakeda 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On this will have to disagree then. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well written, encycopaedic article. Mathiastck 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a well written article lacking any third party sources and serves no function besides as a page to link to other pages that make up the organization and without any real explanation to how any of it connects to the table top game, right? NobutoraTakeda 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been stated before, the articles are about organizations and entities within the Warhammer 40,000 universe. This means that although the entities/organizations have a role and are represented within the table-top game, much of their history does not relate directly towards the playing of the game, and this is what is being documented here. Another example would be the information regarding the EVE Online universe, as well as World of Warcraft. The articles about the history associated with those universes in-fiction often do not have sources, yet they are not up for deletion. Similarly, I see no reason why these articles on the Chaos Space Marine Legions should be singled out unfairly and inconsistently. Nonagonal Spider 06:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of it. When I first started reading Warhammer 40k books I knew almost nothing about it. Due to the information contained her I have made connections in stories that I otherwise would not have. I am sure I am not the only one who collects information from here. I do not disagree that it needs to be cleaned up but I would not rule out an extremely popular game or series of books because of lack of information or validity. Information is being added and created all the time by the black library, that is the fun of all of this. Warhammer is constantly evolving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.178.27.243 (talk • contribs).

Just a quick note to say that it is possile that User:NobutoraTakeda is a sockpuppet for indefinetly blocked User:SanchiTachi (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 07:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I report your comment to the noticeboard for lying in order to sway a vote over a topic you are vanobsessed with or will you delete your accusations and apologize? NobutoraTakeda 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that wouldn't be lying because that is actually what the checkuser's findings were if you read the diff link; that you are possibly SanchTachi. I'd say there is no reason to delete that... or apologize.--Isotope23 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence to say that I am that person and its only a "possibly" because that person put it up to begin with. The names and IPs weren't actually checked, so you can't claim that there was any result. NobutoraTakeda 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem more than a little defensive about this. Checkuser said "possible," that's all. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for clarification, but it looks to me like Mackensen (talk · contribs) did run a checkuser and it came up with results indicating a possibility that there is a link.--Isotope23 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The names and IPs weren't actually checked, so you can't claim that there was any result." That's news to me. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misread you then, because it says "No comment on the IP addresses" which makes it seem that you didn't do the check and that you only guessed at what it could be. What does a possible even mean? I either am someone or I am not. Maybe you are possibly wrong. Maybe you are possibly a robot. Maybe you are possibly eighty midgets in a large suit. NobutoraTakeda 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything. To be blunt i've read all of the above and am wondering why on earth someone who clearly knows little about the warhammer world is so vehemently interested in denying such a valauable resource to those who do want to use it. I'm pretty annoyed as someone has already deleted some infomration on a site i used to look at and now they are trying again. The rationale given above should be more than suficient for you to remove the deletion request and move on - if nothing else the majority (i.e. the keepers) should outweight the minority (i.e. deleters) in this case. Hence a democratic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.51.84 (talk • contribs)

That is a nice thought, but Wikipedia isn't a democracy.--Isotope23 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an extensive source of all the information here, not only provided by Gamesworkshop (the company that runs this) but also tens of books (www.blacklibrary.com)that cover most of these in detail. I, among it seems others here, use these pages to read more about my interest, that is, the story side of Warhammer 40k. This is not made up fanfic, or something as frivilous as the individual horses in LOTR, as the originator of this deletion erroneously is pointing out, but more akin to the individual teams of the National Football League. I created a Chaos army of Thousand Son's Chaos Marines, and when I wanted to know a little more about the established history of them, where they come from, their stylings, etc... outside of the Tabletop aspect, I came to these sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kill Mage (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the above is the user's first edit. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the two central factions in a notable fictional universe - Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that the Chaos Space Marines are notable, but what about the other pages listed? They lack third party sources that are necessary for notability. NobutoraTakeda 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main article for the Chaos Space Marines is unquestionably notable, as has been established. The splinter articles are about specific factions within the CSM, the differences between which are stark in-universe and make up a good deal of the details of the background information not just for the CSM, but for Warhammer 40,000 as a whole. Given, however, that they exist as constructs purely in-universe it isn't reasonable to expect that a third-party source is going to have any interest in providing information about them. However, that fact alone is not cause enough to call them irrelevant or un-notable. It'd be like saying that the differences between Rohan and Gondor are un-notable, simply because they only exist within Tolkien's fiction and have little bearing on the real world. The articles may need to be cleaned up, but not deleted. Agharo 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, but more succinct and eloquent. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gondor and Rohan have been discussed in serious literary criticism. Chaos Space Marines have not. NobutoraTakeda 07:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So suddenly any work of fiction that has not been given "serious" criticism is irrelevant? A game with literally millions of players worldwide, and a faction within that game that enjoys very rich support from a huge fanbase, these are too insignificant for us to keep a wikipedia article on? We may as well delete the articles on every game that had the gall to get a book written about it, or that dares to have a plotline or setting extending beyond the game itself. The Halo series would be a good example of a large set of articles written in essentially the same style, but the most any of them have recieved is a notice to clean up the articles to make them more relevant. Agharo 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats part of notability. You can't include gossip or other types of sources. Halo has recieved serious criticism from third party sources. I haven't seen many of the articles, but I do know that as one of the biggest selling video games of all time and focus of many E3s, they have recieved coverage in over 30 major video game magazines plus other areas. I could not find anything even close for Chaos Space Marines. NobutoraTakeda 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how hard you looked, then. Dawn of War, the video game series based off of Warhammer 40,000 (and including the Chaos Space Marines as one of the main factions) has recieved coverage from numerous gaming magazines, including PC Gamer among others. As some people have pointed out, Warhammer 40,000 (along with Warhammer Fantasy Battle and the Lord of the Rings miniatures game, all of which are produced by the same company) almost completely dominates the miniature wargaming market, meaning that there are extremely few third-party groups to give it criticism. Agharo 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why dont all the pages of Chaos space marines be merged into one? Sepearate pages may be too much, (And I say this as a player of Warhammer 40K) but, Imperial Space Marines (the good guys) have their own pages per chapter (most of them). Chaos Marines dont have individual Codexs (rules, stats etc) published like some Imperial Space marine chapters, but they are all different chapters, and have different tendancies/pros/cons. This may be because Im a noob, but can you specify third party sources, so I know when to stop digging my grave? Ghostridernz 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)GhostridernzGhostridernz 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this? That was a proposed idea for a merge that I believed would help. If the fiction information needed to be split from the page, it could be given a Chaos Space Marines in fiction page or something of a similar title.

Keep/Merge As mentioned, Chaos Space Marines as a whole are a significant part of Warhammer 40,000 which is notable. The individual Chaos Space Marine chapters may not warrant their own pages. The articles, if kept as is, also have to be changed to be more encyclopedic.Oderic 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep based on mounting evidence that the nominator is a sockpuppet of an indefblocked user. Blueboy 96 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As the nominator NobutoraTakeda was found to be a sockpuppet of SanchiTachi Whispe ring 12:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep ahahaha, if the guy was really me, I would have never put up a deletion for the pages. Each are obviously important on their own as they are variants with even their own miniatures produced. Thousand Sons, Plague Marines, Noise Marines, and Khorne Beserkers show that at least four of the variants are notable as part of the production line. The Black Legion was notable for having Abaddon the Despoiler who lead the Eye of Terror campaign. Others have been the complete focus of a book. Clearly, they are all individually notable. This is precious and hillarious though. Speedy keep, because everyone says its me and I say speedy keep. Case closed! SanchiTachiAdmitted sock

Closing this. Socks are not allowed to nominate articles for deletion. SirFozzie 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menschenaffe[edit]

Menschenaffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) Oyster guitarist 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The web has thousands, if not millions, of pages dedicated to more famous artists, wikipedia, on the other hand, offers a forum where people can look up these lesser known bands that have, in their own way, impacted the world of music...this page is a must keep."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.42.121 (talk • contribs)

Keep. "People are interesting in this hard-to-find information."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.185.114 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. Also "Wikipedia is not an advertising service." --Malcolmxl5 06:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - does not assert the importance or significance - CSD A7. Addhoc 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it gets cleaned up for neutrality and 3rd party reliable sources are added to estabilish notability per WP:Music. I suggest the authors read up on these links and edit accordingly for better encyclopedic content, stating facts only and in a neutral tone. See also What Wikipedia is Not. Cricket02 05:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about masturbation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation

Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (1st nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (5th nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (second nomination)

List of songs about masturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Given all the List of song about nominations, it's reasonable to nominate this as it certainly fits the bill. Despite all the "ILIKEIT" and "ITSFUNNY" reasonings that pushed this into no consensus twice, I think a solid fourth review is needed. Bulldog123 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmm solid fourth review? Mike33 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

definitely, the fourth review Lentower 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right but the first ended in "keep" not "no consensus" so I didn't count it. I'll change it though. Bulldog123 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
closing Admin: Bulldog123 opening paragraph above is full of POV. His analysis of the prior AfDs is biased. The fact that other List of song about articles are nominated is irrelevant - an article stands by itself. And he gives no reason there why this is a bad article. Lentower 15:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you expect someone to not be POV in an AfD debate. Besides, all I said is that many in the original AfDs were not convincing keep arguments (which, yes, is an opinion) but apparently a lot of people think they weren't convincing either. Bulldog123 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as pure WP:TRIVIA, loosely-associated topics, etc. etc. I'd work in some lame double entendre but I'm not that kind of guy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's already a category to house the notable songs. Most of these are not actually about masturbation. They simply make reference to it. Songs are notable and masturbation is notable, but masturbation songs are not a particularly notable variety of song. GassyGuy 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ↑, etc. (esp. WP:NOT). --Evb-wiki 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlike the article listed above, this one certainly is unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is what categories are for and these types of list are always deleted based on WP:NOT#INFO.--Svetovid 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am voting to keep on the principal that without even reading the article it is against good faith to repeatedly nominate an article for WP:AFD until you get lucky enough to have the right set of respondents to delete it. This is just taking another stab at the same apple and it is wrong to do. I am not even reading the article although I can surely tell why it has its detractors by its title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been eight months since the last discussion, which was inconclusive like the first. It would be different, if this was renominating a discussion resulting in a "keep" consensus, or it was a discussion that had just recently concluded. --Evb-wiki 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what it might look like, this is only the third nomination, not the fourth or fifth. Three nominations are usually totally acceptable. Bulldog123 12:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, this is the fourth AfD, not the third. only the obvious 2 of the 6 AfDs cited above are redirects. Go check yourself. A 2nd AfD is barely acceptable. We should all be adding content, not wasting our time on 3rd and 4th AfDs. Lentower 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- FamedDeletionist 21:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Liscruft and somewhat useless trivia--JForget 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed the article, which has held up well, despite being walked in on three or four times already. More detailed than most "list of songs about____" and written by someone who is clearly a master of this particular domain of music. It's clear that the author has spent a lot of time (by himself, of course) working and working on this until he got the result that he wanted. No other songs about forms of abstinence, and no less valid than songs about sexual intercourse. Mandsford 00:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what is your argument besides that it's fun for you to make masturbation puns? GassyGuy 01:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Good point. My argument is that the article is well written, could probably be improved with additional sourcing (besides the obvious lyrics pages), addresses a subject that obviously would not be in a papr encyclopedia, and is describes the fact that taboo subjects tend to be described only in pop music. Can't think of a poem about this, can you? Hmmm... a List of masturbation puns? What an idea. Mandsford 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yet as I've said before, the lyrics are very much open to interpretation (you can't really verify that something is innuendo, can you?). Calgary 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from strong precedent that lists such as this should be deleted, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that every song in this list is about masturbation. Most, it seems, simply involve one line that either directly, or through a euphanism, mention masturbation. Two different concepts. The list as it stands is without value. Resolute 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete not a particularly useful page. Turning Japanese by the Vapors? Wow, I thought it was about...

...come to think, what the hell is it about? Kripto 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changed my position (pardon the double entendre) on this one, per all the other "songs about" problems. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The format and subject of most "List of songs about..." articles makes them worth deleting. But this article actually provides the relevant lyrics. This means the article can be more easily verified. It also avoids the trap of picking a too general subject or listing songs that merely use suggestive puns. If someone were to write a paper on masturbation in 20th century popular culture this list could actually be quite helpful. Cedars 03:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the lyrical excerpts either lead one astray (or prove, depending on your familiarity with each song) that these songs are, in fact, not for the most about actually about masturbation, but rather mention it in passing, making this association just as trivial as most of the song lists. GassyGuy 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I really hate lists, that are just incredibly boring links to other articles that I could have googled much easier. This is quite something else and has the makings of a useful tool. He's knocked out some well observed lyric references, though I do appreciate that some of them may be WP:OR. I think editors who are raising a keep will work on it too. Mike33 17:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say a team of 10 people worked on this list for three days. How will that change the fact that it's really just a random collection of information in the end? Bulldog123 06:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The current state of the article may suck, but if it were to be thoroughly reviewed and sourced, it'd be a perfectly acceptable list. --Hemlock Martinis 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you're trying to make a cross-afd point about improving articles rather than deleting them, but in this case, it's grossly irrelevant. What more could honestly be done with this list? Include songs that are entirely about masturbation, or bolden the masturbation innuendos? Fact of the matter is, there's nothing to improve. It's just a trivia-based arbitrary listing, and for some reason I doubt many college students are going to be disappointed this list was deleted since they were going to base it on their discourse. Bulldog123 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Masturbation is one of the ultimate acts of profanity. Why else the divine genocide of infant felines? Songs about this act of blasphemous violence are of vital interest to Angels of Vengeance as well as trivia writers. Of course, most remotely scintillating wiki entries are vital to the latter group. Alas, the AFD-fetishists, with their chants of WP:NOTTHISNOTTHATNOTANYTHING, are engaged in an ongoing pogrom to drive them off the website.--Perceive 02:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this contribution speediable under patent nonsense? GassyGuy 07:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is slighty funny, if that's what he was going for. Bulldog123 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep stop deleting all those useful song lists. Sala Skan 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bizarrely well tended-to. Verifiably accurate and reasonably complete...Leave it alone already. --zenohockey 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. More trivial claptrap. -R. fiend 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Very well kept and done. Verifiably accurate and reasonably complete.. After 3 AfDs, why do we need another?!? This list has only gotten better over that time. Please let this one be the last one. Lentower 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the list is barely verifiable, as when a specific lyric is not given, here is no citation (or any citations in the article whatsoever), and when a specific lyric is given, more often than not the sample is not conclusive, and is instead massively subject to interpretation. Calgary 05:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's just a list about songs, just with the topic of masturbation. Masturbation is a cultural theme, and is relevant to knowledge. If we delete this list, we might as well delete everything in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dynamic_lists_of_songs since this would be a precedent stating "no song lists!"--Jhskulk 12:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Divided no consensus - relist or another Afd in two weeks - keep or delete? Its getting silly now. Mike33 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had this ended in "keep" the second time it was nominated, renominating wouldn't make much sense. The list moved from that to 'no consensus' when usually it is the opposite that should arise. Bulldog123 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bulldog, I was less than clear. I think that you should relist this for another 5 days, so that other editors can contribute. At the moment IMHO, it looks like another "no consensus" and I think that raising an Afd every month or two isn't good for wikipedia (100+ Afd nearly every day). lets get a definate keep or delete. If after another 5 days, it seems clear that we are still stuck with no consensus, I will change my comment to delete and explain my rationale and hope other editors will follow suit. I accept that it seems a ruthless thing to do, but the continual refering of articles to Afd may be seen as disruptive and certainly doesn't help make Wikipedia good. If deletion stops Afds being raised than this can only be a good thing. Mike33 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Though I don't see how an AfD is that bad a thing. Bulldog123 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time spend on over a 100 AfDs/day and DRVs would in this case (a 2nd or greater AfD) and many others be better spent adding and improving content. Pick any {{fact}} and fixing it is a better use of editor's time. Lentower 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe AfD is a vital process for the survival of wikipedia as a legitimate source of information. AfDs prevent it from turning into myspace, facebook, a blog, or someone's advertisement vehicle and many other things. If you don't, then oh well. Bulldog123 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no we have WP:CSD for those kind of issues. Afd is treated like some kind of joke by editors. Mike33 04:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unscholarly and disreputable, no sources. The trouble with the lack of sources is highlighted by the fact that some of these songs like have nothing to do with masturbation at all (though many plainly do;) in these cases I doubt the songwriters would appreciate the appearance of their lyrics on this list.Proabivouac 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The problem with the article is not only that it is a violation of WP:TRIVIA. The article does not deal with songa about masturbation, it deals primarily with songs that make some sort of passing reference to masturbation, making these songs very loosely associated. Also, when an actual lyric is quoted, such a lyric is very often subject to interpretation, and while it's possible that it's referring to masturbation, it is not actually confirmed (as the article does not cite it's sources). If this article were a list of songs about masturbation then we may have something to discuss, but what we're dealing with would be much more accurately named if it were called "List of songs which are believed to make reference to masturbation". And if it was actually called that, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. Calgary 04:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike33

Strong Delete WP:TRIVIA. Oyster guitarist 04:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest I enjoyed the debate better than the article. If we start with a list about “List of songs about masturbation” what is the next one “Songs about Love’ or say “Songs about Herbie” or even “Songs about Fingers” are any of these noteworthy? If they are not, neither is List of songs about masturbation. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I consider pretty much all these "List of songs about ______" as trivia, which violates WP:FIVE for WP not being a "trivia collection". Also WP:NOT comes into play as this being a list of loosely associated topics. Only thing common here is that these are 1) songs and 2)describe "an activity". Corpx 05:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As pthers have noted, this list is pure trivia. (Perhaps there ought to be a Trivipedia.org for this sort of entry.) —SlamDiego_←T 05:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This has no value. Plantocal 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia. --Malcolmxl5 06:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~relist from 4th July~~

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid dreaming in popular culture[edit]

Lucid dreaming in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As indicated by this entry: "In the movie Deep Impact, one of the astronauts on the mission to destroy the comet describes a wake-initiated lucid dream," this in popular culture article is WP:TRIVIA and a vio of WP:NOT#IINFO. Next stop Dreaming in popular culture. Bulldog123 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hey, it's another honest one; "This is a list of cultural references made about the phenomenon Lucid dreaming." In other words, an indiscriminate collection of trivia. --Haemo 04:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate trivia. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate trivia. Oyster guitarist 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FIVE - Not a trivia collection Corpx 05:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia information. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they're going to admit in the intro that it's a list and that's all it'll ever be, then I'm going to admit that it violates indiscriminate trivia and should go away. Spazure 09:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And I created the article! (only because this junk was crufting up the actual Lucid dreaming article. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 13:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% Pure trivia and 0% sourced.--JForget 00:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disorganised notes. Irredeemable. Mowsbury 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., and all of the above.--JayJasper 14:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Too bad, I like it. Bearian 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax, joke, or just plain silliness. No such word. ●DanMS • Talk 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requirted[edit]

Apparent hoax definition. Google only turns it up as a misspelling for "required". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete as possible hoax dictionary definition. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I can not find the word in my dictionaries…it can not be found. ShoesssS ^Talk04:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, I see! You too keep the Webster's or OED Unabridged in the house Shoessss. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ::: *Comment LOL giving my age a way again. Still looking it up the old fashion way. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 'Quirt', which appears in the article just after 'requirted', is a word (and appears in Wiktionary). 'Requirted' is not a word that I can find. Delete per VanTucky. --Malcolmxl5 04:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. NSR77 ^T_C 04:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary definition or hoax. either way. Oyster guitarist 04:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT, WP:HOAX --Rambutan (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon in other media[edit]

Pokémon in other media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant. Everything here has its own article and/or a summary in Pokémon. This adds nothing to the original summaries except some bits and pieces of irrelevant stuff that's already covered in the individual articles. Also, the therm "other" is confusing... Here, "other" means "other than the video games" but that's not automatically evident. Not perfect choice for an article title. The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bulldog123 04:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Hopelessly redundant Calgary 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oyster guitarist 04:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a redundant article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pokémon.Delete Obvious content fork. Blueboy 96 10:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this info already exists in Pokémon. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 13:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point--changing vote to delete.Blueboy 96 14:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XYplorer[edit]

XYplorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable software. Also almost every edit to the article is by the one editor (User:Pollin Fritic), who only makes edits relating to XYplorer. Please see WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. AlistairMcMillan 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not true that almost every edit made to this article is by the same editor. Moreover, a google search shows quite a number of hits for this article as well. The article can also be verified. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a closer look at the edit history. 16 edits by Mr Fritic and everyone else only has either one or two edits.

Also if you take a closer look at the first hundred results of your google search you'll see that almost all of them are links to software directory sites. After a quick glance through them, the only seemingly genuine review I found is on a blog, where the subsequent post is just a large image of a naked woman with big breasts. AlistairMcMillan 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was torn on this one. It does look “Spammy” if that’s a word. Especially with a link to the company’s website advertising the sale of the product. However, the software is listed in Wikipedia’s articles…Comparison of file managers and List of portable software. With that said….Keep. ShoesssS ^Talk03:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that XYplorer was added to "Comparison of file managers" by User:88.138.91.123, and added to "List of Portable software" by User:Surrender10. Both of them have only made XYplorer-related edits. AlistairMcMillan 04:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In reviewing the list I noticed that User:Argento3 majority of contributions were to Dolphin (software) and Comparison of file managers . In addition, User:80.53.230.202 only contributed to RageWork and Comparison of file managers and so on and so on. We delete this article you must go in and delete every other article listed on Wikipedia under these article names. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are you talking about with Argento3? He/She's made numerous contributions to articles that have nothing to do with either Dolphin or file managers in general, unless "Roman helmet", "Make Human" and "Template:Infobox software license" are file managers with really strange names. About RageWorks, yeah that looks like another article/advert that needs to be AFD'd. AlistairMcMillan 06:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are other softwares. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete where exactly is the "significant coverage" from independent sources. Being listed on a bunch of download sites dont really count for notability. Corpx 05:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the hits on Google lead to download sites and blogs. Without reputable sources, software is not notable. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 06:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The purpose of wikipedia is not to accurately describe every single file manager or piece of software in existance. While this seems to be a genuine entry with a few google hits it isn't noteable enough. There are far more prolific, predominant file mangers which already have entries. In itself I wouldn't normally be worried about an article written mainly by one person, but given this case it seems odd that a noteable program would have such minimal input from others, hence I believe it is not sufficiently noteable. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As most of you keep noting the Google Hits, please note WP:GOOGLEHITS, you can't really judge the importance of a company or the value of an article by how many hits on google it gets. Also note WP:BIGNUMBER, you can't say something is notable because of the numbers, one thing could be specifically popular and well-known to a group of people, but that doesn't automatically make it worthwhile in wikipedia --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} but I have to comment on your above remarks. If an individual is “Popular and well know among a group of individuals “; how big does this group have to be before being listed as noteworthy. Five – ten-twenty or just maybe two. If we are going to start putting this as a criteria, I am going to start to nominate every individual player on Soccer – Football – Baseball – National and ect and ect who have articles here at Wikipedia be deleted ShoesssS ^Talk .02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)~[reply]
I know you are probably just trying to make a point, but I think your statement is kind of silly. You really think nominating every single sportsperson is going to do any good? First of all, you would NEVER be able to list them all, as there is just too many for 1 person to do. Second of all, many people would think you are just doing bad faith nominations, and you would probably have your editing privileges revoked (I'd like to see you nominate Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and see what kind of backlash you get). Also, are you trying to compare famous, well known, notable sportsmen/women with a software program created by an individual, that not a lot of people have heard of? Have you even heard of this program before you saw the Afd? Do you use it? Where is all the coverage/reviews on this program? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, I said it doesn't automatically make it worthwhile I never said that all articles were that way, just because something may be popular to a group of people doesn't automatically make it worthwhile. If someone makes an article about a particular game they made up, it may be popular in the whole city or school etc. etc. but just because it's well known in that particular place doesn't mean it's notable, but doesn't mean it's not. You can't inherit notability from the "big number", you can have an article that's notable because of the "big number" but it's not a deal that comes with every article. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at this article, and researched the product. I modified the google search and included the word "review" to the search, and came up with 16 google hits. I found 1 real review of the product, with the other sites just being a link to download the softward, with the same basic summary of the product (which is copied from the developer's website mind you). The original google search basically is all download links, and that's about it. There really isn't any real "coverage" on this product in the mainstream. It's relatively unknown, not really notable. Also, just because it's listed on the "comparison of file managers" and "list of portable software" means nothing to me, and honestly, it means nothing to me WHO did it either, that's irrelevant. I can go into any list, and add any crap I wanted to, and just because I added it to the list doesn't mean it makes whatever I put in there 1) true, or 2) notable. Basicaly the end-all-be-all of this is the program is not notable, and the article should be deleted, so that is where I stand on the issue. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe not at the peak of it's fame, but the freeware version had quite a following. Ace of Risk 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide some reliable sources to establish notability, it would be great. I'll change my view of the article if those are satisfied. Thanks. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the number of google hits isn't a reason to keep an article and Corpx, out of all people should know thatJaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequentis[edit]

Frequentis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm trying to remember why I tagged this as speedy A7...anyway, thanks to Scientizzle for pointing out the mistake. What bothered me was an apparent COI by the author, who's other article (now deleted, I presume) dealt with a similar topic. Whether that's grounds for deletion, I am no longer certain. Shalom ^Hello 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Wikipedia is not an advertising service." I note that the linked article Hannes Bardach is up for speedy AfD as well.[51] --Malcolmxl5 07:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes, it reads like an ad, but they seem pretty notable Corpx 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Corpx. Oyster guitarist 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possibly notable company (Thanks for the 411, Corpx), but NN principal. Bearian 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, quit wasting our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with this. Neil ╦ 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia[edit]

We need an actual consensus on this. We can't give these fools so much attention. They are evil people who want only to troll and attack Wikipedia's users. They even reveal personal information about their vandals and report them to the FBI, which never works, since the FBI have better things to do than deal with this. We should help attack this piece of crap asmuch as possible, and hoepfully remove all rferences and links to the site, including this article. I propose we even blacklist the name "conservapedia", in order that this crap not get a high google ranking.
Don't mistake mme for an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll making a WP:POINT nomination; as my talk page comment proves, I believe ED is an annoying site that raids other sites. The reason I am making this nomination is to save WP from the evils of the most piece of trash I have ever seen.Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First off, there has been three other strong majority consensus' for keeping this article is the previous AFDs, for good reason. The article obviously meets WP:Notability with verification of significant coverage in 41 reliable, independent sources. This site has been covered in news articles all over the U.S. and the world, including the New York Times. Furthermore, I don't like it and "we should attack it" are not valid arguments for deletion. Wikipedia carries a neutral point of view, and doesn't make value judgments of any kind. Being an attack site is not a valid argument for deletion. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT VOTE KEEP!! This site should burn in hell. I want it GONE, and deleting this article is the first step in remvoing this abomination of conservatism from the internet.Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you may need to read about What Wikipedia is not, mainly, that it is not anyone's soapbox. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos reasoning is unconvincing... --Malcolmxl5 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Malcolmx15", I now officially hate you. I don't mean to be a troll, but I HATE anyone who doesn't HATE Conservapedia. Oh and did I mention that CP is the worst site ever made. Even goatse.cx wasn't this BAD... Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel, please refrain from making personal attacks and behaving in an uncivil manner. Wikipedia has a code of conduct. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we report him? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give him a chance to do better. Policy surrounding incivility is outlined in WP:NPA. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is verified in nature and quite notable as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That DOESN'T MATTER. The site is HORRIBLE, that matters. If we dlete the article, this crap may die faster and that will be a GREAT day when it finally gets what it deserves and burns in HELL. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grow up. Disagreeing with the political stance of something is no reason to delete it and the over the top nature of the nominator's language merely draws attention to the paucity of his arguments. Nick mallory 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with its "political stance", I'm a homeschooled American Christian conservative myself. I disagree with the fact that the site isn't even that conservative, and that it is too "family-friendly", it makes stupid legal threats, etc. And, WP users should agree with me. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment we can come to a compromise, the article is kept, but I get to found a club here and advertise it wherever I want. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't deleting this article make us as bad as them? ~ Infrangible 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At leeast WE aren't a menace to free speech. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a great site, but certainly notable and newsworthy. "They are evil people" is not a reason to delete. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this weren't encroaching on "avoid self reference" territory, I would have trouble understanding why this is much of a question. It has 40 solid references and meets WP:WEB with room to spare. Shalom ^Hello 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as bad faith nom and borderline vandalism.H^t/c 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-my criticism stems from the fact that there is nothing I hate nore than public-schooled liberals, and many of the admins, even some of the most prominent admins, are public-schooled liberals. Thus there is public-schooled liberalism, and use of liberal terms such as "homophobia" throughout the wiki. I never liked it, but when I saw the legal threats, I got fed up. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank god for informed consensus decisions. I do not believe Wikipedia was established to publish/promote/list/or other wise circulate articles that are found worthy or are appropriately correct to just a few individuals thinking. My understanding, and the most important one that comes to mind, is that Wikipedia was founded to disseminate information on noteworthy topics to all people regardless of what that information is or who agrees or disagrees with the information. If it is verifiable and it is noteworthy it belongs. No matter who believes otherwise. ShoesssS ^Talk

Speedy Keep - can someone please advise the nominator to please stop wasting the communities time by nominating articles for deletion that qualify for speedy keep? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can these edit conflicts stop wasting my time? Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by means of consensus and withdrawn nominaton. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel DiLorenzo[edit]

Daniel DiLorenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article reads like a self-serving promotion for his practice and company. Notability must be established in other areas than the author’s own mind. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It must be noted that the article has changed its tone and style drastically from when I first nominated this piece for deletion. In this light, I bow my head and say Keep and a job well done toDGG (talk) who orchestrated & facilitated the changes. ShoesssS ^Talk

Delete 198 hits on Yahoo ... doesn't match up with the peacock language. Blueboy 96 00:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Benny Phillips replaced the entire AfD page with the following:

"Keep! If America is truly the land of the free (ha ha), it is imperative that such material is not censored. People in the world today are smart enough to decide for themselves what rings true and what doesn't. Censorship is only for those who have something to hide, ala, nazi regimes."

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just not notable, possible vanispangle-cruft-whatever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. May be marginally notable according to this Google News Archive see [52]The article will need to be reworded. The behaviour of the user above doesn't help things. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Oyster guitarist 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep An inventor of of several innovative technologies for the treatment of neurological disease should be notable in his own right. Moreover, this article should be re-worded as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the reasons listed above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuxtron (talk • contribs)

Keep - prize winner, Google test reveals many hits. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Since when does 198 Ghits mean not-notable? If just one of them is an interview in a national magazine that's enough to be notable. All Lemelson-MIT Prize winners are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He's a prize-winning inventor; definitely notable. The article needs improvement, but that's an argument against deletion, not for it - if we delete it, how will it be improved? Maltrich 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - looks like he's borderline notable, but more reliable sources need to be added, and the article re-written. Haemo 02:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and de-spammify. Montco 03:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Cleanup The article could use a lot of work (NPOV and so forth), but notability is not an issue. He obviously meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). He has been the subject of numerous significant published secondary sources, and has recieved multiple significant recognized awards or honors. As a scientist he meets the criteria, as he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, and has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Calgary 03:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Van Dijck[edit]

Peter Van Dijck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Starting a mailing list or developing some specification no one uses does not make you notable. also, primary contributor is the person who the article is about - User:Petervandijck Misterdiscreet 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Wikipedia is not an advertising service." --Malcolmxl5 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Oyster guitarist 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps Belgian parents should be a little more mindful about what their baby names sound like in other languages. ~ Infrangible 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's no worse than Dick Van Dyke. Oh, and delete as obvious spam. Calgary 04:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with conditions. In addition to reviewing the article, which is spam, I also looked at several articles that Google turned up. A contention for “Notoriety” could be made given some of the hits and references. Likewise, I noticed that no one notified the author about the “Afd”. How about we give him/her a week to rewrite on a more biographical tone and than reconsider whether to keep or not. By the way, I’ll notify the author of the situation. ShoesssS ^Talk 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

people should not be encouraged to edit, let alone create, articles about themselves, per WP:AUTO. also, as courteous as it may be to notify an author, it is not a requirement for AfDs Misterdiscreet 06:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Misterdiscreet..I agree with you! That is why I only gave it a “Weak Keep”. Regarding notifying the author, I found in several other articles under similar circumstances, that once the author was aware of the situation a complete rewrite under Wikipedia guideline was made and the article salvaged. ShoesssS ^Talk

Weak delete unless adequately sourced. Van Dijck appears to have some domain notability as a web architect and author (and even entrepreneur), but sources are not plentiful. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I still do not know why this person is notable.

Feel free to delete, since it seems I shouldn't have written this page :) Petervandijck 06:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - duplicate of Bugsy Siegel (rapper). -- RHaworth 14:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsy siegel(rapper)[edit]

Bugsy siegel(rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article gives no mention of why he is notable, but he may well be. Benefit of doubt = AfD instead of CSD, so here it is! Giggy _U^CP 06:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability (self-confessed unsigned rapper) , created by single-purpose user with the same name. pablo :_{: ... hablo ...} 06:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obvious self-created article - spam/advert Lugnuts 09:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Gotzon[edit]

Jenn Gotzon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Now, I could be completely wrong here, but there are too many inconsistencies with this article. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of actors could investigate further. My concerns are as follows: Firstly, this article was created by User:Isoparm on 5 July 2006; this user has made no other contributions. Secondly, in the Wikipedia articles on the films she is claimed to have starred in - Derailed and Hulk (film) - make no mention of her. Thirdly, her entry at IMDb was written by.....Jenn Gotzon. I have no experience of IMDb, but it appears to me that it is freely editable, and therefore unreliable. Fourthly, using IMDb to follow up some of the films she appears to have been in shows a marked difference with the Wikipedia entries (e.g. Derailed stated to be directed and written by Albert Pedraza whereas Wikipedia says Mikael Håfström and Stuart Beattie . All of this leads me to think that both IMDb and Wikipedia are being used to promote the 'career' of a minor or non-existant actor. Emeraude 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the person does exist, per jenngotzon.com, but this page would probably have to be deleted per CSD G11 (blatant advertising). No real assertion of notability, and IMDb does not count as a reliable source, so therefore this should be deleted. --SunStar Net ^talk 14:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No major roles in IMDB - mostly an extra. How much notability should we give to that award ? Corpx 17:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as per Corpx. We need to see some real cites, perhaps reviews? Bearian 00:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete discounting all the WP:SPA accounts. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CallWeaver[edit]

CallWeaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Product/organization lacks notability per WP:CORP. Citations from voip-info.org are self edited wiki entries. Calltech 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: This project was originally named OpenPBX.org and recently renamed CallWeaver. OpenPBX.org was nominated for deletion and subsequently removed through its own AfD back in December, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX.org. Project was also a significant part of the discussion here as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX by Voicetronix. Calltech 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is strangely reminiscent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship Approach to Systems Development. And Delete as it's not notable. Calgary 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability Corpx 07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Neutral based on the two links given below. However, I'm not sure these are enough to qualify as "significant coverage" Corpx 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The software is well notable. We have ditched other software for this just to get more control and functionality given in CallWeaver. May I ask by what reasons this software project should be deleted? Please do detail this. Rkarlsba 00:01, 10 July 2007 (CEST)

Also note that this project has been mentioned in several articles. A quick google for openpbx.org shows this. The fact that the name CallWeaver is not so widly mentioned, is the short time since the name change. A removal of this article must be considered censorship. Rkarlsba 18:55 10 June 2007 (CEST)

Where is the "significant coverage by independent media" ? Corpx 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google shows 133,000 result when searching for Callweaver

Google hits dont count for notability. Notability must come from reliable sources Corpx 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Session on openpbx.org from @ Etel 2006 (O'reilly) : http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/etel2006/view/e_sess/8270

Paper from the Ottawa Linux Symposium June 2007 : https://ols2006.108.redhat.com/2007/Reprints/komkoff-Reprint.pdf

Comment, why follow a prod with an AFD an hour later? --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See further comment added above in the nomination. Article was nominated for speedy delete on 8 July 2007, removed, and subsequently reinstated that same day with a prod. Calltech 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I deleted but the author asked nicely for a chance to do something within the prod period, and I let him. This is somewhat vindictive, Calltech. -- Y not? 13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not vindictive - the article about this organization failed to meet WP:CORP back in Dec 2006 under one name and now the same organization is being added again under a new one. It still fails the notability requirement. Calltech 02:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Callweaver is not an "org". Can you re-instate your last comment to make sense to anyone, even when he is not completely familiar with WP terminology? Otherwise i have to wonder wether you had some bias. --194.150.191.251 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — 194.150.191.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Calltech, you seem rather eager and biased to get rid of the CallWeaver page. Just give it a chance. Mm 202 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the list of contributors to the asterisk entry.

Mm 202 - please argue the merits of keeping or removing this article and do not make personal judgements about another user. Calltech 02:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong here. Personal Judgements can be made if some user is working out of bias. If this is a callweaver- vs asterisk-user discussion where asterisk users want to have Callweaver out, while vice versa wants in; and the only user not being involved in the overall topic saying to give it chance, this is probably the time to give it a chance. So, please answer this simple question: are you biased? --194.150.191.251 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — 194.150.191.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep give it a break, give it a chance. There are rather a lot of ghits too, as pointed out by an anon here. Giggy _U^CP 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits dont establish notability Corpx 02:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This project has several distinct features from the project it was forked from and there is active development. I would like to know WHAT makes this article qualified for deletion? Mikaelbj 07:46, 12 July 2007 (CEST) — Mikaelbj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Does this mean that since I have contributed to Wikipedia anonymously in the past I am less credible?

Strong keep There is a very active user base, an active SVN, an active website, and an active IRC channel. This project is an OPENSOURCE project of merit and has addressed major issues with the original code base. Please answer what makes this article suitable for deletion. Wasim Baig 17:58, 12 July 2007 (PKST) — Wasimbaig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ok - I registered so I can sign my comments on here. Feel free to tag me as a "single purpose account" if that is your wish - but note that I have contributed anonymously to articles in the past. The question of notability here is difficult - as if you ask anybody involved in open source telephony they will nearly all know what Callweaver is. Other projects such as Asterisk, Freeswitch, etc have entries on wikipedia and in reality they are known in just the same circles that Callweaver is. Terrymr 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What's strange about these "Single purpose accounts" are that several of them have names go a long way back in the CallWeaver/OpenPBX.Org/Asterisk days, some of them for years. It wouldn't surprise me if Wasim above can be traced to an IP in Lahore, Pakistan, or that Mikael is tranced to Norway (or perhaps France if he's still on vacation). I'd like to see the _real_ reason here, why someone wants CallWeaver out of Wikipedia. I thought censorship wasn't ment to be part of such an organisation... RoyK 18:55, 12. July 2007 (CEST) Note to closer: Rkarlsba (talk · contribs · logs) actually made this post at 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[53]; there is no user named RoyK (talk · contribs · logs). Rkarlsba (talk · contribs · logs) also posted in this AfD, giving the appearance that two separate individuals (RoyK and Rkarlsba) are participating in this AfD while the participation is from only one individual. Also, Rkarlsba (talk · contribs · logs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since the whole deletion debate seems to be asterisk-vs-callweaver(openpbx) bias it should be noted that, unlike asterisk, callweaver has working T38 Support: that means faxing via VoiP does work. Since people using voip will need that feature, this should be higlighted by a neutral medium like WP. I consider this a very highlighting feature. (non-native english speaker --194.150.191.251 09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ) Terrymr — 194.150.191.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Callweaver is just as notable as Asterisk (infact it has significantly improved features since it is not subject to the politics of a maintaining company with a vested interest). At the very least the Asterisk and Callweaver articles should be merged rather than removing all information about Callweaver. -- FireFury 13:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - If callweaver doesn't merit it's own page then it should be merged with the asterisk entry - howver the "Asterisk lobby" will resist this. Terrymr 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:COI issues here - After checking the CallWeaver home page, many of the posters here have a vested interest in this project and have not declared it, thus violating WP's conflict of interest guidelines. (RoyK and Rkarlsba are one and the same user and is listed as a member (or head) of the CallWeaver Development Team on the project home page). User name Mm 202, the creator of this article, also appears on the CallWeaver wiki page as a contributor to its FAQ. Using the same or similar names as listed on the Callweaver project page, these users are affiliated with this article's project. Most of the postings here are by users whose only contribution are to this article or to this discussion, as noted by Corpx. The discussion has nothing to do with CallWeaver vs Asterisk. It has everything to do with the WP:CORP, specifically notability. The article reads like an endorsement or promotion of CallWeaver which is against WP guidelines, WP:NOT. A statement that project X is better than Y or is the Best at anything, and then citing a self edited wiki (voip-info.org) entry that was created by a member of CallWeaver smacks of promotion. Issues raised regarding censorship and bias are diversions from the issue at hand. These are similar tactics used here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX by Voicetronix during the OpenPBX AfD discussions. There, a user even went further, suggesting Wikipedia would get sued if his article was removed. In spite of these claims, both OpenPBX and OpenPBX.org failed to survive their corresponding AfD's. I have NO interest in Asterisk or other similar project. My edits on the Asterisk article are limited to removing spam links, which I've done on hundreds of other articles in which I have no vested interest. I have had OpenPBX on my watch list ever since the AfDs listed above. Calltech 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calltech, I do not have a vested interest in CallWeaver. I used to use Asterisk and stumbled upon CW and switched to using it because it was better in some ways than Asterisk. I am just an end-user. I want the article to stay on here because I believe that other people can benefit from it. As for my contributions to the CallWeaver wiki, all I did was add a link to the Wikipedia CallWeaver page (the page in question). If it says otherwise, I'd like to see it. Mm 202 15:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calltech, Y accused you of vidinictiveness earlier in this discussion - now you pop up making COI claims against the contributors to this discussion - you have a history of removing references to other open source telephony projects from the Asterisk page many of which were relevant links and not spam. Now this may just be coincidence and I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.-- Terrymr 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If you looked closely, you will also see that I have removed Asterisk links from other articles where it appeared they were simply promoting themselves there also. I cannot speak for Y, but did respond to his comment directly. He very likely was not aware that CallWeaver is a direct descendent of OpenPBX.org, which was removed by an AfD. I participated in the original OpenPBX AfD discussion (along with dozens of others). There are several ways he could have reverted his initial speedy deletion - he chose one way and I chose another which opens it up for more participation by openly publishing the AfD. Calltech 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me how wikipedia is improved by removing Callweaver - your posts above suggest you are on a mission to keep callweaver out of WP. The very nature of open source projects is that users are encouraged to contribute to the project in any way they can, either by improving the software or its documentation, it therefore follows that you would see the names of people who are aware of Callweaver among its contributors. If anybody who makes a contribution to a project is automatically COI'd then open source would have very little representation at WP. -- Terrymr 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:COI is very clear regarding adding articles about any organization or project that you are affiliated to ensure that it meets one of its cornerstones - Neutrality. WP also discourages participation in AfD discussions if you are affiliated with (or a competitor to) that organization. That doesn't mean you can't - it only means you should DISCLOSE such affiliation or risk losing credibility later. If you also read WP:NOT, WP is NOT a forum for promoting a business, website or project. The article as written appears like an advertisement for CallWeaver. There are hundreds of thousands of great organizations and projects today which do not meet WP:CORP standards for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Calltech 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember reading something about not simply citing WP policy as proof that you're right in a discussion - I'd like to see a discussion on the merits of keeping/removing the article or what can be done to improve it, not simple citations of apparently rigid rules. Terrymr 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Terrymr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. In the interests of disclosure : my interest in this project and this article is as a consumer of VOIP software - I participate in use and testing of a number of VOIP projects. I am not an owner of any organization which produces VOIP software. Terrymr 17:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, this is a non-notable corporation. Sala Skan 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a corporation but an opensource PBX package - it is not produced by a corporation. Terrymr 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corporation, project, whatever, it's still non-notable. Sala Skan 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this sums up the discussion - people who are wilfully ignorant of the subject matter at hand are making the call on whether the project is notable or not. Terrymr 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not addressing whether the subject is notable as in fame or importance, they are addressing whether the subject is Wikipedia notable as in previously written, independent and verifiable facts. Has CallWeaver even been mentioned in a newpaper article or a book? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above for media links to OpenPBX.Org, which was the former name of the project RoyK 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: please discount the numerous SPAs who have participated in this discussion. Sala Skan 11:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - lets just ignore anybody with a contrary opinion to while we're at it. I've seen no real discussion from the pro delete posters other than rote recitation of policies - this is probably due to a lack of knowledge in the subject area of this article. Tagging of SPA's is just being used as a method to discount dissenting opinions without engaging them on the merits - truth is I had no reason to register a WP account until we were asked to sign our contributions to the discussion. I was able to make edits to articles without registering in the past. Terrymr 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer comments made above that the article reads like an advertisement : the only obviously self promotional statement is this one "allWeaver has emerged as the undisputed leader in T.38 support.[1] CallWeaver has mature support for both T.38 passthrough and T.38 termination." which could probably be reworded to make the point in a better way. Certainly T.38 support is viewed as an essential function by the people driving this project. While the article may seem heavy on acronyms and jargon this is unavoidable given the subject and is certainly understandable by the technical audience who would find this project interesting. It would be redundant to seek to define all of the terms used within the article itself. Terrymr 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispe ring 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously this article is of great importance to so many people that they are compelled to register just to vote to keep. From what I can tell this is the third AfD, it really should be gone by now. Darrenhusted 12:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't even a discussion under the openpbx.org Afd - with the name change in the pipeline there wasn't much point Terrymr 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. CallWeaver has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no verifiable artice can be written on the topic. Thus, CallWeaver is not Wikipedia notable. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that something can be presumed notable if it has generated signigicant press coverage ... however the language you quote above does not imply as you say that something must be presumed non-notable absent the press coverage. Terrymr 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. In evidence: lwn.net, one of the most comprehensive news sources for the free software community, has mentioned CallWeaver exactly once, and that was merely an announcement of the name change. Slashdot has never mentioned it at all. The burden is on the CallWeaver partisans to establish notability, and thus far they have not done so. When LWN or Linux Magazine or someone publishes an article about your project, you're notable and you can bring your article back. Tualha (Talk) 14:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This must be a first - claiming slashdot & lwn.net are the arbiters of notability - do they even publish original content ? Terrymr 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LWN publishes mostly original content. Slashdot usually doesn't. My point was that, if the project is as notable as you claim, one would expect these very

comprehensive technology sites, which focus on free software, to have said more about it. Tualha (Talk) 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: it occurred to me I should search for references to OpenPBX as well, since the name change is recent. That also came up empty. Tualha (Talk) 15:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section, between the lines, is all one posting (not by me). Tualha (Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/03/19/12FEopenvoip_1.html

http://www.vonmag-digital.com/vonmag/200512/?pg=23

http://www.vonmag-digital.com/vonmag/200703/?pg=62

http://vonmag.com/editorial/columnist/the-edge-centric.html

http://www.networkworld.com/supp/2007/ndc1/021907-ndc-best-of-open-source-tools.html?page=3

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blog/15

Things that can be verified from non-callweaver sources :
Callweaver was forked from the asterisk 1.2 code base

While not supported by digium it works with digium hardware

Sangoma produces a wide range of hardware which works with callweaver (current news.google.com hits)

David sugar refers to it as the excellent community fork of asterisk. (David sugar is not some unknown, he maintains the longest running open source telephony project)

So can we at least talk about leaving intact a stub article for others to build on as more sources become available ?Terrymr 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section, between the lines, is all one posting (by me). Tualha (Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's examine these sources:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/03/19/12FEopenvoip_1.html
Barely mentions OpenPBX.

http://www.vonmag-digital.com/vonmag/200512/?pg=23
A brief mention, basically saying "it's not there yet".

http://www.vonmag-digital.com/vonmag/200703/?pg=62
Only names it in a list of other such projects.

http://vonmag.com/editorial/columnist/the-edge-centric.html
Same as previous article.

http://www.networkworld.com/supp/2007/ndc1/021907-ndc-best-of-open-source-tools.html?page=3
This article is about GNU Telephony and mentions OpenPBX only to say that GNU Telephony works with it.

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blog/15
David Sugar's blog.

If these are the best you can do for sources, you prove my point. Offhand mentions of the project do not make it notable. Tualha (Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sum of the various sources that have been listed here is a significant enough level of coverage for this one. JulesH 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (reiterating what I said before this was relisted): Callweaver is just as notable as Asterisk (infact it has significantly improved features since it is not subject to the politics of a maintaining company with a vested interest). At the very least the Asterisk and Callweaver articles should be merged rather than removing all information about Callweaver. Additionally, I have yet to see anyone explain why deleting this useful information improves Wikipedia - All our aims should be about improving Wikipedia, not removing articles for the sake of removing them. -- FireFury 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments - from a completeness standpoint it seems bizarre to have an article about asterisk without one about callweaver - the purpose of the callweaver project was to address some of the issues that people perceived with asterisk - including the inability to include other GPL code in asterisk and the delays in getting bugfixes comitted to the codebase. Terrymr 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calltech who started the process to delete this article also proposed freeswitch (another open source phone project) for speedy deletion on 7/3/07 on the ground that : "It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article." Having been accused of being partisan in the current discussion myself, I have to wonder what is going on here. Terrymr 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on topic, here, Terrymr. Your diversionary tactics are simply distracting from the issue of whether CallWeaver meets WP guidelines as a notable organization. As a user whose only contribution to WP has been an advocate for this article, you are hardly in a position to throw stones at others. Calltech 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier in the discussion, I have made contributions in to articles in the past but saw no need to register until this discussion came along and entries were made asking users to sign their comments. But I accept that I will be viewed as having shown up here simply to advocate for this article - and I've been trying to stiumlate a reasonable debate. You are the one claiming to be neutral.

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googlized World[edit]

Neologism, original research, no external sources, and admitted conflict of interest on talk page by editor who coined the term. ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems more to attempt to introduce the term than to attempt to assert notability or widespread usage. Calgary 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the term seems at odds to introduce the term as much as describe it (neologism), it also is true that google generation and similar terms have often been used over the last few years to describe in particular young people. Tony Blair used the term in a famous 'soundbite'. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing citations are the first step... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete General WP:NOT - unreferenced original research. Shalom ^Hello 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Scouser[edit]

Plastic Scouser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This could well be original research, or unsubstantiated. Redundant with British regional slurs, although not a speedy deletion candidate. SunStar Net ^talk 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO for lack of sources about the term, and not just use it Corpx 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - replicates British regional slurs. Bigdaddy1981 00:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political Google bombs[edit]

Consensus was reached to delete List of Google Bombs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Google Bombs), so it stands to reason that this list should also be removed. . ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and per decision reached here. meshach 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The decision in the antecedent AFD was correct, and the same rationale - mainly WP:NOR - applies here. Shalom ^Hello 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of chess[edit]

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual. This is all this article is. A recreation of the rules of the game, the title really says it all. WP:ILIKEIT are not valid reasons for keeping this article. If this article is ever meant to be no more than a simple copy of the rules please edit it accordingly, otherwise it has no place on wikipedia. Also keep in mind its a debate not a vote. Crossmr 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn based on recent edits and willingness of some editors to make this article more encyclopedic and not just an instruction manual on how to play chess. Further comments on content will be made on the article's talk page.--Crossmr 16:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:NOT specifically refers to "video game guides". Guide is not the same as rules. This is a legitimate subarticle of the overlong Chess; how could you describe the game without including the rules? In fact, the entire movement section from that article should be placed here as well (I'll do that if when this article survives). Clarityfiend 16:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Video game or chess game, its the same thing. Whether its the rules of pong or the rules of chess, the article is the same. You can describe chess without creating a full article which is essentially just its rules. WP:NOT also refers to instruction manuals. This is an instruction manual on how to play chess. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rules_of_Settlers_of_Catan See this for previous precedent on a non-video game rules being removed. As far as describing the game without including the rules, we have a template which can be used to link to wikibooks indicating the the rules can be found there for further reading.--Crossmr 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your definition of instruction manual differs significantly from mine, and from the contributors to Rules of Go, the rules sections of Backgammon, Checkers, etc. etc. Clarityfiend 17:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT the existence of other articles is not justification for keeping this one. Only that their existence should be looked at.--Crossmr 17:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed those other articles out to show that your's is a minority interpretation. Clarityfiend 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Simplified baseball rules, baseball rules and probably many others. Bubba73 (talk), 00:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is five years old! If there was a problem with the article don't you think it would have gone by now? Incredibly detailed, far too long to merge into the parent article, and Wikipedia is not paper. —Xezbeth 17:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The age of the article is immaterial. Do you have a reason that meets policy for why it should be kept? It currently violates policy.--Crossmr 17:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAPER WP:BASH. If a policy gets these articles deleted then that policy is in a very sorry state. —Xezbeth 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I think the fact that we're not in the business of providing instruction manuals supersedes the fact that its not a paper encyclopedia. In fact the section you quote clearly states This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines. You don't get to ignore other content policies, including the fact that we're not an instruction manual.--Crossmr 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except this article is not an instruction manual. Think of it as a section of the chess article describing the rules (as you'd expect on any board game article, especially one as complex as chess). Your interpretation of policy is not shared by everyone, so it doesn't invalidate my opinion in the slightest. —Xezbeth 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Describing the rules is giving instruction on how to play, hence its an instruction manual. This isn't part of a larger article, its an article named and dedicated solely to providing the rules.--Crossmr 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is not whether this article violates WP:NOT, but your broad interpretation of what constitutes an instruction manual. By your reasoning, we should gut the Legislative procedure section of United States Congress, because it gives "instructions" too. Clarityfiend 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article isn't purely an instructional manual. This article is. Start to finish its solely about the mechanics one would go through to play this game, right from how to pick who gets which side to the end of the game. Though honestly there could be some clean up in that article because I can see the legislative procedure section dipping in to speculation and original research in a couple spots. In the case of this article it is clearly teaching someone how to play the game.--Crossmr 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying that it would be ok if it were merged into the main Chess article, because then it wouldn't be "purely an instruction manual". That's not a valid Afd reason. Either the material is encyclopedic or it's not. If rules for chess should go, so should rules for Congress, baseball, football, golf... IMO, you're confusing a description with instructions. Clarityfiend 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don´t care about rules of English Wikipedia and my experience is that they are often wrong (especially voting should be voting, not consultant discussion). I see good article and it is good complement to article chess. --Dezidor 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So then you haven't provided reasoning under policy and guideline for why this should be kept?--Crossmr 17:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article should be kept because: 1. I it is well written article. 2. It is good complement to article chess. Merge it isn´t good idea and article "chess" would be without this complement worse than now. 3. It is not guideline, but article about rules of very famous play. --Dezidor 17:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those reasons supersede WP:NOT. I never suggest merge, but transwiki to wikibooks. That is the purpose of that site, and why we have a template to add to articles to indicate there is content on that site related to this article.--Crossmr 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The third reason is according your policy, because it proves that it isn´t guideline. We have also article about many rules (such as parts of criminal law). It isn´t guideline, but article about notable rules. --Dezidor 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, thats your opinion, its not proof. The way it reads to me is it that its an instruction manual on how to play the game from setup to finish, including on how to start the game, in which flipping a coin certainly isn't a notable or unique method to do so. So really that's evidence against your opinion stating that its about notable rules.--Crossmr 17:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats your personal opinion. --Dezidor 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some evidence that flipping a coin is a notable or unique way to start a game of chess? If not, that simple little sentence completely invalidates your argument that this is about notable rules of chess.--Crossmr 19:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. While this is a notable topic, notability cannot supersede WP:NOT. WP:NOT prohibits several notable items Corpx 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument for chess strategy. It would be a lot easier if these were grouped together Calgary 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither that article nor this article are encyclopedic entries on the history of the rules, strategy or tactics. They're simple instructions guides on how to play the game, some tactics and strategies to use. If they were history articles on how the those things have changed over the years that would be a different story (and not in violation of policy).--Crossmr 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See response on chess strategy. Calgary 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Incredibly important, covered in every encyclopedia I have ever had a copy of, so if WP:NOT says it shouldn't be covered, WP:NOT is broken. JulesH 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out, notability does not supersede WP:NOT.--Crossmr 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. I agree with the others who have posted as to why this does not belong. This is an Encyclopedia and any information can be put under Chess, can it not? NobutoraTakeda 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [54][reply]
Rules of chess is a subarticle of chess, which was written in summary style - that's why it's a separate article. youngvalter 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Article size#Technical issues. The main article is more than twice the recommended max. size. In such cases, subarticles are encouraged. Clarityfiend 23:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the obvious answer is that the page is too long because it includes a lot of things that don't belong in an encyclopedia. If the rules of a game need its own page, then maybe both pages need to be deleted and started from scratch. NobutoraTakeda 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW USER ALERT - this user's first-ever edit was 18 hours before this one, and has engaged in only deletion matters. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New user alert? Since when are people not allowed to contribute? And only engaged in deletion matters? I have clicked random article over and over many times and made edits just during the day that I made this name. Only registered users can discuss in deletion matters. Have you not read BITE? You are being very condesending. NobutoraTakeda 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW USER ALERT COMMENT In fact, this "new" user first ever post was an AfD! It's nice to see who is supporting this AfD. KP Botany 07:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I made a name doesn't mean anything. People could have a name for over 5 years and not have a clue. The fact that you made a comment like that on "new user alert" shows that I have more to contribute to AfD by arguing on important points than you do by just filling the discussion with off topic nonsense. NobutoraTakeda 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though this is a notable topic it violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. Oyster guitarist 21:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, misunderstanding of WP:NOT#GUIDE is at work here. I happen to be an amateur expert at chess (see my userpage), and I can tell you that every major general-interest encyclopedia, including Britannica, covers the rules of chess in its article about chess. Surely we don't wish to add to the WP:MISSING list? Furthermore, the history of the rules of chess is a fascinating topic, one which I could devote some time to developing if the muse strikes me. The concept of "Wikipedia is not a game guide" does not apply to the most basic rules of the most notable games on planet earth. I can't say it any more strongly than that. Shalom ^Hello 22:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At which I could answer that a misunderstanding of AfD with your comment of "speedy keep". With other delete comments, speedy keep wouldn't be applicable even if it were accepted policy. Gameguide applies more to strategy and tactics. Instruction manual applies directly here, and you'll forgive me if I missed the footnote which said "everything but chess".--Crossmr 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, "in its article about chess". Your vote should be merge into the article about chess, not keep, if your rationale is what you believe in. NobutoraTakeda 22:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not construct articles in the same way paper encyclopedias do all the time, for one thing although we are not a paper encyclopedia, we do get performance trouble if articles get too long. In a paper encyclopedia the editors handle very long topics by devoting more pages to it and add a lot of headings, and don't worry that much about article length. You will find that a paper encyclopedias article on the United States is far longer than Wikipedia's article. For instance the Brittannica Macropedia has merged all the content on each US State into their main United States article, while Wikipedia has articles on each state instead. On Wikipedia we handle very lengthy topics, such as chess, by spinning out important aspects, pretty much for technical and readability reasons. While a paper encyclopedia handles the rules of chess as a separate section in an already lengthy chess article, Wikipedia, which need to keep reasonable limits on article length for reasonable download times, prefer several shorter articles with the main article covering the broad overview only. Shalom said keep, means keep, and is perfectly reasonable when he says keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep or possibly merge Extremely encyclopaedic subject, I'd be shocked if even a paper encyclopaedia didn't have at least a basic overview of the rules and strategies of chess. If WP:NOT implies that it shouldn't be here then I think this is a clear case where we should Ignore All Rules. It's not some here today, gone tomorrow video game - it's chess! Iain99 22:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I brought up previously, wouldn't this be best served on a page about Chess as oppose to its own article? I'm sure that Brittannica keeps the two together. NobutoraTakeda 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a rules section in Chess. I think this information on its own is game-guide-ish material. Corpx 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle yes, it should be in the chess article. In practice however, that article is already on the long side, so keeping a very basic summary there and spinning off the bulk into its own sub-article is a valid thing to do. Britannica would, of course, group all chess topics together into a single big article; it is however able to devote twenty pages or more to a single topic, whereas Wikipedia has practical limits imposed on its page sizes by dial-up speeds, so splitting large topics up into several sub-articles is SOP. Regarding all the chess pages as being essentially subsections of one super-article, the reason for having a rules section becomes clear - you can't use terms like castling or en passant in more specialised pages unless you have already defined the terms elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. Iain99 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on further reflection, I think a case could be made that there's too much overlap between this article and the rules section in the main chess article. Either the rules section in the main article should be stubbed further, or else the extra content in this one (except the Pop Culture section, which is trivia and should just go) should be added to the main article and the Rules of chess page be left as a redirect to that. I don't have a strong opinion on which is best - I'm happy enough to leave that to the regular editors of those articles, and merging and redirecting wouldn't actually require an AfD. Iain99 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless you want to delete Laws of the Game and all its associated articles, as well as any rule-related articles of any other sport. Rules aren't instructions; if they are, we may as well delete everything on list of legal topics. youngvalter 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess is not a sport. Besides, almost every "game" out there has rules. An encyclopedia shouldnt be a gameguide listing all the rules for every RPG, board game, card game etc.... Corpx 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't Wikipedia list rules for every game on Earth? Are you implying that because chess isn't a sport, there's no need to explain what its rules are? And again, a list of rules is completely different from an instruction manual or "gameguide". youngvalter 23:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because wikipedia is not a game guide or instruction manual. Paper or not, the article violates policy. We have rules for inclusion and this does not meet them. If there are articles like rules of football then they need to be removed.--Crossmr 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate Laws of the Game for deletion. And since you think rules are instruction, nominate everything on list of legal topics for deletion as well - laws are rules, aren't they? And gosh, we wouldn't want Wikipedia to be a guide to life or society, would we? youngvalter 23:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does "game guide" apply to legal topics? Corpx 23:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that United States Constitution, for example, tells you what rules you have to obey as a citizen of that country. It doesn't tell you how to be an American. In the same way, rules of chess tells you how what rules you have to follow when you play this game; it doesn't tell you how to play chess, and therefore is not a game guide or instruction manual. youngvalter 23:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing this article right now. You may wish to read WP:CIVIL before continuing to participate. As I already pointed out more than once, the existence of other articles doesn't justify the existence of this article.--Crossmr 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of (Many) other articles like this may not automatically justify the existence of this article, but it implies the consensus is for rather than against. While we're on the subject of consensus, it seems as though you (Crossmr) are the only one supporting deletion. Given the vast number of comments you've left, that effort could have been directed towards improving an article that's almost certainly not going to be deleted.

I see several other individuals who support deletion. This is a debate, not a vote. I'm free to discuss points raised by others.--Crossmr 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the rules for chess, why don't you add it to the chess page? Doesn't that seem reasonable enough? You don't need to make a page for every subtopic you know. NobutoraTakeda 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is written in Summary Style, as recomended, for one reason. Bubba73 (talk), 02:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is absolutly essential. I see no valid rationale for deleting it. Bubba73 (talk), 23:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Although it may technically breach the technical definition of the guideline WP:NOT#GUIDE, it is ludicrously notable and as such well worth keeping. Although, yes, a lot of topics are notable but are not valid because of other rules, I think the rules of chess are worth improving rather than simply deleting. The page on 50 Move Rule contains history, changes, explanation and famous examples of the rule... Far more encyclopedic than a game-guide. Given the importance of this article and the ease with which it could be made to pass WP:NOT#GUIDE, deletion seems like a farce to me.Simondrake 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are the second person who acknowledges that it does violate policy but feel it should be kept? If you think the article can be made to pass policy, I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination, but someone would have to demonstrate that by editing accordingly.--Crossmr 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. youngvalter makes an excellent point. Rules do not teach a player how to play a particular game - they simply define the construct in which a player must exist. (I totally stole that from the Matrix). If an encyclopedia is a reference tool, then this article is exactly what is needed. the_undertow ^talk 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are an instruction manual on how to play chess. What pieces can move where, how they can move, who moves, etc and even goes so far as to give suggestions on how you can decide who plays white. We have a site to host this material and templates to use for doing so (in fact wikibooks already has a chess section). Whats the aversion to putting this article in the place it belongs?--Crossmr 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't tell you how to chose who plays white - it describes how it is commonly done. Bubba73 (talk), 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we've written in it in such a way as to avoid the use of "you" doesn't make it any less of an instruction manual.--Crossmr 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it? A list of instructions in the form: "You walk up to the lift. You press the Call button. You wait for the doors to open. You go inside. You press the button of the desired floor. You wait while the lift moves. You exit the lift when the doors open again" is clearly a guide instructing you on how to use a lift. The section: "Lifts are called by pressing the call button, inside the lift are several buttons that direct it to different floors" describes the same functionality of lift buttons but in a descriptive manner, not an instructive manner.193.128.87.36 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Rules of Chess can be more than a list of the rules of the game, it can be an encyclopedic history of their development. There is much too much information to be contained in a single article on Chess, which already maxes out at 77 kilobytes. As a featured article, you can’t dump the relevant information into it. The relevant notice from WP:NOT is Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This page does not advise or instruct, but explains. You would gain nothing by deleting this article, for Wikipedia deserves some sort of article on the subject. It’s a convenient categorization, overview, and analysis for all the topics and pages about particular rules. Wikipedia would not be complete without a page for the rules of Chess. –Sarregouset (Talk) 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is more that is relevant there, This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, a rule book is an instruction manual. Its how to play the game.--Crossmr 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for some reason (slow dial up lines? old browsers that truncate?) the powers that be at WP don't like long articles; if we had didn't have that to run up against, I'd say merge with Chess, but we seem to have that limit and hacking off rules, strategy, and tactics is as efficient a way of dealing with that as any I could come up with. Carlossuarez46 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But shouldn't something as essential to understanding Chess like the rules be combined? Also, there are some redundencies between the pages and I think much of the page size comes from the huge picture files that aren't necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Rules Couldn't there be just a chance that there is a lot of unnecessary content in there and the other page? NobutoraTakeda 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to an image adds very little to the size of an article's file - just a few bytes. Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just commenting about dialup. Even if its a link on the page source, it comes up as a heavy duty image when someone loads the page. You have to take that into consideration because not everyone is blessed with 100 gigs per second download speed. Heh. NobutoraTakeda 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a topic that is covered extensively in other encyclopedias and this article does not appear to be the spot to invoke a wikipedia policy that has flaws. --Stormbay 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. Also the article is extremely notable. Chess is a complicated game and its rules should have their own page. I would also like to see more history of the rules in the pageFrank Anchor 03:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that most pc games are 100x more complicated. Corpx

IAR right back. IAR can't be invoked to ignore policy. Nor is it meant to be used in debate. Only as a concept to edit by.--Crossmr 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of the rules described by IAR is that if something improves the quality, scope, tone and content of wikipedia without detracting from it (As would be the case in non-notable articles like one about my cat, it might improve the scope of wikipedia since it includes details about my cat, but it is detrimental to the content since it's not notable. Also, biographies of major porn stars may be notable but are excluded because the damage the tone). I fail to see how an article on the rules of chess can harm wikipedia. Also take another look at the article, several people have been improving it so it is now more than just the rules, history and other sections have expanded the scope beyond anything that could be considered 'just a game guide', therefore your original complaint is sort of out-of-date....193.128.87.36 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case of Ignore All Misinterpretations of Rules. Bubba73 (talk), 14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Keep, Keep deep breath...1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10 WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. Per Shalom, per Sarregouset. I simply can't fathom how anybody can believe that deleting this article would improve the encyclopedia. If we have to delete either Rules of chess or WP:NOT then we need to delete WP:NOT. --JayHenry 04:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to discuss a policy change you may wish to do so on the relevant talk page. The fact is, this article is purely a copy of the rules with no other content.--Crossmr 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that does not in and of itself warrant a deletion. Listing the rules of a game is not always tantamount to an instruction guide. I go into this more on the deletion page for Chess strategy, but in a nutshell my position is that the rules of a sport (or chess, which is sanctioned in a manner similar to a sport, and is of reasonable interest to someone who is not seeking to play the game themselves (like a sport)) are encyclopedic when they appeal to a significant group of people who seek to be informed about the subject, even if they are not themselves seeking to learn how to play the game. Also, keep in mind that notability does play a role, because the fact that chess is arguably the most well-recognized and firmly established competitive game in history supports the notion that the rules/mechanics would be of interest even to those who do not wish to play the game. Also, take note that Wikipedia recognizes a game guide or a strategy guide as referring specifically to video games. And in general, try to remember that it's a bad idea to favor the words of Wikipedia policy over the spirit of Wikipedia policy. Saying that an argticle should be deleted simply because the rules say such and such, then using that argument to dismiss common sense is, as I may have said before, hopelessly pedantic. Calgary 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking about deleting WP:NOT. The policy is perfectly fine, you just have to read it a bit more carefully and consider both the letter and the spirit. First, what about WP:NOT#BURO? When the policies lead to a result that would be silly -- deleting a topic covered in every encyclopedia for example -- we do the right thing instead of blindly following the rules into a ditch. Second, and importantly, the content of this article simply does not fit WP:NOT#GUIDE as many above have elegantly argued. This is chess, it is not Command and Conquer: Red Alert. Third, this was created per WP:MOS as part of an WP:FA. Even if you disagree with the interpretation of all the people above who have argued keep, please look at what WP:IAR says:
When you edit Wikipedia:

* Improve and maintain content.

* Build and follow consensus.

* Use common sense.

If the rules prevent any of this, ignore them.

This nomination is proposing to dismantle the structure of a featured article. Nominations that damage featured articles on extremely encyclopedic, verifiable, notable, etc. topics, are borderline WP:POINT violations. --JayHenry 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So because somebody approved Chess to be a FA, all subarticles on the topic that violate policy get a free pass? Corpx 05:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's a very accurate summary of everything that JayHenry just said. No, sorry, I'm being completely sarcastic. I think he did a pretty good job of describing all of the other reasons this article should be kept. Perhaps they might answer your question. Calgary 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you can show me where in the policy it says if the subject is really notable, we can have all kinds of policy violating articles about it? I didn't think so. While that is an exception you'd like to make. Its not afforded in the policy. IAR doesn't apply here, because wikibooks already has this content, and we have a template specifically for its use. There is nothing wrong with putting the content in the place it belongs.--Crossmr 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just didnt like the assertion that FA's subsections were untouchable because, well they were FA's subsections. I also dont see why chess game guides are allowed, when one entailing the rules for a "Rules of Counter-Strike" wouldnt be allowed. There are plenty of rules for any game that's played competitively (at a "pro" level). Corpx 05:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one is different from the other two, because it should contain more discussion on the history and changes in the rules of chess and the reasons behind certain rules, and the applicability and differences in tournament play. However, since you used the same arguments on the other two, I have no sympathy. This is simply wasting time. KP Botany 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "Rules of chess" article is allowed for the same reason that we have articles for National Hockey League rules and American football rules and Rules of basketball (although the basketball one is mainly historical). An article for the rules of a sport that has documented widespread interest and is played at a professional level would not be automatically elligible for deletion under WP:NOT#GUIDE. Now, chess is not a sport, but it is sanctioned in a manner similar to that of a sport, has a widespread interest, is played competitively on both an amateur and professional level, and is generally held in high regard as a form of professional competition. Generally speaking, most people wouldn't regard the champion of a video game tournament as being anywhere near as esteemed as being the World Chess Champion, nor would such a champion be as widely recognizeable. Who knows, maybe one day video games will be regarded in a manner similar to that of a sport, but that is a question about what society should accept rather than what wikipedia should accept. Either way, as it currently stands, chess has honors and implications that video games generally do not, meaning that from an encyclopedic standpoint chess and video games should not be judged according to the same standard. Calgary 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I beg to differ on that the statement about video game champions. With the advent of E-Sports and leagues like Cyberathlete Professional League and Championship Gaming Series, I think much more media attention and money is poured into this. Esteem is subjective, and you're entitled to your opinion on that. Anyway, I'm fine with this article, but unfortunately that's not the case for the other two that were speedily closed. Corpx 06:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key word here is longevity. Only time will tell. Calgary 06:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedly Keep This user does not appear to understand that there are encyclopedia articles about chess strategy and rules and tactics, just like there are books about these, and there are books that are guides to do these. I would like an administrator to step in and put a stop to this--it is serving no purpose whatsoever, other than wasting the time of Wikipedia editors. KP Botany 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability was not what was questioned here. Corpx 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but frankly the nominator admits in the nominating post that this article could be a keeper if someone would edit it. This is just trying to prod people to edit an article--why don't everyone edit articles tehy want on thjeir own time schedule instead of nominating them for deletion as a ruse for getting them edited? Or voting for their deletion, I think, in your case. This is silly, and this isn't what AfD is about: I'm nominating this because it needs edited. KP Botany 06:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all the rules are removed, than yes. I didn't mean that a little history should just be added to the article. All of the rules should be removed. Anything that has a notable name that people might be interested in already has its own article, so that doesn't need coverage in this article.--Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second... You want ALL the rules to be removed, permenantly? So wikipedia with it's 1.8 million articles will not state that Knights move in an L-Shape because that's essentially exactly the same as a walkthrough for Halo 2? I don't think you're serious. Honestly, do you really think it will help wikipedia to delete this page, or is this some sort of joke, dare, experiment or crusade?193.128.87.36 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In its current state it violates WP:NOT; however, if were merged with strategy and it evolves into more than rule book, it should stay. All the other rule books should be deleted also if they are plain rule books as this one is. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not it's not... look again, there's sections on In Popular Culture, History of advanced rules, Controversy and more than just a recitation of the rules of chess.193.128.87.36 08:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the popular culture section should be removed. These do not benefit articles and 99% of the time are just trivia sections. --Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Encyclopedias like Brittanica describe the rules of chess, so the topic is so ridiculously encyclopedic that even paper encyclopedias cover it. I am also amazed at the nominator citing the "ILIKEIT" essay before any arguments opposing deletion have even been presented! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for historical value if nothing else. Rules of chess have historical significance. --Tbeatty 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course keep. Very notable. Everyking 08:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability was never an issue.--Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We have about 2000 chess related articles, and the proposal is to delete the article explaining the rules? Voorlandt 08:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valid article on a reasonable topic. "Video game guide" clause only covers minutiae detail ("go to such-and-such place to get such-and-such item"), not overview of game mechanics (i.e., something you could discern from reading the game manual or from even cursory playing of the game). The chess equivalent would be listing of bazillion different opening traps without any consideration... some of those are notable, some are not. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instruction manual covers rule books pretty thoroughly. The other two articles (Strategy and tactics) were more of gameguides than this. This is plain and simple an instruction manual.--Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, first per the argument that the a large amount of similar articles represents consensus, second that chess is in fact seen as a sport and the World Chess Federation is recognized by the International Olympic Committee [55], and historically was covered in Sports Illustrated and other mainstream outlets, third chess played an small but important part of the cold war such as World Chess Championship 1972 as well as during the collapse of the Soviet Union [56] so a description of the rules of chess might be important to historians and others who might come across material about these events that assume some knowledge of chess rules (and readers of other wikipedia articles), and finally the matches between Kasparov and Deep Blue and their relation and meaning to understanding human and artifical intellegence are dependent on a belief in the complexity of Chess, which makes the article concering not only the history of chess but a specific article on the rules of chese not only notable but neccessary in Wikipedia. XinJeisan 10:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless all those articles have survived a deletion attempt no it doesn't. All it represents is that someone hasn't gotten around to nominating them. Notability of the sport is immaterial as thats not even questioned. I'm not trying to delete the chess article. A lot of things could be important to historians, like all our geneoligies, but we don't put them on wikipedia. Wikibooks already has the rules of chess, and we have templates to link to it. That is where it belongs.--Crossmr 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Utterly encyclopedic information without which the entry on chess would not be complete. Also, I don't really see how WP:NOT applies, as a set of rules is not a set of instructions, as per other sports. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep As stated above, the only reason this is its own article is because the FA chess is already far too long. The articles on the various chess variants such as xiangqi and shogi all give the same basic information on how to play the game. This article is an important base by which to understand the other 2000+ articles about chess on Wikipedia. In short, if there's an unencyclopedic article on chess in this project, this one certainly isn't it. UOSSReiska 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to strong keep, as I honestly question the reason this article was nominated for deletion. While Crossmr is correct in that it does violate a particularly narrow interpretation of WP:NOT, Calgary has given a fine explanation of why we should go by the spirit of WP:IAR here, notwithstanding the fact that the rules for play are covered in nearly every sports article on Wikipedia, not to mention nearly every variant of chess which has an article on Wikipedia, AND notwithstanding the fact, as mentioned above, that printed encyclopedias cover the rules of chess in their articles on the subject. All of these, I feel, are sufficient reasoning that WP:NOT should be ignored even if this article does in fact violate it; and this is further bolstered by the fact that User:Crossmr says in his nomination, "If this article is ever meant to be no more than a simple copy of the rules please edit it accordingly, otherwise it has no place on wikipedia" - but instead of coming to the talk page and trying to improve the article, he just slaps an AfD on it. It reeks of bad faith to me. Especially on an article rated as Top Importance to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess. UOSSReiska 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All three nominated articles were rated as "top importance" before the nominations. Only 55 of the project's 1850+ article are "top importance" (less than 3 percent). All three articles are subarticles from the FA chess. Full disclosure: I'm a card-carrying (i.e. userbox-displaying) member of the Chess Wikiproject, and I participated in some of the evaluations. Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interpreting this as a violation of WP:NOT is a drastic case going by the letter of the law and not the spirit (much to the detriment of the project, I think.) As everyone else has already said, have you ever seen an encyclopedia that didn't include the rules of chess? Last I checked, the first thing listed at WP:FIVE was "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". The provisions against game guides and instruction manuals are meant to prevent pages like "How to get the first star in Super Mario 64" and "How to repair your weedeater", not as an excuse to remove something that's vitally important to understanding any other articles about one of the most widely-played board games in the world. Why, exactly, anyone would like the specific wording of the constructed guidelines of Wikipedia more than the goal of making the best encyclopedia ever completely escapes me. Pinball22 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between this and "How to play chess" is the name. If you changed the name, would you really change the content of the article at all? (yes I realize a couple sections have been added since the start of the AfD, but honestly the popular culture one should be removed). Yes there was a tiny amount of discussion in the initial setup, but the gameplay section is pure and simple an instruction manual on how to pick sides, what moves you can make and how the game flows.--Crossmr 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I've mentioned before in this discussion, a ruleset is not the same as an instructional guide. If the information were only of value to those who themselves wished to learn how to play the game, like the rulebook to monopoly, or cluedo, then yes, it would be an instructional guide, but chess is far more significant than a Parker Bothers table-top board game. Chess is sanctioned in a manner similar to a sport, in most places it is held in just as high a regard as a competitive sport, and it is arguably the most reputable "game" in history. You may say that notability is not an issue, but in this situation it is, as when considering whether or not an article should be deleted based on GUIDE the value of the information and the context of the information come into play. Because of chess's status and significance it is very likely that it's rules will be of interest to a varge group of people, even those who do not wish to themselves learn how to play. Unlike other games, chess is not a game where the rules would only be of value to those who are learning to play, but rather, like a sport, the rules, just like the game, are of widespread interest to a significant group of non-players. And if you're going to suggest that an article that is very useful and improves the quality of Wikipedia should still be deleted, simply because it has the potential to be used as a guide, I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia policy does not exist in a vaccum, it's important to follow the spirit of the policy over the wording of the policy, and that your argument is getting increasingly pedantic. Calgary 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, notability is a guideline and WP:NOT is policy. So tell me which it is the community sees as more applicable? Guidelines certainly do not trump policy, and it seems to be that once again you admit that the article really does violate guide, but think its so notable an exception should be made. One can very easily learn how to play chess from this article, right from how to start a game, what moves are legal and who can move, all the way to how to end the game. There could be significant interest in many topics which have no play on wikipedia (like unverified celebrity gossip, one only has to pass a supermarket check out line to realize how popular that kind of thing is), yet it has no place here. Honestly gossip is as old as chess if not older. The point is, the information certainly isn't lost, its at wikibooks, we have templates. how does it remotely harm chess to have an interwiki link rather than a link to an article here? It doesn't.--Crossmr 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're missing the point entirely. Just because someone could learn to play chess from reading this article, that doesn't mean that it's the article's only function, because as I've said countless times, it is of widespread interst to people other than aspiring chess players. The reasoning behind WP:NOT#GUIDE isn't that any article that could possibly be used as a guide in some way shape or form needs to be deleted, it's that a article that serves exclusively or primarily as a guide is inherently unencyclopedic (something I agree with). However, as it's already been established that this article's primary function is not to teach the rules of chess to people who wish to learn how to play, the fact that it could be used as a guide by such people is irrelevant. Calgary 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Crossmr, WP:NOT is policy. However, using the "not a game guide" provision of it and the statement "One can very easily learn how to play chess from this article..." as part of an argument for deletion is a really strange twisting of the point of the policy... it's meant to keep out unencyclopedic topics, not to somehow protect people from learning to play games. Perhaps I shouldn't have named my example articles things starting with "how to", as you took the name and not the implied content as the relevant part. My intent was to show that "bishops move diagonally" is a different level of instruction than "run forward, jump on a goomba, and collect some coins", one that I believe is clearly encyclopedic as the knowledge is necessary to comprehend any further material on the subject of chess, a subject which you've already agreed is appropriate for inclusion. Could you please explain why you feel that it's so important that WP:NOT be read so incredibly broadly? Policies are a tool we have created to enable us to work together to construct an encyclopedia; should their interpretation prevent us from doing that? Pinball22 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its not really so broad. When I proposed the rules of settlers of catan for deletion, there was no real resistance. It was also no different than this article. Its been a few months (about 10) but I think it might have had a little more liberal use of "you", but changing you to "the player" doesn't exactly make it encyclopedic.--Crossmr 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for a ten year old game vs a sport recognized by the olympic committee makes a difference. The word encyclopedia "comes from the Classical Greek "ἐνκύκλιos παιδεία" (pronounced "enkyklios paideia"), literally, a "[well-]rounded education," meaning "a general knowledge." The rules of a 10 year old game do not represent general knowledge, the rules of one of the oldest games in western civilization does. This is not a court of law or a legalistic debate. Though enjoyable to be on the winning side of an argument, if you disagree with various lists you should make an argument for policy to be explicit against these types of articles, you should take it up at the village pump as opposed to picking and choosing AfD requests.XinJeisan 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point as well. When I nominated this article it was nothing else and there was no indication it was to be anything else. There was nothing to distinguish this article from an instruction manual on the rules of chess, and anything else. There was no commentary on how the rules evolved, or any other kind of content. Labeling the articles Rules of Chess, or How to Play chess would have been equally as valid. Who is to say that the rules of pokemon wouldn't let people better understand the game? or the Rules of ANY game might not lead to greater understanding? Probably they would. But its not wikipedia's place.--Crossmr 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to playing chess than just knowing the rules. There is more to driving a car than knowing which petal is the gas and which is the brake, or what a Stop sign and a Yield sign mean. Are those instructions for driving a car? There is history of the rules in the main chess article as well as in some of the sub-articles linked in rules of chess. Bubba73 (talk), 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested this article taught them how to be good chess players, just that it was an instruction manual on how to play chess. Knowing the movies, which order to play in, the rules, how to start and end a game is all two people need to know to play chess.--Crossmr 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right and a lack of a history of the rules is detrimental to the article. Now I've added some other sections (Whether they have 100% freedom from criticism or not is a matter for discussion elsewhere) that improve the scope of the article. Perhaps you should consider using your time to add history of the evolution of the rules or otherwise improving the article instead of endlessly sticking to an interpretation of the rules that is clearly against consensus. To put it frankly, whats the point?Simondrake 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there wern't information about the history of the rules, that wouldn't be automatic grounds for deletion. You're not recognizing the correlation between notability andfunction. If a subject is as notable as chess, then it is likely that it will be of interest to people who do not wish to learn to play. If the article does not specifically teach a person how to play, it is not a guide. The link here, is that a very significnt group of people who do not wish to learn how to play chess will find this information useful, which means that this article's primary or at least overwhelming function is something other than to teach the rules of the game. This is not an article that is a guide, which may under uncommon circumstances be used for other purposes, this is an article which serves as encyclopedic material about a subject, and may under uncommon circumstances be used as a guide. Understanding that is key to understanding why this article should be kept. (And by the way, we do have articles about the rules of pokemon). Calgary 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rules of chess are a fundamental, relevant and encyclopedic articvle related to the game of Chess. An article of this scope and magnitude would make little sense to merge with the parent article and stands on its own. I would suggest eliminating some of the trivia at the bottom of the article, but the article is a clearly justifiable fork of Chess and stands on its own as establishing notability. Alansohn 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge was never a recommendation. Transwiki was, and honestly its already over there at wikibooks. Notability was also never called in to question.--Crossmr 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its current state isn't really suitable for wikibooks, because it goes beyond the flat character of the rules somewhat by exploring the historical context of them (this is, perhaps, something that could be further expanded on - perhaps an article on the _evolution of_ the rules of chess from their origins would be more "encyclopedic" to Crossmr. Still, the article certainly should _not_ be deleted. UOSSReiska 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Sarcastic comment. The article G minor gives the rules for what notes are in the key of G minor. That's an instruction manual for playing a musical instrument - it has to go! :-) Bubba73 (talk), 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Geneva Convention contains rules about war crimes, therefore it's an instruction manual on how to wage war and must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simondrake (talk • contribs)
You both may want to read WP:CIVIL the sarcasm is neither necessary nor welcome.--Crossmr 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:FIVE - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article epitomizes encyclopedic content, is found in virtually all paper encyclopedias, and would be an embarrassment to the Wiki project if deleted. Questionable interpretations of WP:NOT with little consensus do not trump the five pillars. Evouga 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And NOT defines those things which wikipedia is not, in fact its directly referenced from WP:FIVE.--Crossmr 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the WP:FIVE are intended to summarize Wikipedia policy. If an interpretation of Wikipedia policy stands in direct conflict with the five pillars, the interpretation is indeed highly questionable. Calgary 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do summarize. In a summary you often leave out information. they link to it to indicate the other things which wikipedia are not. So that people can understand that. They also link to other policies for further reading and understanding of them. They don't capture the entirety of the policy in that short summary. You won't come right out and say it, but the multiple times you've said "yes WP:NOT, but it should be given an exception for reason X" indicates you realize this is an instruction manual, however the reasons you've given for keeping (notability being the chief one) has no exception made for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but WP:NOT defines the things which the community felt shouldn't be included in that encyclopedia.--Crossmr 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, when I read responses like this, I worry that you're ignoring all of the valid aspects of my argument in favor of the few that you are disagreeing with. I'm not saying that I believe this, I'm simply explaining my mindset, in case you feel I'm being irritable or something. In any case, I'm going to write my position one more time, and I'd like you to examine it carefully, because I want us to be in full understanding of one another

1. First off, Wikipedia does not strictly define what an instruction manual is (game guide refers to video games, see game guide), but I have been arguing under the pretense that An instruction manual is a set of instructions or collection of information, of which the exclusive function is to teach a person how to do something. I think that's broad enough, eh?

2. I would now like to explain my other assertion. The rules of chess are of interest to a significant group of people who are not interested in learning how to play chess. The only reason I evoke the concept of notability is to support this assertion.

3. I would now like to explain why this article is more than an instruction manual. In accordance with assertion 2, this article will provide information about chess to people who will not use the information to learn how to play chess.

4. And now why I feel that this article should not be reasonably considered a violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE: As per assertion 2, this article's primary audience will not use the article as an instruction manual, meaning that while the article has the potential to be used as a manual, it is not inherently a manual, because overall it has an entirely different function (as per assertion 3).

Okay, there. I tried to explain myself as clearly as possible. Now, hopefully, we'll be on the same page...Calgary 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intended audience is immaterial. Otherwise people could claim all kinds of intended things which aren't in the article. Just because someone could use it to learn more about chess without learning how to play it (honestly if you read that from start to finish you will learn how to play chess whether or not thats its intention) doesn't mean its not an instruction manual. I could pick up a pokemon rule book and read it to learn more about the game without wanting to learn how to play it. It doesn't stop it from being an instruction manual on how to play the game. The fact is the article is written primarily as instructions on how to play the game. There is no other explanation for the part about how players decide on who goes first. Thats really completely unnecessary for people grasp a further understanding of chess. However it does fit in with teaching people how to play a game of chess. While explaining certain notable rules and very basic mechanics at a higher level would allow people to further understand chess, getting in to the nitty gritty of how players decide who gets what colour in a game (which is honestly likely original research anyway) doesn't do that. --Crossmr 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that, as you say, people can use it to learn more about chess makes it not just an instruction manual. And the fact that people can use it to learn to play chess doesn't make it inherently inappropriate. As I said before, the policy is to designed to keep clearly unencyclopedic content out, not to keep out encyclopedic content because someone might learn from it how to do something. Pinball22 01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing additional thing they learn is how to play the game. Same as they would with any rules of anything. There would be no difference between this and the rules of the pokemon trading card game, except that chess is even more notable (in most circles, and honestly debatable in a lot of them), yet there is no allowance for that under the policy. Since we'd obviously delete that article, what is the basis for keeping this one and claiming its so encyclopedic? There isn't one within the policies as far as I can tell. Notability of the subject doesn't give blanket permission to create any old article you want that is in someway related to the subject.--Crossmr 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intended audience is always material. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. How material is going to be interpreted defines, at it's heart, what material is. There is no absolute standard by which to determine what material is or is not, but the most accurate standard is what the audience will interpret it as. It seems to me that over and over again you're saying "it's a guide", to which your supporting argument is that it "can be used as a guide". It's important to recognize that there is a difference between an instruction manual that can incidentally provide information to someone who does not wish to use it as such, and an informative article that incidentally has the potential to be used as an instruction manual. This article is clearly of use to people for it's informational value rather than it's instructional value, and it's potential is not the same as it's purpose or primary function. If we assume good faith, then it is logical to conclude that the article's fairly large group of editors intend for this article to be used for it's informative value rather than as an instructional manual, but even more importantly, as long as the article's audience will primarily value the article for it's informational value, then the article's primary function is that of an informative encyclopedia article, not an instructional manual. Calgary 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me, why after 5 years did it take an AfD to add any real encyclopedic content to the article? If it were intended to be an informative article on the rules of chess, why is there no history on how rules have changed, why certain rules developed, etc? If that intent were there, it should have materialized after that period of time. It was kept purely as an instructional manual. My supporting argument is that there was no other content in the article beyond that of being an instruction manual on how to play the game, supporting evidence is the missing history, and inclusion of such non-notable and non-unique methods of determining who is what colour. That section alone really nails the distinction up to be seen. The counter arguments provided do not address the policy in question. Philosophical musings aside, the hidden nature of the article is immaterial. You have to look at the content of the article and how it reads and what is included in it. The level of detail is unnecessary for people to get an understanding of chess. Discussions on notable moves, a higher level mechanics would suffice for people to understand chess. Telling them how to decide who gets what colour is an instruction manual, plain and simple.--Crossmr 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me, why did you not try to improve the article yourself first before determining that it should be put up for an AfD? All you did was post a "This article violates policy" on the talk page. Real constructive. I admit I'm not a contributor and only found myself here because I saw your AFD while reading chess articles, but I'm not a contributor because I don't have the kind of knowledge this article needs to do the subject justice, on the history of the rules and whatnot. And it's a good chance that that material didn't, well, materialize because the people editing the article didn't realize it was a violation of WP:NOT because they were being bold instead of spending all day reading the rules until they find some grounds to AfD an article they don't like. UOSSReiska 11:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Remember that some of us (well, I am) are making the point that the rules of chess are encyclopedic in and of themselves. The spirit of WP:NOT seems to be against rule books being inserted for every game willy nilly, not keeping out articles about games and sports of which general knowledge is assumed to be benificial to a large group of people who do not participate in said sport or game. XinJeisan 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Rules of chess:

"The players choose colors by mutual agreement or by random means such as coin flipping. Commonly, one player conceals a white pawn in one hand and a black pawn in the other. The other player selects a hand and plays that color.

The player controlling the white pieces moves first. While this gives white an advantage, it is not known that white can force a win if black plays perfectly. After the initial move by white, players alternate moves. Play continues until a draw is declared, a player resigns, or a king is trapped by means of a checkmate (see below)."

From American football rules:

"The game begins with a kickoff, which is one type of free kick (see below). Prior to the game, captains from each team participate in a coin toss. The winner of the toss may make one of the following choices: to kickoff, to receive and have the other team kickoff, or to choose an end of the field to defend. The toss winner nearly always chooses to receive, because that means they get to go first on offense. The other team then may choose from the remaining options (usually which end of the field to defend). In amateur football, the winner of the toss may also defer their choice to the second half and give the other team first choice of options in the first half. This is typically done when the captain winning the toss wants to receive to start the second half."

Is it encyclopedic of an article about a sport or similar form of competition to describe the standard method of determining who goes first/other opening conventions? Yes, of course it is. I'd have to say that that's even more relevant to someone who wants to understand chess than a person who's trying to learn how to play (It's information that's far from essential if you want to learn how to play). And as far as the content improving since you nominated the article, that's a good thing, not a justification for deletion. And if Wikipedia is going to be a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge then, yes, this amount of detail about a subject like chess is acceptable, even outside of chess instruction manuals. I'm not saying that notability justifies this article as an instruction manual, I'm saying that notability justifies the information in this article as being appropriate detail for such a widespread general-interest subject. Calgary 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was encyclopedic when it was about a sport. I've repeatedly pointed out that the existence of other rules articles doesn't justify this one. Again, if you can point to somewhere in NOT which says if the subject is really notable, leave it, then by all means do so. The content hasn't necessarily improved. Some has been added to it, both good and bad. (popular culture sections = trivia and not good for articles). However, nothing has been taking out. wrapping an instruction manual in history doesn't make that section of the article any less an instruction manual. NOT applies both to articles and sections of articles. However, if someone actually wants to improve this article, and thinks that it can be made to be something more encyclopedic with histories, etc about the rules and not just an instruction manual (regardless of the notability/nuances/etc surrounding this article), this was all it was, you've admitted it yourself in a round about way, I could see the wisdom in withdrawing the nomination as there was not only potential but willingness for improvement here.--Crossmr 03:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a very good argument, when I cite sports articles I simply do so as an attempt to give a good example of other articles to which my argument applies. And again, as the discussion progrsses you're ignoring the foundation of my argument. I'm not saying that if a subject is notable then instruction manuals regarding it should be allowed, I'm saying that if an article has value other than that of an instruction manual, value that will be recognized by most people, then it is not an instruction manual. If you can offer evidence that a significant amount of the information in this article is valueless except as an instruction manual, and explain the reasoning behind the idea that said information is valueless, please do, and if you have done so already and I have overlooked it, please be so kind as to point it out to me. Calgary 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, the rules of ANYTHING have the same potential for usefuless. But are denied by the policy. There is no exception made in NOT for "if these instructions would be really useful outside of learning how to actually do it, then by all means keep them." Being "useful" is covered in WP:ILIKEIT. Many things are useful to many people here, they don't all get a place on wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to the contrary WP:NOT#GUIDE does not say "Delete any article that could possibly cause anyone to learn how to do something". And, after taking into consideration all of the elements of my argument, that the information is widely useful outside of the context of a guide, that the subject itself is very notable, and that the subject is of widespread scholarly interest, take into consideration the fact that Wikipedia policy may be subject to reasonable exception. Yes, someone could potentially use WP:IAR in favor of anything, but in many cases such an argument wouldn't hold up. Taking into consideration that every article is unique. As it stands my argument applies specifically to Rules of chess, and you have to accept that my argument is both logical and reasonable, and that it reflects the general consensus established in this AfD discussion. It seems that even you don't disagree that my argument is within reason. So what's the problem? Calgary 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, claiming that the article is functional has nothing to do with WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ILIKEIT refers to opposing deletion because one supports the subject of the article, not opposing deletion because one believes the material within the article is of encyclopedic value. Calgary 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't but as I pointed out, this article was originally written to do nothing but instruct on the rules of chess. There is a difference between an article that could potentially teach someone something, and an article written exclusively as an instruction manual. As I pointed out before, if you have to invoke IAR, you're doing it wrong. I don't think your argument is within reason. Regardless of the notability of chess, or how necessary you think a reprinting of the rules is to readers, I don't see the benefit of it being here on wikipedia which has a policy against it, when we have a sister site, already holding the content, and templates intended for its use. Duplication here is unnecessary and the duplicated content is against policy. You don't seem to disagree that it violates policy just that an exception should be made. Nothing other than IAR gives you a usuable exception and thats a last ditch grab at best. As I said, if there is a willingness there for improvement, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. But potential without willingness is the same as no potential at all.--Crossmr 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I have left to say is that I've essentially made my entire argument as to why the article is not primarily an instruction manual. If you can't see that, then there's really nothing I can do, I could state it again and again, but that would make things hopelessly redundant. The quality of an article can always improve, so if you have specific ideas about how to improve the article, I would recommend at least posting it on the talk page. If you don't see the value that the article has to an encyclopedia now, I doubt I can do much to change that, but it does seem that as of now the general consensus is in favor of keeping the article. In any case, I hope that the final decision, whatever it may be, both reflects the view of the community, and does what is best for the quality of Wikipedia. Calgary 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:

Would Ten Commandments and Five Pillars of Islam fit the nominator's concept of a guide or instruction manual? After all, aren't they essentially telling one how to be a Christian and how to be a Muslim respectively?

How can anything in Category:Chess variants make sense if the rules of chess aren't explained in the first place?

youngvalter 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question the existence of some of those varients as the notability of the individual varient isn't demonstrated in at least 1/2 of a few random ones I picked. As I've pointed out multiple times, the content would still be available through wikibooks where it belongs.--Crossmr 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Wikipedia should have the info. Many more people read/edit Wikipedia than Wikibooks. Wikipedia is the mother of all Wikis. Somewhere (I don't know exactly where), it says that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to contain all human knowledge. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No actually its not, maybe thats where the confusion comes in. If wikipedia were to contain all human knowledge WP:NOT wouldn't exist, as it strictly forbids several types of human knowledge on a variety of subjects.--Crossmr 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment My reading of WP:ILIKEIT seems to exclude any chess article from this argument, because chess is (as stated time and again) notable. Countless reliable sources could be found writing about chess, and people who have no interest in playing chess know what it is and its best players up until the year 2000 or so were household names in the US, and probably in Russia they still are, though I have no source of that. However, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also not a valid reason for deletion, and even if I agreed with Crossmr that the rules by themselves are not encyclopedic, he himself says that the article has potential to be more than a rule book, so, beyond I don't like rules in wikipedia and policy agrees with me (in spite of a seeming consensus of other editors who disagree) what argument do you have? XinJeisan 04:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last comment as well, as per Calgary. XinJeisan 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Crossmr, you said, "You don't seem to disagree that it violates policy just that an exception should be made." I can't speak for Calgary, but I do disagree that it violates policy. You are interpreting WP:NOT to forbid all descriptions that are also instructions, which I think is an incorrect reading of the policy. An encyclopedia should, first and foremost, tell you what the thing you're reading the article about is, and in the case of a game like chess, the rules are a vital part of that. The fact that you could also as a side effect learn the action of playing chess from them doesn't make them any less a vital part of understanding the concept. You demand historical context, impact on the world, etc., and of course these are things we strive to have in every article. But we want them in addition to the description of the subject, not instead of it. Pinball22 13:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet that argument fails when you take in to consideration that the article includes instructions on how you can pick someone to go first in the game. That certainly doesn't give any greater understanding of chess or help clarify any deeper topics. A higher level overview of certain notable rules and concepts would benefit greater understanding of higher level concepts covered in other articles related to chess. The minutia of how to play a game start to finish does not do that.--Crossmr 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not contain instructions on how to choose who goes first (Anymore). It states in a very educational manner that the decision could be dictated in a tournament but is otherwise normally random- Unlike Go where skill determines the order of play. This is informative, comparative and explains how the decision is made in different circumstances. Stating a choice can be made by flipping a coin is not the same as telling someone to flip a coin. The article is not instructions193.128.87.36 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you're going to base your entire objection to the article on one small section, then this shouldn't be at AfD... you should be discussing on the talk page what you think needs to be changed. Pinball22 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The defense that this article was not an instruction manual was based on the fact that it was providing necessary information for a deeper understanding of the rules that would lead to greater understanding of more complex concepts. My point was that I didn't feel it was, and the detail it delved in to (throughout the entire article) was unnecessary, and that section was a very solid example of why this article wasn't written to generate an encyclopedic understanding of the rules.--Crossmr 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination, and the two that follow below, are Wiki lawyering at its finest. Having found a piece of potentially ambiguous policy that is at odds with obviously encyclopedic content, perhaps it would have been better to discuss clarifying the letter of the policy, instead of nominating all these articles to illustrate a point? Evouga 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the policy remotely ambiguous, nor do I find the level of detail in the article when I nominated it to be encyclopedic. --Crossmr 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the editors of paper encyclopedias more credible authorities of what is encyclopedic than your personal opinion. On this point I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Evouga 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you find it encyclopedic now?Simondrake 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The policy in question is being discussed on the talk page of WP:NOT,

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOT_-_Gameguides. Bubba73 (talk), 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hard to believe that anyone would want to delete this article. Paul August ☎ 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see how any encyclopedia would be complete without a basic article on the rules of chess. Thus, I believe WP:IAR trumps the other policy against gameguides (which should be reevaluated). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You mean that when I open up Brittanica that I will find a seperate page devoted to the rules of chess? This isn't a "basic article" but an article filled with pictures and other unnecessary content that should be cut and merged. If Brittanica can summarize Chess so adequately, why do we have to spend 100 times the effort? NobutoraTakeda 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not on paper. Wikipedia can go more in depth. Please read Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style. Bubba73 (talk), 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked below, I already pointed out that Britannica is online so stop making that incorrect argument. NobutoraTakeda 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already seen that, you should read WP:PAPER, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style. The main chess article is already about 2.25 times larger than it should be. Wikipedia is not paper. We have more control over it. Links are easy to follow on a computer but not on paper. Etc. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not making this up. Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely rude to say I should read Paper when I was discussing an online encyclopedia and never mentioned anything even close to paper. Please read my comments or if you don't want to read my comments, don't respond. Its uncalled for for you to post what you said because it shows that you didn't see anything that I wrote. NobutoraTakeda 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And rules of chess itself is close to the recomended size (within about 10%). Bubba73 (talk), 04:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Chess could easily have 70% of it cut as unnecessary. NobutoraTakeda 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how would that in any way improve WikiPedia? The only unnecessary parts I see in Rules of chess are in the Popular culture section, which was added (ironically) in an attempt to make the article more palatable to the small number of people advocating that the page be deleted. I think the article was probably better off without much of it, as it is very close to a Trivia section. Quale 08:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having extremely long pages takes away from the readability and the informability of a page. Chess is not that complicated of a game. Rules do not need more than 3 or 4 paragraphs, and the rest of the information and fancy charts are extremely superfluous. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find Rules of chess to be an extremely long page. You might note that your views seem to be very much a minority opinion. It seems you have fewer than 30 mainspace edits with at almost all being AFD or prod nominations, but over 200 Wikipedia space edits, the vast majority of them related to AFD. I'm afraid I think you need a little more experience with editing articles before I can give your opinion on WikiPedia policy and guidelines very much weight. Quale 15:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Encyclopaedia Britannica is a paper encyclopedia, and that the fact that we can create a more comprehensive group of articles than them doesn't mean we shouldn't. Calgary 01:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People keep saying that but Britannica has an online version too, you know. NobutoraTakeda 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd check the online version for comparison if you like, but I think you need to be a member, which I'm not. So I guess there's nothing I can do. Calgary 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. But I just felt that people keep dismissing Britannica as being paper. I looked at the contents and got a "summary" of the various pages, and none were lists of rules. It seemed to be broken down into chess with the rules, chess in history, chess pieces in history, and then famous chess tactics with championships. NobutoraTakeda 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that whatever Britannica publishes online is just reprinted from its paper source rather than trying to do something different like Wikipeida. As an aside, do [[57]] these people have similar arguments like this?XinJeisan 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course they do. That's what being a professor is all about: Sitting around a table all day arguing with your colleagues. The many congresses and parliaments of the world, even the United Nations can't get anything done without getting into silly arguments...so why would the editors af an encyclopedia be able to? Calgary 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chess and it's rules are insererable, you can not have an article that completely covers chess without an article explaining it's rules. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you have an article about chess that covers the rules in the chess page and put the other stuff in its own page instead of making the chess page just a glorified directory of other pages? Aren't the rules of chess one of the most important things to understanding it and therefore needed on the page? NobutoraTakeda 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LENGTH. Orderinchaos 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the chess page is already far over (more than double; it's 70 KB) the recommended size limit (which is 32 KB) now, let alone if more was added. Standard procedure when this happens is to split topics off into subarticles and cover them in the main article in summary form only with a link to the in-depth article. UOSSReiska 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, this page is already 82KB long.....XinJeisan 04:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And most of the page is not needed. So whats your point? Chop and add. If the basic rules can't go on the main page of a game then there is a huge problem. The rules are the most important part of the game and are vital to understanding the game. NobutoraTakeda 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't just 'chop and add' a featured article. UOSSReiska 18:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-written article, FIDE rules noted as a source. Verifiable and notable subject. Written to inform and not advocate. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there was never a question of sources, notability or advocacy. The question was at the time of nomination that the article consisted solely as an instruction manual on how to play chess.--Crossmr 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well written, covers subject, subject is notable. This article is not an instruction manual, but more a discussion of the rules of chess (as a subject), elaborating what they are, how they came about, etc. One would not necessarily be any more able to play chess after reading this article, but one would certainly understand the subject a bit more. Orderinchaos 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How could you not know how to play chess after reading this? It takes you from starting a game, to ending and instructs on all legal moves and rules.--Crossmr 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most overzealous and unhelpful interpretations of WP:NOT I've ever seen and I've seen plenty. This is interpreting two words in a frequently ambiguously worded policy, and the sections on History and Controversy clearly make this not "just a game guide". And does the nominator really have to reply to every single editor recommending keep? --Canley 13:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a debate not a vote. If anyone raises a point, I'm free to discuss it. NOT doesn't address "just x". The bulk of the article is still an instruction manual on how to play the game. Put 3 lines of history about subject X, doesn't give you license to write whatever you want in violation of NOT. It addresses both full articles and content within the articles.--Crossmr 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 people say delete 3,000 people say keep why are we still discussing this?193.128.87.36 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess strategy[edit]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, or any other kind of game guide. There is nothing here other than informally written strategy for a game. This is more appropriate to a place like wikibooks. WP:ILIKEIT are not valid reasons for keeping this article. Crossmr 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a bazillion books and articles specifically about chess strategy. Maybe it just needs a bit of cleanup. Clarityfiend 17:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about that. Its about teaching the reader chess strategy. If this is to be an article abotu the history of chess strategy someone needs to completely rewrite it.--Crossmr 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another very detailed, referenced 5-years old article. Far too large to merge; there has been plenty of published material about chess strategy; its a perfectly valid encyclopedia article. —Xezbeth 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this article is not about the history of chess strategy or books written about it. Its a how-to guide for a reader to learn chess strategy. Those are two vastly different things, and the latter clearly violates WP:NOT. The age or size of the article is immaterial.--Crossmr 17:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. While this is a notable topic, notability cannot supersede WP:NOT. WP:NOT prohibits several notable items Corpx 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While in general we don't keep stratagey guides, I think it's important to note that the subject of the artcle itself is notable (chess strategy is arguably just as notable as the game itself). Now I'm not suggesting that chess should get a free pass simply because it's chess, but you have to keep in mind that the mechanics of chess have been the subject of countless scholarly publications, spanning centuries. Chess may be a board game, but it is arguably the most well-known and widely played game in history, and as such it is appropriate to place the article into context. I think it's appropriate for chess to have an article describing it's gameplay, so long as the article does not read like an instruction manual, and I feel that this article is in keeping with that, addressing the subject from a third party perspective. This is not any more a guide than the military tactics article is a guide to warfare (I know it's not the perfect analogy, but you see what I'm trying to say). If you ask me (which you didn't) the nominator of this article's deletion is being hopelessly pedantic...and I think wikipedia has policy against being pedantic, doesn't it? Calgary 17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is important to place the article in to context, and the subject of chess is quite notable. However that is not what this article is about. This article isn't about how strategy has changed over the years, major themes in strategies dependent on time frame, etc. The article is instead a guide on chess strategy if one wanted to play the game. Those are two different things. If the article is rewritten to be the former that's fine. If its kept as a guide to playing chess then it should be moved to wikibooks.--Crossmr 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The study of chess strategy is a notable discipline that has wide coverage in all forms of media. To suggest deletion due to WP:NOT is wikilawyering in the first degree. JulesH 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Please see WP:AGF. The notability of the topic is immaterial. Pokemon is a rather notable video game, yet if I created a similar article on strategies for playing it, it would be deleted so fast your head would spin. This is not an article about the coverage its received, if it were that, there would be no problem. The article is instead teaching readers what strategies to use when playing the game, those are two very different things.--Crossmr 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a significant difference between chess and a video game. Chess is a game that has recieved widespread acceptance as a legitimate form of high-skill competition, chess champions gaining international fame both in and outside of the chess-playing community. Including the mechanics of the game is not unreasonable. For example, look at the article on boxing. The article has a fairly detailed section about technique, however it is still not a guide to boxing, as while it reasonably informs the reader regarding the mechanics of the game, it is by no means a detailed educational work or guide to boxing. The same can be said of this article. I have a couple of books (yes, entire books) about playing chess which are essentially chess guides, and they look absolutely nothing like this article. This article supplies information about chess strategy in a manner that can be understood by those who are not intimately familiar with the game, while not actually teaching chess strategy. I fail to see how anyone who reads this article would in some way become better at playing chess, or that the article attempts to do so. The key distinction between an encyclopedic article and a guide/textbook is whether the article teaches the subject or teaches about the subject. And while I'm assuming you've read the entire article, I ask that you at least (for me) go back one more time, and ead it again, and try to gage for yourself which of these two the article does. Calgary 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy makes no allowances for notability. If you'd like to discuss policy change you might wish to address that on the policy talk page. I've played chess for 25 years, so I'm well aware of the coverage and notability chess has. For someone who has never played chess before, this is an excellent beginner's guide to chess strategy and things to think about during gameplay. For example it teaches about how you should value your pieces (at least the main article for that goes in to history and other things), how to negotiate control of squares and how you might go about giving some up for more gain later, it talks about important positioning of knights, etc. There is no broad overview here about the history of chess strategy, how it has evolved, etc. Its purely about specific concepts and how you would use them in a game of chess.--Crossmr 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, I undersand what you're saying, but I still disagree with it as a justification for deletion. I'm not going to say that we should go around ignoring WP:NOT, nor am I saying that we need a policy change. My basic argument is that articles that discuss the mechanics of a widespread and common form of competition, especially that of a sanctioned nature, are grounds for an encyclopedic article. I'm not saying they're inherently encyclopedic, but they usually have the potential to be, as does this one. I've already used the boxing article as an example, but let's use another. Look at the volleyball article, which also includes information about the mechanics of the game, or Fencing practice and techniques (the latter of which I think is a bit excessive). I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid justification, but I'm only using them as examples. Now, I'm not saying that chess is a sport, but it's certainly not pokemon or monopoly. I'm not suggesting that chess warrants exclusive status on wikipedia, but it's certainly unique (also take note that there's a WikiProject chess, but no WikiProject Cluedo). The only main difference here is that chess can be learned from thecomfort of your own living room, whereas boxing can not. Still, that does not change the fact that the article provides information regarding chess strategy of an informative nature, but does not act primarily as an instructional guide or a detailed learner's manual. Yes, WP:NOT is official policy, but it is not intended to supercede WP:ENC, rather, it is meant to support it. I am a strong supporter of wikipedia policy, however it is not infallible. Here we have an example of an article that is of an encyclopedic nature, yet it would seem to conflict with WP:NOT, simply because it has the potential to be interpreted as a guide, or used as such. Here we have an example of a situation in which valuable encyclopedic content could be removed because it violates policy on a technicality. Wikipedia policy may be the criteria on which we base deletion, and it may be heavily enforced, but it is not absolute. There are times, rare as they may be, that it is acceptible to make an exception to the rules, times when treating policy as a gold standard both diminish from the quaity of wikipedia content and defy common sense. This case, which is a battle of encyclopedic content versus a pedantic argument, is an appropriate time to exercise that exception if I ever saw one. Calgary 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, just so I'm clear, you agree that indeed the article does violate WP:NOT but you think an exception should be made in this case because chess is so notable in the world? In complimenting ENC, NOT defines the things that do not get included in not. Game guides and instruction manuals are some of those things. You may wish to read the talk page over at IAR. This is often used by people wanting to keep things which aren't appropriate, sort of like a catch-all. Problem is I could IAR and redirect this to chess, or "list of chess concepts" immediately following this AfD if it survived and where would be? IAR is best invoked when you don't invoke it at all. Chances are if you think "We have this policy which says IAR so I should use this to make my case" you're doing it wrong. I don't really think this article is encyclopedic. As I've said here a few times, if this article were changed to instead be about the history of chess strategy, notable strategists and their ideas, etc it would be an acceptable article. But kept simply as a guide on how to play chess, I don't see the value. There are plenty of beginner's strategy guides on the internet and as its mentione don the talk page of ENC, wikipedia is not the internet, that is what the internet is for.--Crossmr 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. I have contended and still contended that the article is encyclopedic in nature, as it does not serve primarily as a guide or instructional manual. Earlier you made the argument that the article could be regarded as a guide because it has the potential to serve as a beginner's guide, I was simply saying that the potential to serve as a guide is not the same as actually being a game guide, as game guides are inherently not notable, whereas this is well into a gray area (it is not without current or potential encycloppedic value), and that therefore while WP:NOT prohibits game guides, something that has potential to be used as a guide, yet clearly has additional value should not be deleted according to WP:NOT#GUIDE, as even though it is a technical violation of WP:NOT, common sense directs that we do otherwise. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear enough. Also, I am aware of your argument that the specific information in the article is not enough, and that the article would be more encyclopedic if it contained history of chess strategy, the evolution of strategy, etc. I very much agree with you there, however this is not an appropriate justification for deletion, if anything it's a fantastic argument against deletion, as it shows that there is grounds for the article to be expanded and outgrow it's present state. What you're saying is that there is enough information that can be added to the article that the article would no longer qualify for deletion. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the philosophy behind WP:NOT#GUIDE is that an article that is a guide is inherently unencyclopedic, but here we have a case in which the subject is, by admission of the nominator, encyclopedic enough to be included, but simply does not live up to it's potential. I don't think that we generally delete an article because there is significant information about the topic that has not been included in the article, especially if that information's inclusion would void the very rationale behind the aritcle's deletion. I'm not exactly sure what the meaning of a "start" quality article is, but it would seem that we agree that this article should be expanded (which I don't think can be done if it's deleted). Calgary 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though the topic is notable it violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. Oyster guitarist 21:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here I shall not speak as vociferously as with Rules of chess, but I see this as a notable topic with sufficient references. Much of the literature about chess has less to do with teaching you and me how to play chess (though of course that is desirable) and more to do with explaining how Alekhine and Capablanca and Karpov and others have played it in the past. Furthermore, if you delete this main page about chess strategy, you will essentially leave the dozens of de facto subpages out in the cold. What can we do with chess opening or endgame or passed pawn or backward pawn if we don't have a basic introduction to chess strategy? Shalom ^Hello 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its notability and references (neither of which are in question) have nothing to do with the AfD. The AfD is about WP:NOT. As far as leaving all these articles out in the cold, there are many ways to bring related articles together on wikipedia. We have templates, lists, and categories, as well as "see also" sections of articles.--Crossmr 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will be enough references for strategy of any game out there. Board game to the latest cutting edge pc game. Heck, I think I could write complete guides for multiple games, but WP is not a game guide. Corpx 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this is to be an article abotu the history of chess strategy someone needs to completely rewrite it. Even if the current article may be unencyclopedic in nature (I'm not getting into a debate on this here), the nominator acknowledges that the article could be rewritten to fix this. Therefore, unless my understanding of the purpose of AfD is mistaken, this isn't an article that should be deleted outright; concerns over its content should be discussed elsewhere (on the talk page perhaps?) youngvalter 22:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't really billed or named as a history of chess strategy. As such as the article is written and appears to be intended its a game guide. If we didn't delete any title that could be potentially rewritten in to something encyclopedic, we'd almost never get rid of anything (outside of things with unique names like websites/products/bands). I was simply giving an example between this article and a possible article that illustrates the difference between acceptable and unacceptable. The name might not even be Chess strategy.--Crossmr 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I agree with all of the reasons for keeping the article and find the reasons given for deleting it nonsensical. Bubba73 (talk), 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason for that? This is a debate not a vote.--Crossmr 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Chess strategy is not about instructions, advice, suggestions, or "how-to"s (WP:NOT). It can be an encyclopedic history of its development; an elucidation for newcomers; a clarifying resource for experts; a mainstay of Wikipedia. This page does not advise or instruct, but explains. There is much too much important information to be contained in a single article on Chess, which already maxes out at 77 kilobytes. As a featured article, you can’t dump the relevant information into it. And you don’t delete an article that needs rewritten, you rewrite it. You would gain nothing by deleting this article, for Wikipedia deserves something on the subject. It’s a convenient categorization, overview, and analysis for all its sub-topics and pages. Wikipedia would not be complete without a page for Chess strategy. –Sarregouset (Talk) 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a game guide. It is no different than a game guide for a pc game Corpx 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's it, it's not the same as a guide to a video game. It's interesting that the Wikipedia article for Strategy guide refers exclusively to video games, which leads me to believe that WP:NOT#GUIDE is meant to refer to a "game guide" as defined by Wikipedia. In any case, a guide to a video game and this article are two completely different things, as a video game is almost entirely a form of entertainment, whereas chess, although played recreationally by some, is a purely skill-based competition between two people, and as it is often played competitively (and if you're going to say that video games are also played competitively, take note that chess competitons are generally held in much higher regard than video game competitions), and because chess as a form of competition is of widespread interest, chess technique and strategy are of scholarly interest even to those who are not interested in learning how to play chess. Calgary 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It isn't "jump over two barrels, pull the rope, go up the ladder and you'll get to the next level." It is completely different from instructions for a video game. Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly characterize video games as "jump over barrels...". E-Sports is a pretty big deal these days. These tournaments are exclusively about skill, teamwork and strategy. There are plenty of major "gaming leagues" out there like this one with lots of big time sponsors. I would think there is much more to write about in a strategy guide about Counter-Strike or CS:Source or any of the games that the "pros" compete in. I would argue that more skill and strategy is required to play these games than chess. Corpx 03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but chess is well established as a competitive "sport" (even if it does not have the athletic qualities of a sport, competitive chess, as sanctioned by FIDE, has arguable similarities to a sport)) with a significant audience, meaning that it is likely to be of interest to a significant number of people, including those who do not themselves play chess. Therefore it is very reasonable that someone would be interested in understanding the game, including the strategy involved, even if they are not interested in playing the game, meaning that this information is applicable and widely useful to people when not used as an educational guide. Therefore, because it is of encyclopedic value in a form that does not violate WP:NOT#GUIDE the article should be kept. Calgary 03:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for some reason (slow dial up lines? old browsers that truncate?) the powers that be at WP don't like long articles; if we had didn't have that to run up against, I'd say merge with Chess, but we seem to have that limit and hacking off rules, strategy, and tactics is as efficient a way of dealing with that as any I could come up with. Carlossuarez46 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an article gets too big, its best to trim off contents in violation of WP:NOT than to expand to a new article. Corpx 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is room for one more good article in this encyclopedia and WP:NOT is an overworked argument in this debate. --Stormbay 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its the basis for the proposed deletion.--Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep This is a joke, right? KP Botany 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, I'm not laughing. Calgary 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this isn't a vote. Do you have some relevant policy to cite?--Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have an article on Hungry Hungry Hippos strategy. What's the difference? Just kidding! Strongest possible Keep! I can't believe there are still 37 million Pokemon articles on Wikipedia and deleting chess strategy seemed like a priority to someone. Complete misunderstanding of both the letter and spirit of WP:NOT. --JayHenry 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nothing like the old Pokemon argument. But yes, I agree, complete misreading. Calgary 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a complete misreading of the WP:NOT policy, or a complete misreading of the articles. The articles don't give any usable Chess strategies or tactics. I think, though, if you were unfamiliar with chess you might think they are chess playing guides, but being the proud owner of a couple of boxes of chess playing guides (I loathe the game, though) left by my siblings, I can assure you that these articles are 100% worthless as chess playing guides. So, something was misread. Chess playing guides are pages and pages of chess diagrams with moves and alternatives based upon the strength of your opponent, and elaborate discussions of single moves that would bore one to tears. When my brother and sister get together to discuss chess they sound like these books: 3 hours discussing a single possible move, followed by the conclusion that a strong opponent would not select that move, therefore an alternative move would be made, and another 6 hours discussing the move that was made. No Wikipedia article could ever be a book on Chess tactics or strategies because it would bore the editors to death making the ten billion trillion diagrams. These don't look anything like chess-playing guides. KP Botany 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised with what editors on wikipedia will delve in to that many would find boring. While these are useless for any kind of real study of chess strategy or tactics, all they are are basic chess strategies. There is no background, or expansion. They're plain and simple "When someone is playing chess, they should keep this in mind" or "look for this kind of move". Discussion don't have to be elaborate to be a guide.--Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon, aside, the article has to stand on its own.--Crossmr 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it stands up very well on its own. Calgary 04:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess tactics[edit]

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a game guide. At the very most I could see this article being turned in to a "list of chess tactics" which simply references the rest of them since many have their own articles (which I haven't read, but I hope they're more than simple descriptions and actually include history, etc of the particular concept). Crossmr 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reason I gave for strategy. Clarityfiend 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this article isn't about the history of chess tactics, its an article written to teach the reader chess tactics, which is clearly against WP:NOT.--Crossmr 17:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think that these articles should be merged with according articles on wikibooks, rather than deleted.~~Errorneous 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I agree, it should be kept.Errorneous 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. While this is a notable topic, notability cannot supersede WP:NOT. WP:NOT prohibits several notable items Corpx 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that is insane. You agree its a notable topic, yet still want it deleted? —Xezbeth 17:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of notable stuff that's excluded by WP:NOT and yes, I do think we should adhere to WP:NOT policy guidelines. Corpx 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly valid article. —Xezbeth 17:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? Its an instruction manual, hence its not valid. Do you have some policy to reference?--Crossmr 17:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't some two-bit PC game we're talking about here, it's chess! If any game in the entire world deserves this much detail, it's this one. If there is to be any exception to WP:NOT or any other over-relied on policy, it should be these articles. —Xezbeth 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the topic is immaterial. If someone wants to rewrite this article to be a history of chess tactics, then I'm all for it, but if its purpose is simply to serve as a basic guide on various chess tactics then it should be moved to wikibooks, and there is a template for it which can be added to the main chess article.--Crossmr 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument for chess strategy Calgary 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are three different articles all with the same problem. Instead of encyclopedic entries on the topics, they're guides on the various concepts and instruction manuals.--Crossmr 19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See response on chess strategy. These are three different articles which were all nominated for the same reason, and I feel feel that they should be kept for the same reason. I disagree with the nominator with the same reasoning, so to keep things simple I'm keeping my detailed responses on one AFD page. I think it's customary to group these sorts of articles together when nominating for deletion, as the reasoning is the same, and the articles are all very closely related, but as long as they're separate, my argument for one aplies to all three. Calgary 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If WP:NOT says this article should be deleted, WP:NOT is broken. JulesH 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, but I dont think an AFD is the place to discuss changes to policy. Corpx 19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE. If the information was necessary to understanding Chess, then it would be included on the Chess page. NobutoraTakeda 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though it is a notable topic it violiates WP:NOT#GUIDE.Oyster guitarist 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my argument on chess strategy. Again, without an article on chess tactics, the specific articles on fork (chess), skewer (chess) and sacrifice (chess) are left out in the cold. Shalom ^Hello 22:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we have lists, categories and see also sections of articles.--Crossmr 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely encyclopaedic subject, hundreds of books written about it, I'd be shocked if even a paper encyclopaedia didn't have at least a basic overview of the rules and strategies of chess. If WP:NOT implies that it shouldn't be here then I think this is a clear case where we should Ignore All Rules. It's not some here today, gone tomorrow video game - it's chess! Iain99 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out, while chess is notable, its not wikipedia's place to serve as a game guide or instruction manual. We have a website for that, its called wikibooks and it should be used.--Crossmr 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Bubba73 (talk), 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I agree with all of the reasons for keeping the article and find the reasons given for deleting it nonsensical. Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a debate not a vote. Do you have any reasoning?--Crossmr 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Chess tactics is not about instructions, advice, suggestions, or "how-to"s (WP:NOT), it’s about explanation. There are many pages about specific chess tactics that are necessary to Wikipedia (1867 total, according to WP:CHESS). This page is the only place you can overview, categorize, and clarify chess tactics. There is much too much important information to be contained in a single article on Chess, which already maxes out at 77 kilobytes. As a featured article, you can’t dump the relevant information into it. And you would gain nothing by deleting this article, for Wikipedia would not be complete without a page for chess tactics. –Sarregouset (Talk) 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its clearly about instruction on the various tactics. Were it simple categorization, we already have that on wikipedia, as well as lists, and see alsos.--Crossmr 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for some reason (slow dial up lines? old browsers that truncate?) the powers that be at WP don't like long articles; if we had didn't have that to run up against, I'd say merge with Chess, but we seem to have that limit and hacking off rules, strategy, and tactics is as efficient a way of dealing with that as any I could come up with. Carlossuarez46 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a valid article about a notable subject. I find this over reliance on WP:NOT to promote a deletion to be simply one interpretation. --Stormbay 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep This is right up there with the nomination for Rock Climbing. I have two siblings who play at a high level, they both have bookcases filled with books titles "Chess tactics" and "Chess stratgies" and Wikipedia is debating deleting these articles. Here's an Amazon search of titles for this topic:

Winning Chess Tactics, revised (Winning Chess - Everyman Chess) by Yasser Seirawan

Chess Tactics for Students by John A. Bain

Understanding Chess Tactics by Martin Weteschnik

Learn Chess Tactics by John Nunn

Chess Tactics for Champions: A step-by-step guide to using tactics and combinations the Polgar way (Chess) by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong

Chess Tactics for Beginners by ChessCentral

Chess Tactics for Kids by Murray Chandler

Chess Tactics for the Tournament Player (Comprehensive Chess Course Series) (Comprehensive Chess Course, Third Level) by Sam Palatnik, Lev Alburt, and Roman Pelts

If there are hundreds of books written on a topic can we just cut out the AfD? Chess tactics, whatever the article is about, as a topic, is about the different type of tactical methods for various goals in the midst of a strategic game of chess, it's an introductory guide to playing chess and applying tactics themselves, again, whatever the article is about. The topic is extremely notable, and has been written about for hundreds of years. Let's not create an oldogism and call chess and its strategies and tactics non-notable, making us unique among encyclopedias. KP Botany 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of books have been written about chess - many more than any other game. One of the first two books printed by a printing press in English was about chess. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, notability is not in question. What's in question is the WP:NOT violation of this being a game guide Corpx 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not game guides. If you played chess these would articles would be worthless as a game guide. So, they're not what you claim they are, and they are notable, so why delete them? The section on Discovered attacks is NOT a guide to how to do a Discovered attack--read it, then go play chess with the neighborhood Grand Master and use a Discovered attack you found in this article. There isn't one, as this article isn't a game guide. KP Botany 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They describe various strategies, how to perform them, give examples and give opinion on the various worth. "Very powerful", "extremely useful", etc. It couldn't be anymore a game guide.--Crossmr 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
~~Not very encyclopaedic (8 entries in google)~~

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skanke Family Association[edit]

Non-notable. Both this article, and the Skanke article, consists of pure fiction. Such a noble family has never existed. Luvente 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Skanke Family Association#Hoax

Comment What do you make of the half-dozen references? Could you please search a library catalog and verify that the cited literature does not exist? Shalom ^Hello 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the way it works. No adequate sources are cited. The alleged sources are trash, most of them are published by the non-notable "Skanke Family Association" (i.e., they are original research). The article is bullshit and propaganda, and all the stuff about kings of Man has nothing in this article to do. Even the alleged family does not exist. Skanke is the name of several unrelated families, and they are not the rulers of Man or anywhere else, nor have they any noble or somewhat special origin. Probably the most famous member of one of the families using the name is rally-cross driver and violent Fremskrittspartiet local politican Martin Schanche. Luvente 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Give me a day and I'll dig up some more sources and reference them in footnotes in the article. This deletion nomination is without any merit at all. How many sources does one need anyway? Its legit. Manxruler 01:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skanke. The Skanke family may be notable, but the Skanke family association is almost certainly not. The article in question talks almost exclusively about the family, not the association, and almost all of that content is already in the Skanke family article. Danelo 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skanke is certainly not notable as such a family as described does not exist. It exists several families which are since more recent times using the name Skanke and none of them are noble or anything special. Luvente 14:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case (I don't know one way or the other), but I was only commenting on the notability of the family association. The topic of the article up for deletion is the Skanke family association, not the Skanke family itself. Danelo 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skanke has now been nominated for deletion, so I wouldn't pursue this as an option for the time being. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Violates several rules: WP:NOT, WP:OR, etc. Everybody's family has stories. Bearian 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article was created (through a move action) by an editor that felt it would make Skanke more NPOV. Its not worth being here. Manxruler 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YuYu Hakusho Demon Class[edit]

YuYu Hakusho Demon Class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was prodded and deleted before with the reason "The edits to the power levels on this article are seemingly random, with absolutely no evidence to back them up. Also, as most levels are not stated, the vast majority of this article is simply speculation." However, it has since been recreated by pretty much the same content. Since I feel the previous reason for prodding it still applies, I'm listing it here. - Bobet 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Better discussed here to get a more definitive result, but this seems a prime example of in-world listcuft. I don't often use that word. DGG (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I like YuYu Hakusho but I don't remember any of this being notworthy. It feels like an excuse to list secondary characters and, if really needed, could just be mentioned instead in the YuYu Hakusho page. There doesn't seem to be any credible source that discusses the topic besides primary sources or fan pages. NobutoraTakeda 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [58][reply]

Delete: I also agree with the deletion of this page over fan speculation concerns as well since the only kind of places this information can be taken from are fan sites that lack credibility. -Adv193 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Not merely listcruft, but WP:OR and WP:SOAP. Bearian 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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