Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 8

< July 7	July 9 >

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 delete. Sr 13 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Necromancy in fiction and in popular culture[edit]

This is another trivia-like article which is listcruft and that also contains a wackload of original research and very mostly unsourced which fails in majority WP:V. Mahybe some content can be merged with the parent article, but delete most. --JForget 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - laundry list of trivia relating to, about, or mentioning necromancy, necromancers, things named after either, things that resemble, things that look like, or things that sound like the above. --Haemo 00:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author writes decently, but the definition of "necromancy" is made overly broad to include everything involving evil. Mandsford 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The overly vague definition of "necromancy". Hermione is a dude 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CaveatLector^Talk 12:20, 10 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about mathematicians[edit]

Another "about" list. Alone the fact that 21 grams is on this list shows a problem. Other than that, this is an indiscriminate list, as having lists of films that feature some random entity is unmaintainable. Bulldog123 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as lists go, it looks interesting, and small enough to be manageable. Gordonofcartoon 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be interesting if the entrees were actually about mathematicians. They're not. And there's hardly enough that are to fill up a list anyway. Bulldog123 00:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was interpreted as "scientist who uses a lot of math" which is a little vague, but the non-mathematicans are actually theoretical physicists, which is reasonably closely related--its a fairly good list. DGG (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; "films about mathematicians" isn't a film genre, Wikipedia has no article discussing "films about mathematicians". Most "Films about..." lists should be deleted as they are generally lists of loosely associated topics, ie Straw Dogs and To Sir, with Love (and many others listed) have so little in common that grouping them together has no encyclopdic value. Masaruemoto 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with Category:Mathematical films. Chubbles 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the mathematical films category listed above. I think, however, that the definition of mathematician is made overly broad to include physicists, engineers, and in some cases, the character's occupation has little do with the plot. There are few films actually about mathematicians, A Beautiful Mind being one of them. Mandsford 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list adds extra content (brief synopsis of film) not included in the category. Some items could be removed, although having a mathematican in a film is a rare enough event to justify inclusion. --Salix alba (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the same problem as most "films about" articles: how "about" the subject must the film be and who tells us that it is at least that much about it? And as for "having a mathematician in a film is a rare enough event to justify inclusion" as suggested above being the standard, the article is an indiscriminate list per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep annotated lists serve different purposes than categories. dml 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Some random entity"? That's just silly. As for merging with a category, it is long established Wikipedia policy that the existence of a category is not grounds for deleting a list. Lists have advantages that categories lack. (And some say vice versa too, so maybe it's both.) Michael Hardy 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see no good grounds for its deletion, and the case for WP:NOT indiscriminant collection of information does not seem to have been clearly presented. Silly rabbit 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the list needs some pruning does not establish grounds for its deletion. This list is manageable with a clearly-defined purpose. VectorPosse 19:07, 13 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, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Roberts[edit]

Does not meet WP:N or WP:PORNBIO Duane 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it had credible references, I would probably change my vote to keep... but without references, it needs to be deleted as non-verifiable.Balloonman 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:46, 6 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 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I also must agree if it has references keep it, otherwise get rid of it. Callelinea 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable on imdb. Probably included as an adjunct to Sindee Coxx, his former spouse. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 9 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 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Fele[edit]

Non-notable per WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 6 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 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable porn actor. No award nominations, no real solid references. Callelinea 02:20, 9 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 into List of Rescue Me characters. Walton^One 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Gavin[edit]

Non-notable character per WP:FICT SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Rescue Me characters. Ravenswing 19:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not present any secondary sources to establish notability, per WP:N. --maclean 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, preferably--the subject of the article appears to have become one of the chief plot drivers for the series. Barring that, Merge all information into List of Rescue Me characters. Lockesdonkey 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:12, 6 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 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but add a picture and references. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:10, 9 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. --VS ^talk 10:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnie Caruana[edit]

does not assert WP:N and neither do band articles. aliasd·U·T 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The formation of his latest project was covered in The Long Island press - [1] --Darksun 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few other sources - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --Darksun 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those links are blog links. aliasd·U·T 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they're well established, dedicated music blogs, not just random fan blogs. There is also coverage on MTV (as mentioned in the I Am The Avalanche article). Keep. --Darksun 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Am the Avalanche. Precious Roy 07:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because Caruana is the founding member of two notable bands (The Movielife and I Am the Avalanche), it does not make sense to redirect, and the fact that he has created two notable bands should be enough to establish notability such as to warrant his own article. Chubbles 01:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire contents of that article boils down to: his birth information, that he was in The Movielife and I Am the Avalance, that his cousin is in a non-notable band, he "appears" (sings? plays guitar? it doesn't say) on a Bayside song, his current band is a member of a non-notable "group of bands and artists", and that he has "many tattoos". Not to mention the fact that the single reference only verifies that he was in those two bands and nothing else from the article. Nothing that can't be merged into both the Movielife and I Am the Avalanche articles. Precious Roy 09:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 6 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 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep I feel that he qualifies for notability under WP:MUSIC. However, his article as it stands is unsuitable. The article lacks references from multiple, independent sources. If the article is cleaned up, expanded and properly sourced, I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. Trusilver 00:07, 9 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. Sr 13 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking_Free_(Asian_song)[edit]

Not notable enough to have its own page, it is already mentioned on the page of Breaking Free graphitesmoothie ^{(talk | contributions)} 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to merge to the main article (it's all already there) or redirect if you prefer, but it's not a very likely search term. GassyGuy 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:40, 6 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 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Not independently notable from the main article. DWaterson 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Breaking Free, if already mentioned Giggy _U^CP 01:48, 13 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 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Signs of Frost[edit]

Not Notable. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Also, most of the article is taken directly from the bands website: [[7]]. Bill.matthews 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Also article is unsourced except for the band's own website. Oregongirl0407 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:47, 6 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 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Claims of media coverage are unverifiable. Precious Roy 09:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it asserts notability by touring, although it needs some work and Internet links. Bearian 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete db-band Giggy _U^CP 01:49, 13 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 (without prejudice to creation of an article on the school). Walton^One 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aryabhatta Maths Competition[edit]

A non notable local competition. Hardly any media coverage. The most prominent Ghits are either the wiki article or its mirrors. Tagged orphan for almost two months now. soum ^talk 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local math quiz. If I'm reading it right, the prize is the equivalent of about $3.00 US. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed that prize money bit. Its more like 2.50 USD, not even 3.00! Seriously, what were the organizers thinking when they annoounced a 100 INR prize!!! --soum ^talk 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's also a certificate! ;-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 8th grade local math competitions are not notable Corpx 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a article in one of India's national newspaper which has the competition as its subject [8]. Also apparently its results are covered by mainstream media (see [9] for example). Finally regarding the comments on prize-money: In Indian the spirit of amateurism still holds sway, especially at school level (Recall that the prizemoney at the Olympics is still zero, AFAIK, thanks to its historical legacy) and while I don't have any personal knowledge of this competition, if students at IIT [10] and Stanford [11] are citing it on their resume, I guess the "certificate" is of some value. Abecedare 16:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Indiatimes.com has sites for many schools called "school homepages". The search results you indicate in your second link are nothing more than mentions in long lists of what prizes, etc., that students for particular schools have won. For example, right above one such mention we see that "The Limca Book of Records organised a quiz at the Air Force Auditorium and the Class XI children received the audience prize" and "In a group discussion held at the computer forum, Navjeet Chatterjee won the third prize." The most extensive coverage of this competition is in a list related to the school that runs it.
- As for the resume stuff, I don't know what to say except people stick all sorts of stuff there. Does the fact that an undergrad that lists being "computer secretary" for his hostel also lists this competition there convince me of its notability? Not really.
- The first link is interesting. It is to a segment of Young World], which is apparently a weekly supplement to The Hindu, intended for young readers. It has features intended to appeal and inform its young readers, including a "crayon corner". I don't think a short article on this competition titled "Maths can be fun", really fits what I would consider national coverage, despite The Hindu being a national newspaper.
- I happened to be online chatting with a friend in India, so I queried him about this competition and sent him the Young World link. He graduated from an IIT and has in-depth knowledge of many of these important competitions. He had never heard of it, but said it's probably because it's Delhi only (as explained in the Young World article). So my conclusion from all this is that it may be a somewhat notable local competition. Is that enough? Well, Delhi is a big, important city, but ... I'm not convinced. For example (I'm really asking), do we have articles on competitions that take place only in (possibly parts of) New York City, Los Angeles, etc.? Also, because of the localness of the competition, it's hard to judge how notable it really is within this very large city. How many of the total schools in Delhi vie for the trophy? For example, the Young World article mentions that the response was "overwhelming" in 2006, and numbers are expected to increase. Is this because more schools are participating? Or each school is sending more students? --C S (Talk) 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create a one-line article on Summer Fields School, New Delhi(which conducts the competition) and merge this stuff into that article. As Abecedare points out, the competition seems to be somewhat more important than average an average inter-school contest, but the mention in the media is trivial and doesn't establish notability. utcursch | talk 14:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:59, 6 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 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create school article and keep - as others have said, its national coverage brings it up to significance. The nearest equivalent might be the UK's annual King William's College General Knowledge Paper. Gordonofcartoon 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the fascinating reference. Furthermore, this contest is national, not just for a single school. DGG (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. This is not a national contest, only for Delhi. --C S (Talk) 11:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. If someone wants to write the school article and include a paragraph, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 12 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 04:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yonden Lhatoo[edit]

Delete, lack of notability Gnome84 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Even the Chinese-language newsreaders in HK are likely non-notable; the English-language ones are certainly non-notable. 170 GHits, all are his employer, forums, blogs, or bylines [12] cab 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 2 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 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If references were in the article I would say keep. Callelinea 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, non-notable. Bearian 18:34, 11 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 04:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuadV[edit]

No independent, reliable sources. Written by companies PR manager. Many redlinks on members, the vast majority of whom do not need articles (and the blue links just happen to be autobiographies). Blatant conflict of interest. Drat (Talk) 09:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:COI and goodness knows what else. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kim Dent-Brown and those 3 policies. I would find some more but...you know... :D G1ggy ^(t|c|p) 07:15, 8 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 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, and per above. Even 'Paul Chaloner' and 'ReDeYe' are very suspect, IMHO. Ohconfucius 06:38, 9 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. Anas ^talk? 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Von Gillern[edit]

Game show contestant. No assertion of notability. Ford MF 05:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because it was just a duplicate article:

Delete. Although it does assert notability ("received great reviews") and therefore I don't think it falls under CSD A7, I don't think she's any more notable than any other game show/reality show contestant. --Charlene 05:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So You Think You Can Dance is not a game show, but I do not disagree with the nomination. Corvus cornix 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno. Shows like this usually have ridiculous, windy descriptions (like "dance reality show and competition"), but they're basically just long-form game shows, aren't they? Ford MF 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's a dance competition, pure and simple. Corvus cornix 22:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my opinion, ALL reality television programs are game shows, no exception. SYTYCD is no less a game show for requiring dancing talent than Jeopardy! is for requiring intellectual talent. --Charlene 12:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed. If there are non-fictional contestants (i.e. real people), and a carrot at the end of the race (i.e. cash/prizes), and a limited number of contestants receive them (i.e. some win and some lose based on performance), then yeah, most reality tv shows are clearly just dusted-off game shows. Ford MF 14:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no news before a month ago. John Vandenberg 11:53, 7 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 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If she wins to keep, needs references. Callelinea 02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per above, and Comment: I think we should get a consensus on what should be the rules for reality show contestant notability (e.g., winners and well-reviewed contestants might be notable). Bearian 18:37, 11 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. No real reasons to keep posted in over 2 weeks. Wizardman 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abashera[edit]

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 11:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The game is still available for download (freeware) and it's annoying when searching for older games and there's no info to find on them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.87.68 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The IP's "keep" argument is similar to WP:USEFUL. Shalom ^Hello 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is currently no valid argument for deletion. The article is accurate, properly-categorized & size-appropriate for its popularity. -75.130.90.56 15:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
- Comment Huh? The article doesn't have any reviews, commentary or any sort of source noting how it is notable in anyway. Per Wikipedia policy that is plenty of reason to delete the article. Whispe ring 16:39, 8 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 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article cites no reliable secondary sources, and does not even assert especial notability within the category of games like this. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 23:51, 8 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. I looked at the sources personally and think they establish some level notability, the nominator apparently doesn't agree. So no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo 41414[edit]

Does not assert notability under WP:CORP. Was nominated as a prod but tag was removed so bringing it here. Article read more like an advertisement then an encyclopedic entry. Vegaswikian 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable...Balloonman 03:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:57, 2 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 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references listed do not qualify as independent third-party reliable sources. The article has no content that is not advertisement for the subject company. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Having checked on the search engine, I could see a considerable number of secondary sources, although most of those sites aren't very mainstream. Borderline.--Kylohk 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added an additional source to the article, which I believe sufficiently asserts notability when combined with USA Today's article. However, I think the page could use a rewrite or the addition of content that doesn't focus directly on Limbo's products.
- I'm not convinced that those sources meet the requirement for "Significant coverage" or "Reliable" sources (means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability). They do support that the company exists. However one is a press release, not reliable or NPOV. Vegaswikian 18:26, 14 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. Walton^One 17:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin Pattison[edit]

According to an anon's edit summary: "lacks notability related to Irish politicians and didn't get selected himself- and thats it. not widely known in ireland" I concur. The polician was never elected, but was a candidate who lost in the elections. Sr 13 11:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per precedent for losers of local elections. In this scenario, history really is written by the winners. :) Yechiel Man 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, normally I would agree with you guys, but since he is a third generation of a political family running for office, I must say to keep it.. In this case I do think he is notable. Callelinea 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sr13 and Yechielman. Being related to a politician is not per se notability, except -- possibly -- being a nobleman. He's a hole in the ground. Bearian 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability in his own right. NawlinWiki 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if he had got election to the Dail I would have said keep - he didnt therefore delete as he is not notable.--Vintagekits 17:06, 14 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 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The razor mephistos[edit]

No evidence of WP:MUSIC notability (i.e., no national sources, no national touring); prod tag disputed without comment OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability - No independent reviews/mentions in the article and I cant find much more through google. Corpx 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Despite creators removal of AfD tag during debate, I can see numerous sources on the first google search page. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes there are google hits, but a closer examination of them reveals that most don't qualify as a "non-trivial coverage" from a reliable source; I was only able to find one that met that criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after closer examination the sources do appear to give only trivial mention of the band in question. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:13, 7 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 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Four self-released albums + no references = non-notable. Precious Roy 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Corpx, and as completely local -- their web site lists only Florida tour dates. I think the growing consensus is that, if a musical group does not have a major hit or CD, it must have toured far and wide to be notable. This may be the second musical act I've agreed to delete in five months. Bearian 18:48, 11 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. --VS ^talk 10:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setia (songs)[edit]

possible violation of WP:LYRICS Xiaphias 03:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of all involved, I would like you to explain why this fails WP:LYRICS, rather than just saying it does. Also, ~~Keep.~~ Conditional delete per below. We could use a lyrics-free article on the song. Just because the article is bad does not mean the topic isn't notable. See WP:RUBBISH. Morgan Wick 04:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established. At present the article is simply the untranslated text of what is said to be a patriotic song. The relevant portion of WP:MUSIC says that:

A song is probably notable if it meets one or more of the following standards:

...has been covered in sufficient independent works.
...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group.
...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart.
...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire.
...has won a significant award or honor.

This song may be notable by one of these criteria, and if an editor can find a source for this and improve the atricle, I would change my vote to keep. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 7 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 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to recreation as a properly sourced article about the song. As it stands, there is no indicia of notability and no real content but for the lyrics.-- danntm ^T _C 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added two links to verify it is legit. It will expand in time. John Vandenberg 03:01, 10 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. Guys, this is a song. The song must establish notability in itself (not from the album) in order to be included here. Sr 13 06:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She Could Be[edit]

The song does not have notability outside of the album. Xiaphias 03:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If and when this single achieves its own notability, it could have an article. At this point in time, it appears NN. --Stormbay 03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 7 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 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Further to the subject of this article: the single has not received any particular fame or notability as a single and is known largely because of its inclusion in the album It is generally agreed that these types of subjects are non-notable in themselves. --Stormbay 22:48, 11 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, then redirect (you can't really merge and redirect at the same time). —Kurykh 04:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of SMS abbreviations[edit]

Deleted as an expired prod - the reason given was Unsourced and hopelessly unencyclopedic. The article has been undeleted as a contested prod at DRV but I tend to agree with the nominator of the prod. This article lacks sources, has no clear definaition of what can be included and is effectively 100% original research. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect - into List of Internet slang phrases which is essentially the same list but with citations.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Eusebeus 10:34, 8 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 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect. Deleting before creating a redirect eliminates a page's revision history, and therefore violates the GDFL. However, what sourced/sourceable material there is in this article seems like it could be merged with List of Internet slang phrases, per Elipongo. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:12, 9 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 Non admin closer: keep as disambiguation page. John Vandenberg 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rounder[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This "article" is actually just an overgrown disambiguation page, covering a number of radically different topics. It could be plundered for relevant information to add to articles such as Card sharp, Rounders, Methodist and Roundhouse, but nothing at all is sourced in this "article", other than its meaning prior to the Card sharp definition. The other definitions are not even related to this at all, but arose independently. I'm in favor of simply deleting it, due to the lack of sources, though the sourced etymological point should be added to the Card sharp article, if the term appears there (or to Card shark, which needs to be merged into Card sharp anyway.) When deleted (or simply blanked) it should be turned into a standard disambiguation page. I bring it here rather than simply doing it, because I'd like to get consensus on whether the unsourced (but probably sourceable) material should be saved (and I'm not willing to do the research to source it myself, as I have many other articles to work on). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into Disambig Why are we deleting this? There are at least three things that have the word "rounder" in them - Rounders, Rounders (film) and Rounder Records. That justifies a disambig. Chubbles 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Huh? That's what I'm proposing. Mergers, splits and other actions besides deletions per se get discussed at AfD, too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator and disambig per Chubbles. Send to cleanup for help, since no one seems willing to be bold or do the work. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, I've made it into a disambiguation page. I'm not sure about Methodist circuit riders being called rounders though. I haven't been able to find any GHits for that usage. Clarityfiend 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as modified, it is now a perfectly acceptable dab page. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yay! I guess this can be closed now, since it is moot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:15, 9 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 06:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Adams (political candidate)[edit]

Non-notable presidential long-shot, the article admits that he can't even be in the ballot in most states Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article contains no reliable third-party sources to establish notability among presidential candidates. Wikipedia is not a campaign advertising host. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article contained no sources at all to establish notability at anything. Campaign platform, and, if it wouldn't be stretching things too much, an advertisement speedy-able as G11. DGG (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, reads like a campaign ad. If it was written like a real article with independent sources then I would say keep. Callelinea 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll admit it needs some work, but thats no reason to delete it. If it reads like an ad, rewrite it so it doesn't. Previous AFD debated (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Schriner) have confirmed that as long as the candidate has a campaign, it is notable. It just can't be some guy who says he is running but doesn't actually campaign. I actually listed Schriner for deletion, but I changed my mind after the debate. 11kowrom 03:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The AFD you cite was closed as "no consensus" so it certainly is not a precedent. Of four votes, I rate two as highly suspect single-purpose accounts. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we need sources to establish notability, not guesses. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Any idiot can call himself a candidate for President and set up a website. Doesn't make them notable.Montco 05:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced biography of a very minor candidate.-- danntm ^T _C 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above. I am genuinely sorry about this one, as he seems to be nice guy (although pro-life). This guy is a hole in the ground, and I can not even guess whether he has a real campaign or not without at least one reference. Bearian 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot believe this kind of junk exists. Speedy deletion, poste haste, thanks. Gautam ^Discuss 22:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Assuming this page gets deleted, would this be grounds for deletion for Joe Schriner as well? 11kowrom 05:12, 12 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 Go! (album). Sr 13 06:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go! (song)[edit]

I have no opinion on this song or its performer, except that people are edit warring over whether or not this will be the next single from the album. Since there is no reliable indication that it will be, deleted until such a time as the single is officially released. Corvus cornix 22:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reliable sources to establish what sort of single this is, then yes, delete it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, we need sources to establish the notability of this song or the performer. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the singer is Grammy nominated, so there's no question that he's notable. Corvus cornix 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Go. There are several songs named "Go" and "Go!" and this page is not properly disambiguated. GassyGuy 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per user:GassyGuy. Article can be re-created if the song is released as a single. Precious Roy 08:26, 10 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 Deleting - consensus equals Wikipedia is not a directory. --VS ^talk 10:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities that offer the PPE degree[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory Corvus cornix 22:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I fail to see how it is notable to list what universities offer a certain course. Resolute 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was created by an editor who felt that a list of such schools was important. I'm absolutely against having such lists in the main article Philosophy, Politics, and Economics -- I fail to see why a general list of schools should be added to any academic subject. The first college to cover the course is of historical value (in this case Oxford) but the others hardly seem important. But I'm indifferent to the List of universities that offer the PPE degree and await with interest which way this discussion goes. Keep it, delete it, I don't care. Just so long as it doesn't get bolted back onto the main article. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Delete per nom Bulldog123 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge to Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. The list seems mildly useful for those trying to study that sort of thing. Mystache 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge does not resolve the WP:NOT violation. Corvus cornix 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Sorry, I didnt mean necessarily a direct merge, but some integration of the information into the parent article. It mentions the growth of PPE from Harvard/Oxford to other schools and it might be noteable to track some historically significan schools. Mystache 03:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge these degrees are manifestly patterned after the original degree, and I thing a list of such related programs would be appropriate at the end of an article. DGG (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I've said elsewhere, while it may be interesting to mention the first university *other* than Oxford to teach the course, or the fact that Harvard teaches the course under a different name, simply listing dozens of schools teaching the course is ridiculous. Lists of institutions offering classes belong in DMOZ or Yahoo! not Wikipedia. It also sets a bad precedent for spammers to add links to their products or services. Should the article on Audi cars list every dealer selling them? Or an article on The Hobbit list bookshops selling it? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and propose a merge in the normal fashion. The nomination doesn't state what possible problem there is with this lists inclusion criteria or its goal. Talk of precedents for spammers is FUD; spammers dont offer PPE courses. Each list should be taken on its merits. This is a list of notable institutions offering a notable accreditation. A list is more appropriate than a category in this case because universities offer thousands of courses and adding thousands of categories would not work. Adding a University to thousands of lists does work, and the factoids of which Universities offer which courses is information that future generations will want to know about. A merge looks like a reasonable approach, but Afd is not the place for that. John Vandenberg 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John, please explain what the notability of the institutions and the degree has to do with listing them in an article? Should medical schools be listed in the article on medicine? There's (oddly) an article on Medical schools that seems to be nothing more than lists of schools of that type. So there's a precedent for keeping this particular article as well. The precedent of spam in the article obviously (as well you know!) didn't mean people pushing porn, pills, and mortgages. No, what I'm concerned about is opening the door to every school around the world adding its class or course to articles about academic subjects. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are referring to my opinion that a merge is a good way forward as you have said you are ambivalent to this list being kept separate. I can understand your reluctance to have this list merged into the main article, as the field of study is distinct from the places that offer it, but this is an obscure degree and so keeping it all together is the best approach to serve the reader. Medicine is a very broad and well developed discipline, whereas the PPE article and this list are not a topic many readers will likely ever run into unless they know what they are looking for. Sadly, two small articles are considered undesirable on Wikipedia whereas one larger article is deemed a good thing. As a result, a merge is appropriate in this case, but not in the case of Medicine.
Can you provide some diffs to versions of either the PPE article or the list that have included "spam" entries? I assume you are worried that it will end up like this historical version. In response to that (assuming I understand you correctly), the other institutions can be added to the PPE article down the bottom in an appendix fashion. My guess is that people of all walks of life have honestly (in good faith) added other institutions that offer this course where ever it seemed to fit into the flow of the article. Sadly that has meant they have been trying to cram a list of institutions into the lead of the article. If we were to provide a nice table at the bottom of the article, and order it by year that the course was first offered, people would augment that table appropriately rather than modifying the lead paragraph. Additional columns can be added to list to record key faculty staff that were involved in the course, and any notable alumni from that institution. When the course is offered by a university of questionable notability, the row for that university will be unable to fill in the additional columns. The intent of this approach is to ensure the reader is well informed. As it is, the PPE article has no sources at all, so its present form is hardly a model article that should be protected. Have you been unable to find any reviews of the Oxford course? John Vandenberg 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PPE is an unusual major. It's useful to be able to find a list of schools that offer it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.60.210 (talk • contribs) moved from top.
Delete per nom. Am of the same mind as Resolute. --Malcolmxl5 07:56, 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 no consensus, complicated by the rewrite. Daniel 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tirk Recordings[edit]

Non-notable record label run by non-notable man full of peacock terms with no sources Corvus cornix 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - label with hundreds of artists including notable artists we have articles on here. It reads like an ad at present, but we should be encouraging creator to improve the article instead of WP:BITEing with hair-triger deletion noms. BenB4 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Reads like a press release. No prejudice towards recreation, though. Blueboy 96 22:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to re-write it and the newbie's other ad-like articles, as I did for Secondfest. Please do not speedy unless I haven't gotten to it by 10 July. BenB4 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote - Maybe the major copy-edit will make it more notable although it failed WP:V before.--JForget 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep pending cleanup; BenB4's comments indicate that the record label is probably notable. Chubbles 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just one trivial mention on Google News Archive (in an article about amato distribution, which is probably notable). --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge, I have refactored the article and started to tidy up Sav Remzi. If not keep, this article can be merged with newly formed Music Rights Collective. John Vandenberg 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending user:BenB4's re-write. Some notable acts. Precious Roy 10:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to whomever re-wrote it before it got to it. Note to closer: please compare nominated version to current version. BenB4 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is in better shape now but no sources have been added. Additionally I can't find any on various news/reference searches. --W.marsh 21:27, 14 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. Anas ^talk? 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of military veterans[edit]

Yet another "article" that should really be turned into a category. Just a waste of server space. Blueboy 96 22:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything thats good enough for a category is good enough for a list, since when was server space an issue? Jcuk 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft. Categories do this better. Corvus cornix 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: As a list this would be utterly useless and eventually so large it would probably crash people's browsers. Categories exist for this purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corvus, absolutely useless list of links--JForget 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & per Corvus; I also doubt the keepability of the sublists; the categories are much better for potentially huge lists. Anyone up for nominating them? Carlossuarez46 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above: it is the mother of all listcruften. Bearian 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Lists of military veterans" is not an "article" nor a "list" per se as is the norm within Wikipedia's "lists". I'm not a deletionist, However if I see soemthing like this, a waste of space which only leads to other lists, then I feel that it is my obligation to add my vote to "delete" Tony the Marine 19:29, 11 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, or at least No consensus. NawlinWiki 13:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondfest[edit]

Non-notable "festival" at a minimally notable website. I tried to redirect it, but the redirect was speedy reverted. Corvus cornix 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 95,000 google hits; I went to wikify the article to help the newbie creator, and saw that it had been redirected moments after creation. There was no mention of the redirect on the creator's talk page. I think there are major BITE issues here. BenB4 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPA. Address the article, not the person making the nomination. Corvus cornix 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, sure: The article originally had three paragraphs of perfectly salvageable content before it was redirected. If you consider my description of what happened to be a personal attack, then it seems to me you think you could have done better. BenB4 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did do better. I redirected it to the minimally-notable website's article. BTW, there are only 476 unique Ghits, most of them from blogs and myspace pages. Corvus cornix 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would have been better if you had bothered to merge any of the content into the article you redirected to. BenB4 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Second Life article is huge, and this event is quite unique with a number of very notable bands. Aleks Krotoski has written a day by day analysis of the event.[13] John Vandenberg 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weeak keep as per above. Bearian 19:02, 11 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. NawlinWiki 00:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midori (web browser)[edit]

Notability to come. Chealer 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:01, 10 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally Radd!!. NawlinWiki 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Attack Day Camp[edit]

Album by probably non-notable band currently failing its own AfD. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:02, 10 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. There has not (yet?) been any significant coverage about this product. The 2 reviews mentioned are about an other device (a FM transmitter). -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MU-STIK[edit]

There is little different in this than from a standard USB flash/stick drive, and the article is basically an advertisement. Maybe merge into or redirect to the USB flash drive article, but I see no reason to keep the article in its current state. However, I can see people disagreeing, so I didn't try a prod. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with your assessment. It's also worthwhile to note that the product in question is very new and it's unlikely it has had a major enough of an impact to warrant such coverage. --Agamemnon2 21:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator said all of my points. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is like a standard USB flash drive as it includes software, has a user interface. This product seems to be customised for music sales and distribution. BradNotBrat 13:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there's a couple of reviews from reputable sites [14], [15] but no reviews from major newspapers. -- Whpq 16:40, 12 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, no notability established. Sr 13 06:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sagan om hjältarna[edit]

Non-notable YouTube films. Corvus cornix 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube-only movie, fails WP:NF. Blueboy 96 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable - article don't even attempt to establish notability. WegianWarrior 13:59, 12 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. Anas ^talk? 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kraushaar[edit]

~~WP:BLP~~WP:N and WP:COI violation, assuming the author (of the same name as the page) is the subject. tennis man 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:BLP doesn't apply here, but definitely WP:N (of which there's none to speak of) and WP:COI.Blueboy 96 20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I meant WP:N. --tennis man 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N isn't met or even asserted. Although I think user was just trying to set up his userpage and screwed up. Same text appears there.Horrorshowj 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No notability claimed nor and references to what is in the article. Was the writer of the article notified that his article was up for AfD? Callelinea 22:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he was. Twinkle was used, and it auto-notifies, and I personally checked after listing the AfD. --tennis man 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I probably would have speedied, as there is nothing notable even suggested, but I personally dont wish to do so in the middle of a discussion. DGG (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; also, a former radio station owner and retired COP is not notable without stating why. Bearian 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable, and COI. Katr67 22:36, 11 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, A7 and advertising. >Radiant< 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pownce[edit]

Previously speedy deleted as spam. While on DRV, where all opinions were to endorse the deletion, the article was recreated. This is advertising about a non-notable website. The article about the parent company, Megatechtronium, has been deleted twice now. Corvus cornix 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salt it, because I'm barely restraining myself from doing so. It's been meets A7 and G11, and it's also on DRV with consensus leaning very strongly to endorsing the deletion. Клоун 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a "salt it" for you: shut up with your stupid AFD tags! Honestly, you people? Don't you have better things to do than go about deleting stuff on AFD????? Sheesh! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but don't salt It can be recreated once it gets more notable (i.e., on the level of Myspace and Facebook).Blueboy 96 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a valid AFD criteria. Fix the bloody thing, don't delete and recreate. Bloody hell! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A consensus has been reached in DRV and I must support it. (Ke5crz 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete and salt: not notable, no reliable sources at all, borderline spam, still a good speedy candidate. The DRV isn't complete yet, but no valid arguments for undeletion have been offered. It's fairly obvious that this will keep getting recreated unless we salt it. If it ever does get more notable, than a new review can be opened to petition for unsalting. Xtifr _tälk 23:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the DRV no point in two processes at the same time. The only indication of notability at this point is the founder--but that might just be significant.DGG (talk) 01:16, 9 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} 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayerWorlds[edit]

Current incarnation of this non-notable software. Player Worlds and Playerworlds have already been deleted before as non-notable. Corvus cornix 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves me correctly, this article has been pending deletion before, however it was fought off and this article was not deleted. Why bring it up again for a reason which seems to be for no reason at all besides it clone-articles have been disbanded? . Jeaton89 16:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC-6)

Speedy delete G4: Recreation of a previously deleted article. Should this version be sufficiently different from the previous ones (and no, a missing space in the title is not enough), delete it as unsourced and non-notable. By the way, according to his user page, Jeaton89 is the current programmer of PlayerWorlds, leading to a possible conflict of interest. Finally, I couldn't find a previous AfD for this article. --Huon 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playerworlds. Corvus cornix 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I found that one, but that can't be where "this article has been pending deletion before, but it was fought off", as Jeaton89 put it. --Huon 08:39, 9 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, i transfered the info to wikinary. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Womanizer[edit]

Delete - a couple of months after the conclusion of the first AFD, in which it was earnestly asserted that this article could easily be expanded into more than a dictionary definition, the article remains a dictionary definition. Its "sources" are novels and biographies that use the word "womanizer" in the title, its "reference" is a page out of thesaurus and its "external links" are two journal articles (inaccessible without a subscription) that again mention the word in the title and a random article about Martin Luther King in which he was supposedly called a womanizer by somebody's teacher. The article has been given more than enough time to show improvement and no improvement has been made. Otto4711 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redir. to Promiscuity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it a) passed an AfD already, b) has multiple references and external links, and c) is a familiar term and therefore definitely encylcopedic. If anything, just expand the discussion with more textual examples and perhaps an image or two of a classical example of such an idividual. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. On the day the first AfD ended with keep, the nominator deleted wikilinked examples of fictional womanizers with edit summary "removed all unsourced or POV/OR information" [16] Is a reference section stating the source required when the main text says which work it is from? Some of them may be unsourced for the actual word "womanizer", but most of them seem uncontroversial to me when the plots (with more details in wikilinked articles) are considered and it's fictional people. PrimeHunter 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - yes, sources are required, just like for any other article. I noted in the first AFD that the information was unsourced OR/POV but didn't remove it in the course of the AFD. When the AFD closed, I removed the OR. Not seeing what the problem is or what bearing it has on this discussion. Otto4711 13:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason it looks more like a dicdef now than in the first AfD is that you removed that material, for example the sentence "Ariel Levy reports in Female Chauvinist Pigs that women are also now being referred to as players if they treat sex in a similar manner to male players." The text gives author and title of book with wikilinks on both. Deleting it as "unsourced" because the author and book is not repeated in a "references" section seems odd to me. It's unfortunate that nobody has come along to improve the article (and I don't have the will to do it), but I think the topic is clearly notable and the article had sufficient stub content before. I don't know the removed works well so I don't personally want to add them back (with titles repeated in a references section), when I cannot vouch for what the article says about them. By the way, several of the wikilinked fictional characters have articles calling them womanizers. Are you also going to delete the word "womanizer" from James Bond (character) if no reliable source using that exact word is given in the references? PrimeHunter 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a good reason to remove the sentence you quote would be that it does not appear to be about the subject of the article from which it was removed, which is "Womanizer." Even if it were, in the absence of reliable sources in the article that state that a female player is a womanizer (or even the equivalent of a womanizer) then the assertion made by including it in the article constitutes a previously unpublished synthesis of previously published works, or in other words, original research. I note that you edited this article no fewer than five times after I made my edit (including reverting an edit back to my reduced version). I can't fathom why, if you found my action so objectionable, you would not have sought to restore the material during one of those many edits. Your unfamiliarity with the various works mentioned in the excised materials would seem to be an argument in favor of removing the material in the absence of sources. You could certainly have raised an objection to the deletion on the talk page. Instead, you apparently accepted the change without comment until such time as raising it became useful.
Regardless, with that material or without, it does not change the fact that this article is a dictionary definition. A dictionary definition with examples is still a dictionary definition. Otto4711 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as dicdef, although there's potential for expansion here for an actual encyclopedia article discussing the characteristics of such "womanizers" instead of a mere collection of trivia stuck on.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nothing more than a dictionary definition. Furthermore, it would be difficult to expand because "womanizer" is a derogatory term, so including information on living persons would be nearly impossible, and fictional information would be purely subjective. - Chardish 12:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete and redirect to Promiscuity. Possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. Previous passing of an AFD does not automatically mean Keep. Articles and policies change, not to mention consensus. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and as this article does not provide any information beyond what constitutes a womanizer, it is simply a dictionary-like entry. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —PrimeHunter 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef.-- danntm ^T _C 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Player (dating) or philanderer and expand. This is a legit encyclopedic topic, but womanizer is too narrow and forces a dicdef article. A Casanova, a Don Juan, a lady's man, a lady-killer, a wolf, a man on the make, a skirt chaser, a playboy, a flirt, Lothario, Prince Charming, Romeo, a lech or lecher, playgirl. This topic has a rich history, predominantly from literature and culture. ZueJay (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two suggested move targets both redirect to this article. I am unclear as to why an article about people who are promiscuous needs to exist separate from the article on promiscuity. Otto4711 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm aware that those two articles redirect to Womanizer; I feel that they are more appropriate titles for the topic contained within the Womanizer article - they're more general. And I'm not totally convinced that someone who's a Player is necessarily Promiscuous - it really depends on your definitions of these terms. I'll need to think about that some more. ZueJay (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but not necessarily with this name). Notable subject with neglected article does not require deletion. I have finally expanded it some (sufficient for stub) and added some references, although it feels redundant when the reference only says what is already in the text. PrimeHunter 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Promiscuity and transwiki to Wiktionary, as per User:VanTucky. — OwenBlacker 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable term.--Sefringle^Talk 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact of this being a notable term is not a reason to keep, because notable terms are made into unacceptable dicdef. articles all the time. This article is simply a dictionary-like definition and a few cultural examples. The only possible expansion is for a longer and largely trivial list of examples of womanizers. So not only is this now a simple dicdef. but it has the distinct potential to become a nasty trivia dumping-ground. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, or merge, or tranwikify to Promiscuity. Bearian 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought this article would have been better by now and it still lacks sufficient information. Perhaps integrating and redirecting the content to Promiscuity may very well be needed here. Deleting it would be bad, as the information and sources would be lost. Lord Sesshomaru
Merge with Promiscuity and take Rake (character) with it. I started a Male Promiscuity section on that article with a bit of content from both. I think it fits the topic, although quality of content could be improved.

Canuckle 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a term; not an topic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:46, 14 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romano-German Pontifical[edit]

This page has no sources and is a questionable article in it's self. Also made by an author who has a history of making nonsense or fake articles. Xtreme racer 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - a quick Google, especially Google Scholar finds respectable sources referring to it. I've added one (of the few online). Here is detailed description [17]. But some of the facts about its origin and location need checking. Gordonofcartoon 21:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: multiple sources and more information added. Gordonofcartoon 11:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, I also must agree with Gordonofcartoon. Callelinea 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I traced the Krakow/Tyniec bit; it was merely inaccurate. Gordonofcartoon 04:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - After fact checking, it will be perfectly notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - article is well sourced. John Vandenberg 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article was originally not sourced at all but it has become apparent that the article is for a valid piece of literature though given the starting author's history suspicion was well founded. Xtreme racer 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above; old saying: even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day. Bearian 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Bearian 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Bearian 19:12, 11 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. Anas ^talk? 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cotter[edit]

Seems non-notable. No indication that he's a financial planner of great repute. No indication that he's a figure of great accomplishment or fame through the mentioned regatta or club. JamesAM 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ref relied upon to show he's an expert in his professions says nothing of the sort. it says his co-presenter is an expert.DGG (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. MetsFan76 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability claimed, otherwise its a good short article on the person, it has references. Has the writer of the article been notified that their article is up for AfD? Callelinea 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; I have now notified Jimsonweedz (talk · contribs). John Vandenberg 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability. References, such as they are, don't inspire confidence ("He was at a conference where he talked to this one guy" "He likes windsurfing") and there aren't any news sources that claim notability.--Ispy1981 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- "charter member", "founder", "led to" ... may be read as assertions of notability. I'd like more, however. 19:31, 11 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 delete. Sr 13 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown International Relations Association[edit]

Article about another Model United Nations group. Organization doesn't appear to meet the notability or verifiability guidelines, with no reliable sources. Had a proposed deletion tag on it for nearly three weeks before being disputed by another user. If kept, needs a severe cleanup because current tone sounds like a brochure or an advertisement. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For clarity, the article did not have a WP:PROD tag on it for nearly three weeks; it was deleted during that time and then restored upon request through Deletion review. However, the organization is still non-notable per WP:ORG. Individual conferences or organizations of Model United Nations are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the some historical value UN conferences or organizations of Model United Nations are non-notable.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:18, 10 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} 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmanidhi Sarasvati[edit]

I originally proposed this for deletion, but the proposal was challenged. There are claims of notability but it does not seem to establish notability per WP:ATT, so it fails WP:BIO. It also seems to be somehwat promotional in tone. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I challenged the proposal for deletion and I'm one of the primary contributors to the article. I've reviewed the WP:ATT page and the WP:BIO pages. I see that [Dharmanidhi Sarasvati] does not meet many of the criteria for notability laid out in WP:BIO, however I suggest that notability may be established by the fact that Dharmanidhi is a recognized lineage holder in the Sarasvati lineage under Swami Satyananda and Swami Niranjananda. There are hundreds of more popular Hatha Yoga teachers in the west, but most of them are not lineage holders, authorized by their guru's to teach authentic and classical yoga. Perhaps in this case can notability be established based on rarity?

Furthermore, although Dharmanidhi may not be popular, or highly referenced, he is a holder and teacher of accurate and verifiable information on yoga, classical tantra, and non-dual philosophy. In contrast the wikipedia entry on non-dual lists several people under the "Contemporary Teachers" heading who are self-proclaimed holders and teachers of information and systems that only they can verify as reliable, truthful, or accurate. Some of them are highly prolific writers and well known in popular culture and therefore have plenty of references, secondary sources, and third-party information about them. However, this doesn't actually mean that what they are offering to world has any alignment with reality or lasting value. I'm not making a judgement either way. I'm saying that no-one has verified the informtion that they are representing. Of course, this isn't the mandate of Wikipedia to exercise that kind of discrimination and I understand that.

By comparison, this is the importance and notability of a living lineage in the area of spirituality. First, the lineage has lasting value because it has demonstrated it by having a multi-generation history of masters who have demonstrated their mastery in one way or another. Second, a person who is an authentic lineage holder has verification from their teachers that they have reached a level of understanding and experiential attainment that has been confirmed by their teacher(s). So, the one thing that would obviously be useful to verify is that the assertion that Dharmanidhi is a lineage holder. Unfortunately, the relationship between teacher and disciple is in this case between the teacher and the disciple only. There are no reliable secondary sources that I know of.

My main point is that users will find it useful and helpful to find reference to an authentic, lineage authorized teacher (however rare and non-notable in the academic sense). There is a lot of incomplete or plain inaccurate information out there about spiritual topics. And there are a lot of spiritual teachers out there who, in contrast, have academic notability (references, prolific publications, and popularity) but the actual content of what they have to say is not backed up by anyone but themselves. This, I think, is the ultimate dis-service to Wikipedia users, to offer a notable source of un-tested information on spirituality, but not offer a reference to a source that is not notable in the encyclopedic sense but is a source of very well tested and refined information on spirituality. On the practical side Dharmanidhi has been quoted in Yoga Journal, one of most popular yoga magazines in America, and an article that he wrote was published in Yoga Magazine which has been in circulation since 1963 and is based in Europe. A writeup in Yogi Times, a free yoga magazine based on the west coast, on his yoga studio in Berkeley mentions and verifies several other pieces on information [18]. Do any of these things help in any way?

Ms2i 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on scarcity of sources. The Yogi Times article Ms2i found is the best we have, and it's not enough to either establish notability or verify major parts of the article. --Huon 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on Ms2i resonings. Callelinea 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong delete - see Special pleading. Nothing much the way of reliable sources, and the whole thing has a promotional smell to it. Gordonofcartoon 23:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded to Strong Delete on grounds of likely factual unreliability. See my further coment below about different versions of the biography. Also, having looked at the article history and seen it was created by someone who represents the Trika Institute [19], I've passed this on to WP:COI/N. Gordonofcartoon 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question I do not know to what extent the yoga magazines mentioned might be RSs. DGG (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, these kind of New Age publications tend to be completely uncritical of their subject. A publication called Yoga Times or Yoga Journal is not going to grill a yoga practitioner along the lines of "Prove you read the Tibetan Book of the Dead at seven / wandered the Himalayas in your teens / whatever". They're probably perfectly reliable as sources of what practitioners say about themselves, but not for the verifiability of the content of such statements. Gordonofcartoon 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what the priority is here? Is the first priority reliable sources, or is it notability? If the first priority is reliable sources and the community is willing to be flexible on notability, then I'll work hard at getting reliable sources. For example, the IRS has records that state that Trika Institute is a church and a non-profit group. The Ayurvedic Institute probably also has records of Dharmanidhi's tenure there. Also, I'm perfectly willing to pare the article down significantly to remove any suspicion of promotional material and to remove any information that can't be reliably sourced, or to make it into a stub. In that case I'd make sure to get reliable sources for the information that remains. Also, what is RSs? I can verify that the Yogi Times magazine got all the information for that article from the Yoga Mandala studio staff. Thanks. Ms2i 03:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little Googling finds Dharmanidhi Sarasvati to be the same guy as Kolbjorn Märtens who's into Stav. Compare the biographies at the Trika Institute [20] and Märtens Stav [21]]. Same core biographical details ("born in Chicago in 1962, moved to New York before the age of two, and lived in New Jersey and New York until the age of 21 .. etc") but with entirely different spins on his spiritual lineage. This casts a lot of doubt on the factual accuracy and neutrality of the article - and on the reliability of third-party accounts that just parrot the Yoga-only version. Gordonofcartoon 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered in relevant media. Yoga Times, and per Ms21.Baka man 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these sources are telling a demonstrably incomplete account - like ignoring that he has a completely different version of his background when he's wearing his Stav hat - so how can they be treated as reliable? Gordonofcartoon 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Anwar 12:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only due to the sourcing concerns but also a likely COI, see WP:COIN#Dharmanidhi Sarasvati. MER-C 13:57, 13 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 Alison Weir. utcursch | talk 14:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley[edit]

No assertion of notability in any previous version, has hung around inexplicably for years, time to get rid of it. Also, in current form it's just a bit of fancruft, and if trimmed down would say not much more than it exists, and what it's about. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article may be bad, but that's no reason to delete it. Book is notable, as evidence from these reviews shows. JulesH 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is useful and redirect to the article on the author, Alison Weir. No reason for a separate article on every book by an author until the author's article starts to get too unwieldy. Pharamond 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We may need better guidelines on the relative importance of books and authors. In general I dislike ways of working that will lead to the multiplication of articles. The present article much resembles a book review for a class--a combination of straight description and unsourced opinion "This is a fascinating look into a world where even a Queen with considerable will and international backing could be dominated and used by the noblemen and clergy around her."DGG (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is not an article about either Mary, Queen of Scots or about Lord Darnley. It's about a book, and it's a lousy book review that was accepted back in 2004, when Wikipedia was hard up for donations. "a scholarly (un-romanticized) but eminently readable book"... "a fascinating look". Oh please, where can I buy a copy? Mandsford 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I actually have that book and other books by the same writer. On the subject matter both the writer and book are notable. Callelinea 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: There is not enough material present (much less sourced or even vaguely salvageable material) to support an entire article about this book, and the author's article is not so large that it needs subarticles for the books. Some day maybe it will need to split off and be its own separate article, but that is not this day. Alternatively, delete: It is so bad, I'm skeptical anything of value can be pulled from it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The article has been improved since some of the above comments were made, but with no justification of notability, the information belongs best on the author's page. Matchups 13:37, 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. Anas ^talk? 17:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Celebrity Washington Redskins Fans[edit]

Sourced, but not exactly encyclopedic; qualifies for WP#INFO. Pats1 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic and it will be impossible to maintain.TheRingess (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares? Hey, I'm a Redskins fan too, but save this for the website. Mandsford 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, lists like this are cruftacious in the extreme. Blueboy 96 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that it is totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic.--JForget 23:30, 8 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty trombone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Following my nomination against Cleveland steamer, I thought it'd be time to tackle this one as well. Essentially, most of the same arguments that I put forward in that AfD apply here as well. The article is essentially a dictionary definition ("performing analingus and a handjob on a man simultaneously" is all that it is once you strip away the original research) with an attached set of trivial references in culture. This article does not have non-trivial (the operative word being "trivial") multiple reliable published sources about it. To quote Wikipedia:Notability, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial. All of the references here are merely trivial, passing mentions of the term. See the guidelines for articles about 'in popular culture' articles, which is all that this is with a dicdef (which can be explained in less than ten words) attached. To anyone who is thinking about keeping this article, consider also whether a deletion review of "over the hill" (Wiktionary definition) would be appropriate, as the term "over the hill" probably appears in mainstream media (i.e the lyrics to the One Foot in the Grave theme song) more than "rusty trombone", yet would still read as a slang dicdef with trivia attached. The sexual act itself is probably extremely uncommon, and certainly does not merit its own article. Belongs in Wiktionary with a short mention in the analingus article, that is, if there are any reliable sources that even define the term. Delete. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this does get deleted, then I suggest the closing admin considers WP:SALT to prevent recreation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia is not a directory of (definitions of and references in pop culture to) slang, vulgar definitions of highly uncommon extreme sex acts which are known more as apocryphal jokes than as things that people actually do. Who would truly dispute that per WP:NOT?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is no more than a dicdef with citations of trivial instances of usage, but no sources actually discussing the term or its significance. -- Donald Albury 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable per above comments, and possibly redirect to Anal-oral contact. EyeSerene^TALK 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given in the previous arguements. Aren't there rules on how long you have to wait between AFD nominations? Lugnuts 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please state precisely which reasons you are using as the basis of your keep argument.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well this for one: Offensive, but does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Lugnuts 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you read my argument in full for this AfD, you'll find that I believe that it violates WP:WINAD as well as WP:N, as well as WP:TRIVIA.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the other poster apparently disagreed. CraigMonroe 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the opposition seems to be at least partially based on the personal opinion that it is uncommon. DGG (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unless it can be verified that it is truly common as an act, we have no evidence that it is. Verifiability is more important than truth on Wikipedia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my point is that it does not have to be common; it just has to be shown to exist and have been noticed. DGG (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really taking into account the full implications of my initial argument.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to state that AfD is not a vote and it does not matter how many AfD nominations there have been previously. If you're basing your arguments on invalid inclusion criteria that do not fit with policies and guidelines, then the closing admin has no reason to accept them when weighing up the debate at the end.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel the need to take issue with the statement "verifiability is more important than truth on Wikipedia". Are you honestly saying that if there were enough sources to veryfy that Julian Clary was a rampant heterosexual with 4 wives and 63 children, the truth would be unimportant? Jcuk 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's why we have the reliable sources guideline to keep out mistruths, gossip and factual inaccuracies. Your example doesn't really work as we could add it to his article that "it is claimed that he is heterosexual with wives and children..." if the sources were thought to be reliable and were multiple.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I really so no reason why its even up for AfD. Not a subject I would be interested in, but no "Real" reason why it should be taken out. Callelinea 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is given right there at the top of this AfD message. Read it in detail. You're not making a valid "keep" argument.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per rational previously stated. The nominator seems to be stretching wikipedia policy. This isn't a topic I would truly be interesting in but it has been mentioned in numerous cited places. Whether the act is common or not is absolutely immaterial. For someone that seems to criticize other peopels arguments, you should be aware of it. Then again, from what has been written. Even if the AFD is turned down, you will simply re-nominate. Ce'st la vie. CraigMonroe 23:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are trivial, passing mentions, as I said. No reliable source appears to have covered the topic in detail and as such is not worthy of a Wikipedia article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What sources do you want? Porn sites??? If you want something that is reliable, do a quick yahoo search. I got 77,000 hits and numerous photos, and several places with definitions. However, most of these don't seem quite appropriate for use as sources. Whether you like it or not, the topic meets WP:V the issue is finding suitable sources; they are out there. So the proper thing to do would be tag it for a clean-up--not AFD. The article has already improved the last 24 hours. It can still be made better. CraigMonroe 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- all of the "references" in the article are trivial. Fails to cite any reliable sources which either assert, or support, notability. --Haemo 00:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. The sourcing may need some fixing but it does assert notability. It is a relativelly common cultural reference in numerous stand-up acts, and a few television shows. This is enough to make it notable--note these were all sourced by reliable sources. What more do you want on that issue?CraigMonroe 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary definition with a trivia section attached do not an encyclopedia article make!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou seem to be misunderstanding the WP:Trivia guideline. The intent of the rule was to apply to lists of trivia:

"Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation — they can just add a new fact to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read."

The guideline even goes further, it states if the lists are found, the information should be incorporated in the article's paragraphs:

"Don't simply remove such sections; it may be possible to integrate some items into the article in a more organized fashion."

Note how the guidlines even say removal of such sections is innappropriate. It seems as if you are misunderstanding the rules. Not to mention, attempting to get into a wikipedia policy debate which has been occuring for years on the issue of whether Wikipedia should even contain trivia. As for now, the guidelines explicitly allow it. This is all that matters. Again, part of the notability of this topic is its pop-cultural signifigance. There are sources to back this up. CraigMonroe 13:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though it pains me to point this out, this act is much more notable than the Cleveland steamer and is a definite fixture in pop culture, even if primarily as a joke. The article provides adequate sources for a sex act. The fact that popular mainstream comedies use the term without stopping to explain in detail what it means, speaks more to the notability of the act than a lengthy discussion would. This nomination stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me, Wikipedia is not censored. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is being presented as a censorship issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship, so be wary of comments like "WP:NOT#CENSORED you censorer". -Amarkov moo! 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content and redirect to anilingus; it's simply a variation of that act. --FOo 06:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to Cleveland Steamer (put up for deletion for the same reasons), this is a verifiable and nontrivial act with significant pop-cultural relevance. Chubbles 07:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete for reasons of foo plus wikipedia is not a democracy. If you can't prove it should be on here you can't vote it's continuation. wikipdia does not record all info and none has proved it's relevance. plenty of things are relevant to pop culture but that doesn't prove they need an article or even a reference. take the idea that Bush and Condolezza are sleeping togetherYVNP 10:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree on all counts (we have shown notability, and expansded the article beyond a definition, not to mention it appears there is not a consensus for deletion), though I agree that a Bush-Condolezza sex article is not needed or allowed under the rule without legitimate sources. However, that is such a bad comparison, I don't know where to start with the differences. How about for one, WP:BIO and WP:BLP applies to the Bush example. CraigMonroe 12:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VanTucky. Sala Skan 17:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transwiki to wiktionary. The nomination of these two articles sort of play into bad faith censorship, in my opinion. CaveatLector^Talk 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about rusty trombone. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:01, 12 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. Anas ^talk? 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic music[edit]

As written, this is impossibly broad and subjective—the article describes something defined by "rhythmical cadences, melodies or suggestive lyrics", independent of style, and thus it could comprise any number of otherwise unrelated things, just by virtue of the "sensations" they induce. This may also have been a companion piece to the other article by creating user Adictum (talk · contribs), which, as evidenced by talk page, was speedily deleted as spam. Unint 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research. It may be possible to write an article about this subject, but it's probably easier to start from scratch than modify this one. --Huon 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. A textbook case of original research that a reliable encyclopedia cannot afford to have.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATT etc. Totally subjective. EyeSerene^TALK 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly original research Emmaneul ^(Talk) 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal essay. Greg Grahame 21:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless reliable sources can be provided to support this kind of music, it should be deleted. Spellcast 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:23, 10 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 13:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ikachan[edit]

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I just added an independent source, further ones may be found. --Huon 17:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if that's as good as the sourcing is going to get, forget it. One little capsule review on a website (lumped in with other freeware games) won't support an article. Come to think of it, Cave Story and Daisuke Amaya look pretty deletable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Why exactly are freeware games less deserving of articles? The suggestion that you delete the article on Cave Story, one of the most popular original non-commercial games of recent years is bizarre. The article is worth keeping purely because of Cave Story's popularity. People will want to find information on the creator's other works. Abigsmurf 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not established by the article - we can't include every freeware or PD game ever released. The Daisuke Amaya article looks pretty dodgy as well if this game is pretty much the only claim for his notability. EyeSerene^TALK 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source used is the game itself. This game is notable in that it is one of Amaya's earlier works and there is very little information (in English or Japanese) about it on the web - this article serves as the only English page dedicated to it that I know of. --PhoenixJ 20:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The game itself does not count as an independent, reliable source as mentioned by the notability guidelines. If the game is as popular as claimed, there must surely be more reviews, articles about the game, etc. Find them and add them! They needn't be online; reviews in game magazines will be just as good or even better. They needn't be English, either. Has the Japanese Wikipedia an article on this game? Maybe someone who speaks Japanese could have a look. --Huon 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Will do, just give me a few days to collect and summarize everything :) --PhoenixJ 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep As I hit google, there are possibly relevent sources on the Web. ([22][23][24][25]) These can be non-trivial, reliable sources in that they are not contributed by random persons nor are they placed on personal websites. In terms of indepency, however, Vector.co.jp stuff are not complete since the game is offered download via the site. Anyway, other two sources are fully independent. --Neko jarashi 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Japanese sources would be perfectly acceptable, as long as they are provided with an English translation in the Footnotes (see WP:VERIFY#Sources in languages other than English). This AfD is pretty much up though - and as it stands the two sources that have been added are untranslated. Notability at present remains unestablished. EyeSerene^TALK 09:23, 14 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, default to Keep. Walton^One 13:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheist Nobel laureates[edit]

This article does not merit inclusion for the following reasons:

It duplicates List of Humanist Nobel laureates.
No, it doesn't. A humanist can be a religious person. RS 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a synthesis of published material to advance a position. Religion, or lack thereof, has no relation to Nobel prizewinning. There are no published works which discuss atheism in connection with the Nobel prize (and if there is a significant body of writing about this, I will withdraw the nomination). It thus also fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:NOR generally.
Well, then why do we have list of Jewish Nobel laureates, etc? RS 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument has been advanced that since there is a list of Christian Nobel laureates, list of Hindu Nobel laureates, etc., that the article merits inclusion. I believe this argument boils down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and depending on the arguments advanced in this AfD I will consider nominating all of them for deletion as well (including the Humanist list above). Chubbles 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't actually see how classifying the Nobel laureates by religion serves any real purpose per WP:LIST. Perhaps better as categories.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorization doesn't need it either. There's nothing special about the intersection between one's religion and being a Nobel laureate. --Hemlock Martinis 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell that to the people who kept my mass nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanist Nobel laureates. I wouldn't be opposed to renomination if you don't think it's too soon. Bulldog123 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, that should've been deleted as well. It is too recent a nomination to renominate at this time; wait until August, then renominate all the Nobel Laureate religion lists individually. We can whittle them down much easier that way. --Hemlock Martinis 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not all religion lists, though I suppose they could be interpreted as such. Humanist is more of a philosophy and Jewish could be interpreted as an ethnicity, but I think regardless of religion, ethnicity, or belief system, they are all WP:OCAT#Irrelevant intersections, just in a list form. It that doesn't do anything but give a random selection of names; if it was more of an article it could barely pass. Bulldog123 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes delete this and delete all as an irrelevant interesections like it. Bulldog123 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be an over-categorization to classify Nobel laureates by their beliefs. Unless them being non-religious has significant bearing on their career, it should be deleted. The same goes for the above Christian and Hindu list. Spellcast 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, try to delete those list. If you can delete all those list then this list should also be deleted. RS 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As a category, it would fail WP:OC as a Non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Chubbles 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then try to delete them first. Look if you guys are interested in deletiong those articles, then all should be deleted at once. Otherwise, none should be deleted. RS 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anybody planning on nominating List of Christian Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners, List of Muslim Nobel Prize winners too then? The last mass afd didn't meet with success. Bulldog123 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering doing each one of them individually if this AfD is successful. Chubbles 20:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The central argument the keep voters made is that their beliefs are important, religious or not. People who are awarded a Nobel Prize are done so because of the work they accomplished in their field of study (medicine, physics, literature etc.) and not because of their belief system. What's next, List of Scientologist Academy winners? We don't keep categories such as the deleted Category:Muslim musicians or Category:Christian musicians, so it shouldn't be any different here. Spellcast 20:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A mass AfD is less likely to be successful, as some people may be in favour of deleting some lists but against deleting some others. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - this should be done through catagor(y/ies) rather than as an article. I further note that this list is WP:OR. Bigdaddy1981 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Humanist Nobel laureates This article has a real ass-backwards approach to its subject, mentioning very little about the person's views on religion in the text, but a lot in the footnotes. If we're trying to find out about Linus Pauling as an atheist, do we need to have a World Book summary of his discoveries? Hopefully the Humanist list is better. Mandsford 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you don't like the discoveries of Pauling, does this mean that we should delete the page? RS 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not better. It's even worse. "Humanist" isn't even synonymous with atheist. Bulldog123 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant intersection. Resolute 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bulldog123, "Humanist" isn't even synonymous with atheist. That is why we need this list. RS 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Humanist Nobel laureates, due to mostly duplication per nom.--JForget 23:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, humanists and atheists are different. List of humanist Nobel laureates doesn't have any source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Devraj5000 (talk • contribs)
Remain - If you guys want to delete an article please go and delete List of Humanist Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates, etc. RS 02:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you guys want to make certain change in the List of atheist Nobel laureates, you can do it. RS 02:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list should remain. Only if Female Nobel Prize laureates, List of Christian Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, List of Hindu Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates and Nobel laureates by university affiliation are to be deleted, then List of atheist Nobel laureates should also be deleted. RS 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above argument is good example of (illegitimate) argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~~By the way, I agree the other articles should go - the information is more suitable for categor(y/ies)~~ per Chubbles, I agree that a category of this type is overcategorisation.. Bigdaddy1981 03:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would reiterate here my belief that, as a category, it would still fail as a Non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Chubbles 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the argument that this list is a non-notable intersection of characteristics. It also looks like POV-pushing. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep IMO, these should all go, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an essay not a guideline or policy, contains an exception for singling out one of several equivalents: "Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS). Sometimes the nomination of one of a series of articles that have relatively equal merit would further the bias (e.g., deletion of Fooian this but not XYZian this if XYZian represents the majoritarian culture at Wikipedia." I would think that atheist, Hindu, Jewish Christian, and Muslim nobelists are all potential equivalent articles to rise or fall together to avoid bias. Carlossuarez46 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be different arguments to be offered for the lists - in particular, the Jewish list, because I think there may actually be a significant body of published work on specifically Jewish Nobel winners. The same is not so, as far as I am aware, of the other religions, and as I said, if I am wrong about that, I will withdraw a nomination. However, I think each case should be decided individually depending on the existence of prior published works on the religion/Nobel combination. Chubbles 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apples and oranges. Corvus cornix 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, far better sourced than List of Humanist Nobel laureates. -- Petri Krohn 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete their religion or lack thereof will typically have no bearing on the work that won them the Nobel prize. Quite a ridiculous over categorisation. Viridae ^Talk 03:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Delete or Redirect The creator of the list strongly states that his intention is to promote his belief system, atheism.[26] "I am an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of God. I would like to promote atheism in the Wikipedia." The list is merely a reflection of one editor's belief system, and his desire to find others with similar belief systems, and Wikipedia is hardly the place. I think enthusiasm is wonderful, but again, the place to develop your brotherhood of atheism is not Wikipedia, and creating Wikipedia articles for this purpose and celebrating each and every declaration of shared brotherhood on an article's talk page is just too much, imo. In addition the editor has no issues about doing original research to come up with who's an atheist or who's a nontheist and who isn't, it's a matter of the editor's opinion and desire to include some particular person into the brotherhood (Emphasis added throughout is mine):

[27] "The father of father of modern computer science is in the List of atheists!! I am adding the name of Alan Turing in the List of atheists. Yes! He is considered as the father of modern computer science! Great!"

Einstein is apparently a nontheist based upon this editor's personal conclusions and original research into the matter, "Well, I had discussions with a teacher of Physics about the faith of Einstein. I also studied about the religious views of Einstein. My conclusions are: The faith of Einstein has nothing to do with the faith of Christians, Jews or Muslims. Einstein had a faith in the rationality of nature."[28]

But no bad guys can be atheists, only good guys, because adding bad guys to a personal brotherhood would make it seem, well, more human, I guess, so Mussolini can't be an atheist, no matter what any sources say:

[29] "Benito Mussolini was not an atheist. The two sources in the article that call Mussolini an atheist are pro-Roman Catholic. Fools like John Pollard should be punished for trying to demonize atheism. The website (see orginal) is a Catholic website. These two ridiculous, nonsense and stupid website should be removed. And, of course, Benito Mussolini was a Roman Catholic. I have found two reliable sources which shows Mussolini was religious...."

So, when articles are written by editors desiring something other than an encyclopedia article, namely a sense of belonging, and they allow their needs to be put ahead of the Wikipedia guidelines for articles, to the extent of calling everything that says anything against them stupid, and calling other editor's comments stupid and nonsense when they don't support the editor's search for belonging,[30] along with celebrating anything that can be used for them, it makes it tough for other editors and users of the encyclopedia. I think deletion is the right way to go at this time for this list. With a more reasonable editing system, that doesn't include berating other editors and personal research that is heavily biased towards those Nobel Prize winners who personally appeal to the author (a concern considering the Musolini comments, although I'm pretty sure he didn't win one....), this might be an appropriate list. KP Botany 03:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KPB, if you have any problem with me visit my talk page. RS 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have blocked User:Devraj5000 for a 3RR violation in removing User:KP Botany's comments. The block is the standard 24 hours. --Hemlock Martinis 04:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with the other lists too- crusading on behalf of a cause produces problems with reliability in these types of articles and requires OR conclusions that will be debated endlessly. They do not show any correlation between the award and those that are placed on the lists as winners of those awards and thus each list is not explicitly promoting a conclusion that is referenced, its a back handed attempt to promote an OR conclusion. Hardyplants 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article should be deleted only if other similar lists are deleted. R-1441 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC) — R-1441 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Hut 8.5 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That vote was actually cast by a sockpuppet of User:Devraj5000. Chubbles 14:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made that comment on the behalf of Devraj5000. R-1441 is my account and I am not interested in this argument. Ravi. RaviJames 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that RaviJames has also been blocked as a sockpuppet of Devraj5000. Chubbles 14:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Categories are great and need to be used more often. Many lists on wikipedia can be solved with the use of categories. This one though is an exception, I believe. I think this because atheism is a heated subject here in america. And I have seen heated debates over including/removing various people under/from the rubric Atheist. The reason I think this article should stay is that it has a very well researched reference section. This reference section helps insulate edit wars by providing real support from one's inclusion in this list/category. I can see that the majority of people have voted delete and the article will most likely be deleted. I have also seen someone say they will, excuse me are considering, nominating other such articles for deletion if this one passes. I implore you to either nominate all the articles together or if the other nominations do not pass reinstate this article. As for duplicating that other list, this list has much better sources than the other list, if anything that list should be deleted because of it's lack of sources. Also if this list should be replaced with a category shouldn't the other, less referenced list? How can one support both statements? It's almost like saying Socrates was an atheist and he created new gods. It just doesn't make sense to say this list duplicates the other list so it should be deleted and it should be replaced with a category and be deleted. Perhaps, at least, the references in this article should be Merged with a Atheist Nobel etc. category. Naufana : talk 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem lies not with the sourcing; the basis of the article is inherently flawed. There's nothing that intrinsically links one's religion and one's Nobel Prize. It's like having a List of atheist Grammy winners or a List of atheist Tony winners - did their atheism influence whether or not they got that award? No. --Hemlock Martinis 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an atheist has nothing to do with being given a Nobel prize, thus overlistification, and is also trying to push some connection between the two, thus original research. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping this article, though I think that the other list of Nobel laureates by religion should be AfDed individually in the event that this list is deleted. Hut 8.5 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overcategorisation -- Agathoclea 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is much better referenced than the other lists of Nobel laureates by religious belief. Just take a look at the near-absence of supporting citations at List of Christian Nobel laureates, List of Hindu Nobel laureates, List of Humanist Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and List of Muslim Nobel laureates. Rather than being deleted, this article should remain as a stellar example of how the other articles of this type could be improved. Lists of this type are not a meaningless intersection of categories for the simple reason that many readers do find it meaningful to see how many Nobel Prize winners happen to have been members of a particular religious group. This list cannot be adequately replaced by a category, since lists provide something valuable that categories cannot: footnotes, supporting citations, quotes and details. This list does not duplicate List of Humanist Nobel laureates, since not all atheists are Humanists, and not all Humanists are atheists. Even if it were a duplicate, the quality of the atheist list justifies keeping it in preference to the Humanist list. The article is not original research, but reports faithfully what its sources say without coming to any new conclusions synthesized from those sources. The article does not push a point of view either--it neither disparages nor exalts these Nobel laureates' atheism. I have worked before with RS, the creator of this article, and it is true that he is a very enthusiastic proponent of atheism. However, the article should be judged on its own merits, and not according to suspicions about the neutrality of the author's motives. This is a very well-referenced article, and a fine example of how the other articles of its type could be improved. If this article is deleted however, I would support deletion of the other such lists, to avoid systemic bias. Nick Graves 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Bigdaddy1981 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to what I said? I never said that this list should stay because the others remain. Nick Graves 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete silly listDcker 23:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) — Dcker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, as per argument by Nick Graves. Digwuren 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why this is a "notable intersection by religion". Why is it worthwhile to classify Nobel laureates according to religion? Chubbles 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, To Chubbles: atheism is not religion. The classification atheist/non-atheist is a major watershed in worldview of scientists, and hence notable, unlike, say, List of gay Nobel laureates. `'Miikka 00:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, the "non-religion" status of atheism is immaterial. To rephrase, Why is it worthwhile to classify Nobel laureates according to religion, or lack thereof? To respond to your comment, Nobel prizes are not awarded solely to scientists. These lists appear to exist so as to point out, "Hey, my religion (or lack thereof) has smart people, too!". They are inherently NPOV. Chubbles 00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel Prize is not 1) given solely to scientists and 2) not given based on religion. It is a non-notable intersection of the two, just like your example. --Hemlock Martinis 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Nick Graves. – Freechild (BoomCha) 05:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nick Graves. It is well referenced and if this article is deleted all other articles that list Nobel laureates by belief/non-belief in a deity should also be deleted. -- Alan Liefting 05:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some Bizarro version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? --Hemlock Martinis 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that List of Christian Nobel laureates is crap? Do you think it should be deleted as well? It appears to me that this is as if we were talking about deleting "List of Nobel Laureates from Wyoming", but ignoring all the other state lists. The lists of laureates by religion should be treated as a group, rather than choosig one unpopular religion and deleting it while leaving the rest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of all those lists, it is the one that should not be deleted. It is without comparison the most well-researched and sourced. All people on it have repeatedly (and in many cases, militantly) professed their atheism, and furthermore they're all famous (more famous than your average Nobel Prize winner, that is). Makes you wonder how many laureates not as famous and/or not as prone to propagate for their religious convictions are accurately listed as Jews/Hindus/Shintoists.--Victor falk 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter, they should all go for the same reason - they serve no encyclopedic purpose. If this was a almanac of trivia then they would have a place. Further you last comment or two proves that this is a problematic addition Hardyplants 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kudos to those that have sourced this list. Too bad it's an example of over-listification. This, and all the other lists of Nobel Prize winners by religious alignment should be deleted (just as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination)) because it's based on a single trait that has no logical bearing on being a member of said institution. — Scientizzle 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Nick Graves, basically. I also want to address the three main arguments for deletion:
1. The article implicitly pushes a POV. The mere existence of the article does nothing of the sort. Is the content itself POV? No? Then move on, please.
2. The article is original research. It is not original research to state that a person is atheist when there exists a reliable source to support that assertion.
3. Irrelevant intersection. This is the dominant deletion rationale and has been challenged by numerous editors above. However, I want to pose a question: even if this is an example of over-listification, should we delete a perfectly sourced lists solely on that basis (and, moreover, a basis which has been challenged). Lists that are examples of over-listification should usually be deleted because they are unsourced, original research, or just pointless trivia; none of those designations apply to this list. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" None of the sources and no part of the article insists why is it notable that any of these people are atheists; it does not say what influence, if any, their atheism had on their work. The lack of any sources that establish that this synthesis is a fair one is what condemns this article. It is as irrelevant as a List of atheist Grammy winners, or a List of atheist Academy Award winners, or even a List of atheist Medal of Honor recipients. That's why this article should be deleted. --Hemlock Martinis 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... I think your statement basically proves my point. The article does not insist that the intersection is notable. Nor does it insist that the atheism of these people had any sort of influence on their work. It might be original research if it did, but the fact is that it doesn't. There is no synthesis required to note that a person who is "a Nobel laureate" and and "an atheist" is "an atheist Nobel laureate".
The OR argument is inaccurate for this article. A better case can be made for this being an "irrelevant intersection", but I'm hesitant to agree to deleting a well-sourced list for that reason alone, especially when similar, lower-quality lists have survived deletion discussions. The survival of the other lists alone does not justify the retention of this list, of course, (WP:WAX, after all) but it suggests that a bundled nomination with the intent of reaching a general consensus may be a better approach than targeting individual lists (because the "irrelevant intersection" argument, if applied to one, applies to all). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If their atheism had no influence on their work and the article doesn't indicate so, why does this list exist? Why does it matter? --Hemlock Martinis 08:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh ... you have a point. My "keep" recommendation was partly in response to the inaccurate accusations of original research and POV. I've changed to "weak keep" as the list, despite issues of relevance of intersection, seems perfectly sourced. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lists are not articles by their nature; there is nothing notable about individual beliefs or lack thereof; it seems POV to even mention it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. WP:SYN --Kjoonlee 11:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nominator. WP:SYN. I can't understand how the only rationale for "keep" seems to be WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Kjoonlee 11:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What, exactly, is the original synthesis? That these individuals are atheist Nobel laureates is supported by reliable sources. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A list of atheists would be perfectly acceptable, and a list of Nobel laureates would be perfectly acceptable (except insofar as either of these would be better as categories). Both of these phenomena are easily documented in and of themselves. However, I know of no reliable sources that discuss atheism and Nobel winning together. To combine the two is a synthesis, to advance a position (that this intersection is somehow an important or positive aspect of intellectual life). Same for Christian Nobel laureates, Hindu Nobel laureates, and so forth (the case of Jewish Nobel laureates may be an exception, as I think there actually is a body of scholarship on that particular intersection). As I said above, if a significant body of work on this topic does actually exist, I will withdraw the nomination. Chubbles 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it is not. Noting that someone who is "an atheist" and "a Nobel laureate" is "an atheist Nobel laureate" is simple addition and does not constitute a synthesis. If the article claimed that their atheism and status as a Nobel laureate is related in some way, that would be an original synthesis. However, it does no such thing. The existence of the list itself implies no POV as the title is neutral/descriptive; if the content is neutral (it is), then the list is fine as far as POV issues go. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Falling back on semantic nitpicking is just evading the issue. --Kjoonlee 07:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An irrelevant conjunction of 'atheist' and 'Nobel laureates'. --Malcolmxl5 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is apparently part of a set of lists of Nobel prize winners by religion or even by alma mater, all listed in Category:Nobel laureates. I think that's a silly way of arranging things, but apparently people like these kinds of lists. I'd support a motion to delete the entire set, but it doesn't make sense to delete them piece-meal. As for the "humanist" list, I think that atheism is a clearer criterion than humanism, which is less easily defined. In sum, I say let's keep this article until we are ready to get rid of all such lists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 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 07:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retroshare Instant Messenger[edit]

Non-notable piece of free software. No references in Google News archive, Technorati search returns only 10 hits for "retroshare", most of which are either non-notable blogs or file download portals. No indication that this software is in anything other than niche usage. Chardish 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and thinly-veiled spam Will ^(talk) 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting is nonsense, remove tha tag! Every downloadportal has retroshare, it is a Sf-Net TOP 200 Project., even more popular than lame mp3 codec or amule. It is technically a new serverless protocol for Instant Messaging, which is discussed in several pc magazines.

A few hints here, since you're new:

Register an account before editing - it makes your voice more respected, especially in deletion discussions, where moderators are likely to ignore the comments of unregistered users.
Sign your name when you post by typing ~~~~.
Read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for a better understanding of why things get deleted.
The tag will not be removed until the discussion is complete. That's why it says on the page not to remove it.

Happy editing! - Chardish 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think as it stands, the article is an inch away from A7 or G11. While it may not qualify for speedy, it should nevertheless be deleted. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:32, 11 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 06:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Res-q healthcare[edit]

No claim of notability in article; first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. Previously tagged with speedy, but creator of page immediately removed, claiming if IBM is notable, this company is notable. Kathy A. 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, probably spam. No Google News hits. --Huon 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam; I agree with both nom (Kathy A.) and Kayvdb. Bearian 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant advertising. --Sbluen 04:26, 12 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 Redirected to Wild Hope - no sources for any of the claims in the article. Feel free to revert if/when sources are found. NawlinWiki 13:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing That You Are[edit]

Another unsourced, original research-filled and crystal ball-gazing article by Parys (talk · contribs), again about a Mandy Moore song that he claims has been announced as a forthcoming single but hasn't — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraordinary. The single cover looks like nothing more than an MS Paint job. Because nothing is referenced, there's nothing to merge into the relevant album article. Extraordinary Machine 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to make disparaging comments about other editors to get an article deleted. Your argument should stand up by itself. 86.138.190.41 17:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the article was written by a user who has a history of adding unsourced material, original research and speculation to Wikipedia is pretty relevant to my rationale for nominating it here, I would think. Apologies, however, if I make disparaging comments about a user who deliberately adds false information to Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced. What sources I could find about the song contradict the article. --Huon 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that you're comments are professional, nominate this article but keep your rude comment on the other side of yor screen. 76.226.26.40 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to be rude here; the article author's history of adding inaccurate and speculatory information to Wikipedia is relevant to my AFD nomination of the article. Extraordinary Machine 19:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of Extraordinary, you need not give attitude or slander, because with the first single Extraordinary i was right. Why link something that makes you look wrong. Secondly it has reached radio. 1^{[failed verification]} Parys 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original Extraordinary (song) article written by you was AFD'd and redirected to the album article before its single release had been reported in reliable sources — read its AFD page. That the song was later announced as a single does not justify your inserting of your personal speculation into Wikipedia. The link you provided mentions nothing about "Nothing That You Are" being played on the radio or released as a single; I see someone has already tagged it with ::{{Failed verification}}. Extraordinary Machine 19:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what you are saying is i was right, the information i put in the original article for "Extraordinary" was also correct and you were just sitting there looking foolish. Don't spreads lies like basically saying i am putting false information on wikipedia, all my information has tunred out true. Parys 08:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ballery—even if it eventually ends up coming true—is still crystal ballery, and does not belong on Wikipedia until it is verifiable in reliable sources. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate" (emphasis in the original). How difficult is that for you to understand? Precious Roy 09:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needless to say all is true, the release date via myspace, the tone of the song, the writers and the number of collaboration all are right.!69.246.55.105 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of it is backed up with reliable sources (MySpace is not a reliable source). Precious Roy 14:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article can be re-created if and when it's actually released as a single. Also, I don't see any disparaging comments (or "attitude" or slander) coming from user:Extraordinary Machine. Precious Roy 09:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:25, 10 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. Very weak arguments for inclusion amounted to "we'll find sources for non-directory information one day". I will userfy this content if anyone wants to work on adding those sources. W.marsh 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Masson[edit]

This has no references other than IMDB. After searching google I could only find directory and forum listings, and of course this articles content spread over many mirrors. I am proposing that this article had not been shown to meet our notability criteria. Until(1 == 2) 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The only English related reference is IMDB, but in Romanian their are other references in his list.. Since he has only filmed in Romanian I would presume most of his reference would be from there. So I say keep, seems like a notable film director in Romania. Callelinea 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the source you used to determine his notability? I really did look for such a source. Specifically a source that meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Until(1 == 2) 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, allowing re-creation if the subject later can be established as notable. I don't actually see any citations in this article to Romanian-language sources. Also, I couldn't find evidence that he has an article in the Romanian Wikipedia (which could have helped establish notability). --Metropolitan90 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course I agree that the article should be recreated if it later meets inclusion standards. Until(1 == 2) 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lack of sources is not a reason for deletion if the material is verifiable, see WP:DEL. With some effort sources can be found. Tag it as laking references and let editors respond to the request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one feature film with no notability (e.g. awards, reviews, int'l distribution) does not notability confer. As for re-creation, I found some thin references to a saxophonist of the same name while fruitlessly searching Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add refs, clean up, and expand. Bearian 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability and self promotion. In response to Callelinea, I'm Romanian, I live in Ro and I'm interested in cinema but no one heard about this guy here. AdamSmithee 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sufficiently reliable sources, he could have created his own IMDB listing. NawlinWiki 13:32, 14 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. —Kurykh 01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democide[edit]

Democide is a neologism

According to Webster's dictionary [31], the American Heritage dictionary [32], and dictionary.com [33] , democide is not an established word in the english language. Using Neologisms certainly violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline. This article should be a candidate for speedy deletion. I have included the relevant sections of the guideline:

Neologism as defined from Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms

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

Why Wikipedia prohibits using neologisms

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. [34]

From the Guideline: Why this article qualifies

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.

The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.
As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead.

Abe Froman 16:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am the editor who brought this action. This article should be deleted because it is devoted to one academic's neologism. This violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline. Abe Froman 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Looks like a bad faith nomination. The term has been cited by 400 academic works[35] and has 200,000 Google hits.[36]. As noted in Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms "the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal" which has been done. The term has been cited, used, and debated by many scholars. If Wikipedia should only include terms found in the above dictionaries, then terms such as state terrorism, anarcho-capitalism, Public choice theory, and Juche should be deleted as well. The contents of an encyclopedia are not limited to that of dictionaries.Ultramarine 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this civil. Please point out the cite to a standard American dictionary that defines Democide. The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [37] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Throwing spaghetti links onto the internet does not a new word make. Abe Froman 21:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding dictionaries, see above. Anyone can see by going beyond the first page of the Google Scholar search that the 400 academic works have been written by many more scholars.Ultramarine 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these alleged studies? Like a link to a dictionary that defines 'democide', supporting citations are lacking. Abe Froman 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding dictionaries, see above. Anyone can examine the authors of the 400 academic works[38] and see that there are more authors than your claimed five. The sidebar is not a complete list, on the next page there are authors not on the list, ED Richter being one example.Ultramarine 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key to WP:CITE is "saying where you got it." This article does not even meet WP:CITE, as it uses intermediate link farms generated from Google as its authoritative citation. Abe Froman 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Hits as an argument against deletion is on thelist of "Arguments to Avoid" in deletion cases. Google hits is not a valid yardstick to use for judging neologisms like this one. Abe Froman 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is not ordinary Google. Scholarly sources are the most reliable sources available and 400 with many different authors have used and discussed the term.Ultramarine 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments and cites using Google Scholar, a search engine, fits the definition of Wikipedia:Search engine test. Wikipedia:Search engine test even includes a caution on using Google Scholar. We are on very uncertain ground. Abe Froman 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are claims Google is not google? Abe Froman 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep the is the epitome of a bad faith nomination. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google News Archive and Google Books also find plenty of prior third-party use (which further fit the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms criterion of being "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term". Gordonofcartoon 17:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a term is used does not make it a general term, or even a word. The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [39] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Using Google Hits as an argument against deletion is on the list of "Arguments to Avoid" in deletion cases. Google Scholar hits is not a valid yardstick to use for judging neologisms like this one. Abe Froman 21:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, passes WP:RS, verifiable term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that Ultramarine and TDC's suggestions of bad faith are due to their own misunderstanding of what Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms means. ~~The sausage king of Chicago~~ Abe Froman is, of course, right that "democide" is a neologism whose use should be avoided on Wikipedia, especially as a pagename. The Google hits provided above show only that the term is used, not, as Gordon suggests, that there are secondary sources about the term.
From looking through the Google scholar hits, I gather that "democide" loosely means the killing of people by their own government as used here for example, though it's more precisely defined by Rummel himself. The multitude of Google hits are, again, not about the term itself. But they are about the general concept of the killing by a government of its own people. The Wikipedia article should focus on that concept, not on Rummel's coinage of the term. The article should be renamed to Killing by a government of its people, or something less unwieldy, per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The article should also be refactored to include other scholarly work on such killing, not just Rummel's, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Pan Dan 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is bad faith, as the only reason it wqas nominated was to support as set of tenidtious edits on another article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Many of the Google scholar works discuss the term itself, such as Rummel's own academic works published in academic press, and also other studies discussing the concepts and definitions of genocide and democide. The article has material from other authors than Rummel. The first table is based on a study by Barbara Harff.Ultramarine 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [40] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Using Google Hits as an argument against deletion is on the list of "Arguments to Avoid" in deletion cases. Google Scholar hits are not a valid yardstick to use for judging neologisms like this one. Abe Froman 21:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can examine the authors of the 400 academic works[41] and see that there are more authors than your claimed five. The sidebar is not a complete list, on the next page there are authors not on the list, ED Richter being one example.Google Scholar is not ordinary Google. Scholarly sources are the most reliable sources available and 400 with many different authors have used and discussed the term.Ultramarine 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments and cites using Google Scholar, a search engine, fits the definition of Wikipedia:Search engine test. Wikipedia:Search engine test even includes a caution on using Google Scholar. We are on very uncertain ground. Abe Froman 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search enginge for scholarly sources, the most reliable available, is different from one going through all the web. The only caution against Google Scholar is that "Google Scholar should rarely be used as proof of non-notability" since it may miss material not available in online journals. That is not the issue here, Google Scholar has found many 400 academic works, so if it have missed some academic works that are not available online, these would only makes the notability stronger.Ultramarine 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it says clearly at the top of the article you keep referencing "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)." It isn't a policy or guidline therefore you cannot cite this for deletion. You're fighting a one man battle.

keep as per the preponderance (existence) of secondary sources that imply verifiability; the article itself needs more of these cited, however.Tsunade 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the cite to a standard American dictionary that defines Democide. Abe Froman 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Democide is well past the neologism stage. Greg Grahame 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so. Please point out the cite to a standard American dictionary that defines Democide. Abe Froman 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious argument, and a common misunderstanding of how linguistics works. Words are not defined by their presence/absence in a dictionary, because there's invariably a time lag before dictionaries document a word - maybe years after it is widespread in published text. Gordonofcartoon 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is necessary in this day and age to define what is happening in other countries. Read the article "avoid neologisms" - it doesn't say that an article with a neologism in it should be considered for "speedy deletion" as you call it. It says that neologisms should be avoided WHERE POSSIBLE. And of course, an AMERICAN dictionary would have nothing democide. The very idea of wikipedia is to be uncensored and provide the public with information. Just because this term isn't written on a manuscript, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. A book written in 1987 is hardly new as well. Rich

It seems this is just one man against everyone else. one man thinks his voice is greater than everyone else's. It says avoid using neologisms as it may be confusing for the reader. There is nothing confusing in this article. It has set out a complete definition for the word and why this word needs to be defined. Therefore I say keep and stop this one man from having so much power!!!

Keep. Used in many books.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that all of those books are written, in part or whole, by the original coiner of the neologism? Abe Froman 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, on the first page, the original coiner of the phrase would appear most frequently. But check the subsequent page. And the others. rich

Here is a good reference that both uses and describes it. Gordonofcartoon 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." The number of sources available about this term clearly qualifies the article. - Merzbow 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, excellent treatment of a term that is promoted by a small group of scholars and has been increasingly accepted for wider use. Notability is established, and the origins are discussed neutrally such that we are only describing an academic term. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOV doesn't just mean that the tone of an article should be neutral. It also means (perhaps more fundamentally) that the article should represent all points of view from reliable sources on the topic. From Google scholar, it appears that the amount of source material that discusses the concept of killing by a government totally dwarfs the amount of source material (independent of Rummel) that discusses the term "democide." For this reason it would be much more reasonable to have a Wikipedia article on the concept than the term. The article already is mostly about the concept, not the term--but it gives undue weight to Rummel's work on the concept. Finally, the article's conclusion in the first paragraph that the term "has found currency among other scholars" is precisely the kind of original research that is permitted (and scrutinized) on Wiktionary but not on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting suggestion - I would be inclined to back this approach. Pexise 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure that washes. John Maynard Keynes had an innovative take on economics. No-one says the Keynesian economics article shouldn't exist because plenty of other people write about economics. It's not undue weight to focus on a particular person's take on a topic. Gordonofcartoon 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A red herring. Keynesian [42] is a word. Democide is not. The new term should be moved to an article about Rummel, or to an article name about governments killing their own people. Wikipedia:Avoid Neologisms demands nothing less. Abe Froman 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keynesian is a word ... Democide is not.

From Merriam-Webster's FAQ, If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn't a real word?"

Most general English dictionaries are designed to include only those words that meet certain criteria of usage across wide areas and over extended periods of time ... As a result, they may omit words that are still in the process of becoming established, those that are too highly specialized, or those that are so informal that they are rarely documented in professionally edited writing. The words left out are as real as those that gain entry".

Which bit of that do you not understand? Gordonofcartoon 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am concerned that this is a neologism, as it has no entry in standard dictionaries. Will be happy to keep if someone can provide a peer reviewed source, other than Rummel's own that dicusses the term (not merely mentions it) as required in the WP:NEO guideline. As yet no one has done this. Pexise 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - see the three refs at the end of the first para. More where they came from if need be. And read Merriam-Webster's comment on "If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn't a real word?". As pointed out right at the beginning of this discussion, many well-established terms in political philsophy don't get into general dictionaries. Gordonofcartoon 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples are either phrases or words in other languages, such as Juche, which is North Korean. The suggestion was to change the title of the article. Pexise 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I will change my position, I no longer back deleting this article and agree that changing the name and adding some other sources is the best way to go with this one. It is a useful concept but at the moment it is too POV. Pexise 13:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we're not supposed to use neologisms in our articles because they may be esoteric jargon and difficult for readers outside the field. That in no way prevents us from having articles about neologisms, especially ones widely covered. Truthiness is a perfect example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point - truthiness is an amazing word, but it is also in the dictionary: [43] while democide isn't. Pexise 10:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word does exist! I belive that this article does have a place in the Wikipedia confines. It is accurate and has been suppoted up by some sources, but i hestiate that this must be acknowledged all sources to be considered as an academic work.--Pcu4bct 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a neologism, but it's a good one. Wikipedia is rife with helpful neologisms, such as womyn and Parahuman and having them available as well written articles makes wikipedia better. Paladinwannabe2 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep many scholarly terms are not in the dictionary....Travb (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Pexise 13:03, 13 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. The nominator sounded like he/she was combing the list of Wikipedia policies and guidelines just to find a deletion rationale, and even commented that his/her rationale is now weaker per cleanup near the end of the debate. Also, some "delete" arguments were based on that the subject was disgusting, which is true (unless you have the fetish or something). However, Wikipedia is not censored in regards to these topics. However, the "keep" side is not immune from problems: voting "keep" because this is the article's 8th nomination is not a valid argument. Consensus can change. —Kurykh 01:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This has been a tough topic for those who suggested its deletion in the past, but many were in favour of deletion in the previous attempts throughout this article's 18-month-plus history. Anyway, I think I've finally nailed it: this article does not have non-trivial (the operative word being "trivial") multiple reliable published sources about it. To quote Wikipedia:Notability, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial. The article currently has three references, followed by an unconsolidated collection of unsourced trivial passing mentions of the term. Let's examine the references in detail, in reverse order: 3. The Family Guy reference - undoubtedly trivial. 2. The Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks reference. I can't see this in the preview on amazon.com, so I have no idea whether this is a non-trivial mention or not, and I expect it would be, and even if not trivial, it would be the sole example of a non-trivial source about the subject. 1. Partial transcript of the Deminski & Doyle Show reference is totally trivial as well. I also searched Google Books and found two references that refer to this sexual "act" and not to steamboats, both of which appear to be highly trivial, the latter even having to explain what the term means. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and when the triviality of the references to this term are stripped away, it does not merit a stand-alone article. Strip away the original research and you have a permastub. It deserves a place in Wiktionary and a mention in the coprophilia article as an apocryphal sexual act, but certainly not its own article which consists of mere WP:TRIVIA. Delete. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial, not expandable beyond a dicdef. Article is basically a small collection of times this has been mentioned in popular culture, which is by nature trivial information (there's a reason that all the "x in popular culture" articles are being deleted left and rght). Poorly sourced, to boot. Suggest that closing admin necessarily ignore any and all votes whose rationale is simply the number of times this has been nominated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I definetly would not have voted delete in any previous AfD's, but after looking through the history and checking numerous sources, i see no way of making this article long enough to make it worthy of wikipedia. It is simply a dictionary definition and i would also seriously consider the term far from widespread. -- Jimmi Hugh 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this does get deleted, then I suggest the closing admin considers WP:SALT to prevent recreation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia is not a directory of (definitions of and references in pop culture to) slang, vulgar definitions of highly uncommon extreme sex acts which are known more as apocryphal jokes than as things that people actually do. Who would truly dispute that per WP:NOT?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given in the previous half a dozen arguements. Aren't there rules on how long you have to wait between AFD nominations? Lugnuts 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Precisely, which reasons are you referring to? And no, there are no such rules and it's been a few months since the last nomination anyway.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well it's sourced and doesn't seem to violate any WP policies. Lugnuts 19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you read my argument in full for this AfD (as with the one for rusty trombone), you'll find that I believe that it violates WP:WINAD as well as WP:N, as well as WP:TRIVIA.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia used to have an article (and this was a while back) called Unusual sex acts, which was a very long list of these sorts of things. Now, the article was entirely unsourced, most of the content was unnecessary, and it was very poorly written, so I, along with everyone else, voted for it's deletion. Now, I see that there are a number of articles now, Cleveland steamer being one of them, that is not exclusively an obscure piece of vulgarity. It has enough context within popular culture to be considered notable, but not enough to warrant it's own article. Could we perhaps revive this list in some way, shape or form, but including only the small handful of notable topics that meet this criteria? Calgary 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting idea, but I think that this should have a mere mention in coprophilia and other unusual sex acts/made up slang phrases for them could go into the relevant related articles, such as rusty trombone being worth a mention in anal-oral contact. Making a list would just be another collection of trivia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally trivial sex act, impossible to expand beyond dicdef. And lemme add this too... Eww. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has already been expanded well beyond dicdef. Chubbles 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No it hasn't. I could easily add that much trivia to every word in wiktionary. Doesn't mean we should though, if you strip the trivia, there is no real information in the article. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one wishes to delete an article, one can propose it however many times until one day the balance of people at AfD should by normal variation happen to be towards delete, and then it cannot be reinstated without Deletion Review. It is necessary to win only one time in eight (or ten or twenty). If one wishes to keep an article, it is necessary that the balance favor keeping all eight times.Tthis is different from all other closure rules in any sphere of activity, except for knife fights, where you also have to defeat every possible opponent.DGG (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to state that AfD is not a vote and it does not matter how many AfD nominations there have been previously. If you're basing your arguments on invalid inclusion criteria that do not fit with policies and guidelines, then the closing admin has no reason to accept them when weighing up the debate at the end.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N seems to be an irrational argument. The article cites sources that discuss the topic. The sources are from a third party. One is even an FCC notice of liability discussing the topic. If you want, I am sure there is a porn site or two that can be used as sources but that seems to be a bit unreasonable, what is used seems fine to me. As for WP:WINAD, the article is already expanded beyond a simple definition. Like it or not, this is a pop-culture issue. Also, the argument using WP:trivia was equally bad. The article does not contain a trivia list. From what I see, this seems to be a deletion based more or less on the limited use of the term. This is an invalid rational. However, given the history of numerous nominations. It will only be a little while before this is nominated again. Ce'st la vie. CraigMonroe 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that "the article does not contain a trivia list" is technically true, because it's in paragraph form. The second paragraph is nothing but trivia. The first paragraph is a dictionary definition.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CraigMonroe. The issue here is definitely its status as a pop-culture item, and its general disgustingness; there are a lot of articles dealing with unpleasant things that just keep getting nominated for deletion over and over until deletion wins out (remember Gay Nigger Association of America?) If the article's got third party sources, it deserves to stay, and it does. This is a nontrivial act with numerous mentions in current culture. Chubbles 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary definition with a trivia section attached do not an encyclopedia article make. It's not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia on these grounds.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see, also, why people are so eager to defend this. Just because it's disgusting does not make it notable. It's sourced, but it's not a proper encyclopedia topic.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the truth comes out. You admit it is cited but think to topic is innappropriate yet you still claimed as a basis that the article was not sourced. The basis for deletion is in violation of WP:CENSOR With this evidence, it appears this may be a bad faith nomination. Also, to respond above, the fact it is disgusting does not inherently give it notability. The fact it has become a pop-culture reference because of its disgustingness does give it notability. Can't you see the difference?CraigMonroe 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is you who misunderstands. This article is not encylopedic. It doesn't matter if you list a million sources and everyone in the world decides it is a fun and not disguisting thing todo, because it remains a definition that is in no way expandable. Also, the comment above your own doubted the Notability, it did not claim it should be censored, you seem to be taking this way too personally to prove a point that is simply not neceasary to make. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to tell you but if there are verifiable third party sources that discuss it, it is notable. See WP:N. h i s admitted it is sourced (contrary to what was originally stated). Now the argument is its unencyclopdiac. You argue it is not expandable beyond a definition, but ignore the fact it already has expanded beyond a simple definition--it is a pop-culture issue. I can think of other things to add to it. How about health concerns? Something dealing with its actual level of popularity? Etc. But hey, lets ignore these things because it is disgusting. Again, from the evidence, this appears to be a bad faith nom. The nominators rational has already changed once and admitted his original basis--a lack of sourcing--was innaccurate. CraigMonroe 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont't care about notability, as i said, there is no way you could expand it. It is not wide enough for verifiable studies into health to have been done and it definetly does nto need more trivia about popularity. On the note of notability though, i don't not see numerous verifiable citations, so unless some are added it will be deleted. Three citation, with one being from a bad cartoon known to make up details for the sake of comedy do not class as proof of notability. Perhaps if you can add 5 reputable sources with some details that are not trivial this article will be deserving of an article. As it stands you are assuming people's reasoning and entirely wrong about it's deserving to stay. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't care about notability? That is the basis proferred for its deletion. As for not being able to expand it further, I can think of more, how about a section about where the term came from? As for a claim I am assuming peopel's reasoning, he said it was sourced after originally saying it wasn't. And don't tell me I am wrong about an opinion. You have a different opinion than me. Fine. I can live with that. There is no right or wrong. However, the fact remains, there is evidence to show this was a bad faith nomination, and that even the nominator admits there are sources; which means it meets notability requirements. Nothing more is needed.CraigMonroe 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added four or five sources, and split the article into thre distinct sections. Anything else? CraigMonroe 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're all still trivial mentions of the topic (http://www.femdomale.com/human-toilet.html doesn't even mention the term "Cleveland steamer"). I'm sure you could go around creating many articles on obscure practices from sex dictionaries that would be exactly like this one, without the pop culture section attached as they haven't been given trivial references in culture - but that's exactly why they don't exist, because they are not expandable (beyond dictionary definitions with a list of cultural references) as encyclopedia topics without making the article into a coatrack article by adding information about other topics that do not address the subject in detail directly.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To quote r e s e a r c h "I'm sure you could go around creating many articles on obscure practices from sex dictionaries that would be exactly like this one, without the pop culture section attached as they haven't been given trivial references in culture - but that's exactly why they don't exist, because they are not expandable (beyond dictionary definitions with a list of cultural references) as encyclopedia topics without making the article into a coatrack article by adding information about other topics that do not address the subject in detail directly." You are starting to understand why the other references don't exit, why this is not "just a dictionary definition," and why it doesn't fail WP:N. The fact the act has been discussed in numerous pop-culture references makes it notable--unlike other non-notable sex acts. Without its pop culture basis, it wouldn't be notable. You keep claiming it is trivial, however, in this case, the pop-cultrual references are a basis for its notability. Its not trivial. CraigMonroe 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are really stretching. There are four sources that cite the term and discuss it. All from third parties. There is a book about Adolf Hitler that discusses him practicing the act. There is an article that discusses the health risks involved. There are several articles that discuss the pop-culture r4eferences of the term. You yourself stated "It's sourced." After back and fourth communication, your argument changed to it "not being a proper encyclopedia topic." The number of sources seems to state otherwise. I spent 10 minutes online on the term and pulled five seperate sources. There is still mroe that can be added. For example, the source of the phrase, or a "how to" discussing the use of human toilet furniture. The article has been expanded well beyond a simple definition. Again, the proper thing to do would be tag for cleanup and actually clean the article up. It isn't tough. Just use your brain and think of ways to make the article better. How about a discussion of the begative cultural view of the practice? From my perspective, and this topic does not really interest me (I only noticed it because of the numerous nominations for deletion--all of which make the same or similar arguments) the AFD tag is improper. CraigMonroe 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All your "expansion" has done is cause the page to become full of even more trivia. Please note it does not matter if the nomination is slightly off as long as the point that this can not become an encyclopedia article is made. The fact is that you have tried to expand it and all that has happened is that the page has even more trivia on it. -- Jimmi Hugh 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. For example, a mention of health risks is anything but "trivia." Not to mention a psychological profile that discussed one of the 20th century's most infamous leaders is not trivia. Furthermore, WP:Trivia does not prohibit trivia, as long as it is incorporated into the article and serves a purpose. As stated by numerous other posters--particularly during the last seven nominations, is that the pop-culture references are part of its notability. Furthermore, you also argued it could not be expanded. I expanded it. I added several sources. I found alternative definitions, noted its effect on a famous leader, and found health risks which you argued could not be found because it was a minor act. It appears as if there is more out there than people are willing to admit. Again, AFD is improper. CraigMonroe 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment How about a discussion of the psychological factors involved? CraigMonroe 23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, This is a form of human eroticism and should not be judged by the reader on the validity of or opinions of the those offended. Information is king, censorship is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.60.120 (talk • contribs)

Delete. This is merely a piece of crude humor being presented for shock value. WP:NOT a shock site. --FOo 06:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above vote only makes sense to me as an argument in favor of censoring Wikipedia. Chubbles 06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. CraigMonroe 12:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the joys of argument from ignorance. "I can't conceive of this as being other than X; therefore it is X." Please keep such fallacies to yourself. --FOo 07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe "WP:NOT a shock site" has been accepted as a policy yet, nor have I ever seen it proposed as one. If it were and stretched to cover this, it would contradict WP:NOT#CENSORED without fail. Would you propose deleting the articles about goatse.cx or harlequin type ichthyosis for the same reason? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Call the argument ignorant if you wish, however, the argument you made is still arguing for censorship in violation of WP:censor. But I guess pointing that out just makes me--wait, or did you say the argument--ignorant ... right? CraigMonroe 13:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't it notable now for being a WP article that's been nominated for AFD 8 times...? Lugnuts 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No -- Jimmi Hugh 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was making a joke. Don't take this all so seriously. CraigMonroe 15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct! Cleveland steamers all round! Lugnuts 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
laugh I don't know whether I should laugh or take a bath. Just the thought makes me feel dirty. CraigMonroe 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't there be another option to outright delete? Like merging into the Coprophilia article? Aditya Kabir 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely disgusting, but still needs an entry. Also, I think that the fact that this has surviced 8 times and that the nominator openly admits to Wikilawyering this nomination ("i've finally nailed it", i can loophole my way into getting this article deleted now!) screams bad faith. CaveatLector^Talk 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion the vast number of listed popular-culture references this act has received in recent times makes it notable - while the article could use some cleaning up, I definitely believe this to be a notable concept deserving of an article. I agree with CaveatLector that this AfD really smacks of wikilawyering - it is written as if the nominator has some kind of personal grudge against this article and searched hard for a believable justification, rather than believing in good faith that it truly is deserving of deletion.Mazca 09:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly merge with Coprophilia which is very short at this point). The article appears to be well sourced. It's gross, but Wikipedia is not censored for content. It is definitely more than a dictionary definition. I see no reason to delete this (and think that an 8th nomination is a waste of people's time). Aleta 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, it satisfies WP:N. The sourcing is good enough. Delete it anyway because it is distasteful. --SmokeyJoe 03:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I Quote from WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific religious or social tasteful to all users or adhere to specific norms or requirements... Being "distasteful" is not sufficient reason to delete. Aleta 03:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is taking notability way, way too far. I support notability to the extent that it keeps us from being obliged to tolerate one biographical article per person/band/group who has ever existed, and one website article per site on the internet. This would make Wikipedia unmaintainable. However, if we start nit picking every article out there and trying as hard as we can to judge the sourcing as "non-trivial" to get them deleted, we will lose a lot of verifiable information. I would be strongly opposed to this article being outright deleted, if you must get rid of the article, merge and redirect it to coprophilia as suggested above, but don't delete verifiable information. Also, I would advise people to restrain from screaming "it's wrong / it's disgusting" in their delete rationales, as this may suggest that such !votes have been influenced by simple narrow-mindedness. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSo your problem with this article is that the reasoning is correct but in your opinion "nit-picking"? You don't actually make any claim as to how this page is notable or how the sources can be considered non-trivial. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basically, I see two issues here, one of which I have opinions on and the other I have no opinion on. The first is whether the infomation should be deleted, which seeing as the nominator has brought this to articles for deletion, he obviously believes it should. I disagree. The way I see it, this term, whether written about at length or not, has made it into popular culture and the fact that it has made it into popular culture is verified by the last two references on the list, while the definition is verified by 2, 3 and 4 (which looks like a solid reliable source to me), makes it worthy of inclusion. It is verifiable. Therefore, it should not be a red link, and should definitely not be a salted red link. Notability is not synonymous with verifiability, and the reason verifiability is a policy whereas notability is simply a guideline is because notability is subjective, and can lead to losing verifiable information.

The second issue is whether it should have its own article, or whether it should be mentioned briefly in the coprophilia article, this I don't particularly care about, so long as we don't lose verifiable information which might be searched for. As for this nomination being nitpickery, yes, IMO it does seem to have been done in prejudice against the article, for the same reasons CaveatLector gave. Also, we've been here seven times, find a new way out other than straight deletion. They do exist. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OK, from the article name, I first thought this article had to do with shipping on the Great Lakes. Boy, was I ever wrong! Anyway, since I'm here ... in addition to receiving news attention through its use in a U.S. Congress staff hoax email and being addressed by the United States Federal Communications Commission, cleveland steamer has been a topic of radio, television, and music. The real issue is whether there is enough reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. In this case, there is enough reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. So keep. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changed to Neutral It belongs in Wiktionary. To those who say this article is more than a dictionary definition, I would answer thusly: There are three sections beyond the definition. One is about erotic humiliation, which has its own article so that section is unnecessary. The second is about the health risks, which could be adequately covered under coprophilia. The remaining one is the pop culture section, which runs afoul of WP:TRIVIA. Strip out the unnecessary crap, and it's just a dictionary definition. --Jaysweet 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (Retracted my delete vote after further consideration... I still question whether the non-Wiktionary content is valuable, but I am starting to see the argument from the other perspective) --Jaysweet 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must admit that the article is in a better shape now. I'm not going to withdraw my nomination, but my initial arguments are somewhat weaker as a result of the expansion with encyclopedic content, although the section stubs are lacking.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This goes to show the article is expandable, and the proper thing would be tag for clean up and not AFD. CraigMonroe 02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y Keep This article is sourced even better, and has more varied and encyclopedic content than the nominator's other attempt at deletion. Is it just me, or is there a pattern of nominating well-sourced, notable sex acts for deletion that the user finds distasteful? I mean, come on, Amazon sells Cleveland Steamer t-shirts, the term is even mentioned in FCC transcripts concerning obscenity on Howard Stern's show and you're trying to tell me it's just some obscure term that isn't a notable fixture in culture? And that's after the twelve reliable and significant sources in the article? What a crock. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep VanTucky hits the nail on the head. Yes its distasteful, but its a term used quite frequently so the obscure term argument doesnt hold water. Article is well sourced, Fed Govt transcripts use it... its certainly a notable term. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I retracted my Delete vote, but I can't quite see myself changing all the way to a keep. I have no doubt whatsoever that this term is notable, and should be included in Wiktionary. I still have reservations about whether it deserves it's own article. It's because this is a term rather than an action. Coprophilia clearly needs an article, but I'm not sure that Cleveland steamer needs anything beyond a Wiktionary entry. For comparison, I offer the example that Mammary intercourse has an article (because it is an action rather than just a term), but Boobjob does not. --Jaysweet 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment I don't understand this particular line of reasoning. It seems that the first sentence says exactly what the action is. Aleta 02:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems to me that Cleveland Steamer is comprised solely of an action, rather than Coprophilia, which is a term to describe a fetish that encompasses many different acts. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fairly accurate to me. CraigMonroe 02:52, 13 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.

Keep, per VanTucky. People will come to WP to look for info on this topic. bbx 02:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both. Sr 13 07:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sa Ku Bo[edit]

I can't figure out if this one is a hoax or not. There are no sources, the only link to it was inserted by the newly registered creator and this is his only contribution so far. I tried to look this person up on Google but I got zero hits. Some of the information, like the quote, must have come from somewhere. Until proven wrong delete per WP:BIO. The creator has been notified by me and invited to participate in this debate. MartinDK 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not verifiable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto, as unverifiable. It also smells of some kind of obscure linguistic joke: Googling "sa ku bo" finds it to be a common word combination in Papiamento. I wonder what it means? Gordonofcartoon 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the user who created this articel also repeatedly removed the AfD template. I've also added a hoax tag given their other "contributions", namely Zhang Kui, which I recommend AfDing or adding to this AfD. 68.39.174.238 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable -- Whpq 16:53, 12 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 07:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flipper and Lopaka[edit]

This article seems to be just a small obscure TV kids show, with no notability, poor grammar and poor elocution. Gammondog 15:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess it never caught on in the US, but in Europe and Australia it was a fairly popular show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Never heard of it, but it's in IMDb and it seems to have been successful enough to spawn Flipper & Lopaka: The Search for Neptune's Trident, also in IMDb. Clarityfiend 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Not the greatest show, but still should have a page. Recurring dreams 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but please somebody who's in the know please clean the page up. Lankiveil 11:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - but as mentioned before, this page practically screams 'CLEANUP'. Although it's a small kids tv show, the page should be kept. We just need someone who can elaborate a bit more. — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 05:03, 13 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. Daniel 04:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIWS-FM[edit]

This article is a local radio station, originally an internet broadcaster, speedy-deleted at another title. I've decided to send this through AfD because I'm uncertain whether the station's government license constitutes a minimal claim of notability. Still, delete for non-notability and COI concerns. (The author admits affiliation with the station in my most recent talk archive.) Xoloz 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDP, the criteria that radio stations have typically had to meet to survive here, in the absence of an actual policy that specifically addresses radio stations, are (a) to be licensed by the appropriate regulatory body, and (b) to originate at least part of its programming schedule in its own studios. This station meets both of those; we don't have any other criteria for determining the notability or non-notability of a radio station beyond that. COI issues aren't really a bulletproof deletion argument; those can be cleaned up. I've already taken a weedwhacker to the few truly egregious bits of the article, and while what remains could use a few minor touch-ups for writing style there isn't anything left that presents neutrality issues. COI means "give this an extra once-over for NPOV", not "delete this on principle no matter how NPOV it is". So I guess that puts me on the keep side. Bearcat 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, as I mentioned on the talk page this entry is very similar to some 50 entries in the category Community Radio Stations in Canada. I'm not sure why Xoloz would mark for delete without doing adequate research.

Also, while you have changed the main page from WhiStle Radio to CIWS-FM, which is fine, there is a precedent on the Community radio stations in Canada category for sticking with WhiStle Radio as the main page (Ridge Radio).

I'm unclear as to why COI issues are being raised. The station is a not-for-profit, so while I am affiliated with the station, there is no monetary gain to be had.

Last, the section Community Radio in Canada wasn't "egregious", at least, if you understand the word to mean "notably bad". Perhaps it was off topic, and should have been a link to somehwhere else, but community radio in Canada is a special type of radio licence, quite different from a commerical station (or the CBC), and the section in Community Radio doesn't fully describe what the term means in Canada.

WhiStle Radio 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Radio and RAV-FM are different because they don't have CXXX-format call signs. If a radio station has one, then Wikipedia policy requires that to be the article title. Ridge and RAV, however, have a completely different call sign format that consists of a mix of letters and numbers (Ridge's is "VEK565" and RAV's is "CFU758") and is far too obscure to be usable as an article title. And actually, Ridge is apparently defunct and might well be deletable in its current form.

As for the "community radio in Canada" section, that information should be added to the community radio article if it isn't already there, not to individual radio stations. Bearcat 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. GreenJoe 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bearcat for the policy. Call letters is the better system. I don't want you thinking that I thoughtlessly used WhiStle Radio as the title though. My thinking was that most people would use the name WhiStle Radio for a search (I'm sure only those in and around W-S will look up this entry). I note that you have re-directed WhiStle Radio to CIWS-FM, so it all washes out anyhow.

And I will add the information about Community Radio to the proper place. Never having added information to Wikipedia before I was a bit hesitant, but I see now there are plenty of checks and balances. Thanks for your support Bearcat and GreenJoe. WhiStle Radio 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, in your appeal to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, you appear to be predicting from past AfD's what other participants in this AfD are going to recommend. This is an odd way for you (or anybody) to participate in an AfD. Shouldn't you advance your own opinion about the nominated article instead of trying to predict what others will say? Your lamenting the "absence of an actual policy that specifically addresses radio stations" is equally strange; what's wrong with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? The question we should be asking here is, is it possible to write an encyclopedia article here that passes these policies?
The appeal to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is flawed for at least two other reasons. One, notability is not a blanket; it makes no sense to say all radio stations that satisfy criteria (a) and (b) are "notable," because to write a neutral verifiable encyclopedia article on a radio station, or on anything, we need multiple non-trivial independent sources. That's what notability means on Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What about article x?. Two, consensus can change; previous AfD's are not court cases, and they do not serve as "precedents." For these reasons (and maybe others I'm not thinking of), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes notes at the top that "This page is not policy" (bold in original).
Now, we need to actually investigate whether it's possible to write a neutral verifiable article here.[44][45][46][47] Guess not. Delete. Finally, as an explanation, please note that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view doesn't just mean that the tone should be neutral. It means that all points of view from reliable sources, that have investigated the topic in-depth, should be represented. Thus, in a case like this, where no non-trivial reliable sources are evident, a neutral article is impossible. And no, the government-issued licence,[48] which regurgitates what the "applicant" wrote on the application, is not a reliable source. Pan Dan 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any kind of "prediction"; I'm stating what the standing precedent is. And while precedent may not be policy, precedent most certainly is binding unless and until somebody can come up with a cogent and compelling reason to revise or drop the existing precedent. That's what precedent means. Bearcat 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Dan, I disagree with your statement that a government-issued licence is not a "reliable source." It shows that WhiStle Radio is a licenced community station, which is my claim, as well as the things that follow (e.g., WhiStle Radio is not-for-profit, call letters can be found in a predictable registry, power claimed can be verified). In deciding to delete my entry your sole, unstated, reason seems to be that I'm the author and I'm affiliated with the station. I'm still unclear as to why you ignore the 50 precedents I cited. Is the information I provide materially different? WhiStle Radio 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The government-issued license is a reliable source for the attributes you mention. Likewise, my passport and drivers license are reliable sources for similarly trivial factoids about me. But Wikipedia is not a directory and we need more than that--significant coverage in 3rd-party sources--for an encyclopedia article. The non-trivial information on that government website is verified only by the applicant and has been noted by no sources independent of the station, as far as I can tell.
No, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has nothing to do with my recommendation. As Bearcat correctly noted, conflict of interest is not a reason to delete.
If you're unclear why I ignored the 50 other radio station articles you cited, then you should read the 2nd paragraph of my previous comment again. Pan Dan 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another element of Pan Dan's comments that I find disturbing is that he seems to confuse *his inability* to verify with whether the facts I am asserting can be verified with whether they actually can. The activities of WhiStle Radio have been reported in five newspapers and on the radio (I have one copy of one radio segment). I am still unclear as to why Pan Dan is suggesting this entry be deleted, and why he is ignoring the 50 other radio stations. I do note that his tone is surprisingly, and inappropriately, angry. I am curious if those who oversee Wikipedia approve of such a tone from their administrators.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.54.218 (talk • contribs)

"The activities of WhiStle Radio have been reported in five newspapers" -- ok, now we're getting somewhere! The whole point of this discussion to have many editors, including you, look for and evaluate what sources are available. Please provide the citations to the newspaper articles you mean.
Since you're still unclear why I am ignoring the 50 other radio station articles, let me repost one of my earlier links: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?.
If I sound angry to you, it's probably because I'm arguing to delete an article that's close to your heart--you called it "my entry" earlier. You may have an inappropriate sense that you own the article. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia strongly discourages editors from editing articles on topics that are close to them.
I should point out that I'm not an administrator, as you suggest. I'm just an editor with the same privileges as you. (Which reminds me--please remember to log in and sign your comments as you had been doing up till your last comment.) Pan Dan 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CRTC licence yes. Broadcasting on FM...apparently not yet due to lack of cash. "We are not on the air and we have not yet set a date for launch"as per FAQ on their website. Canuckle 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against creating an article if the station actually buys a transmitter and goes on the air. Per their website, they are not even doing webcasts, except when they broadcast junior sports games. Having a license does not make a would-be broadcaster notable when he isn't broadcasting. A complete 50 watt FM station in a box can be purchased for under $4000 US. Come back when you have a regular broadcast schedule and have been written up in independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage (more than directory listings). Edison 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Plus no evidence of independent reliable sources, and no independent ghits, suggesting no notability. THF 10:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pan Dan I will remember to login. "What about article x" ... does this apply - as I think this through I don't think so. I'm saying that the Category Community Radio stations in Canada should include all community radio stations, and I have demonstrated that we are one. I'm not saying we're as famous (or other adjective) as other community stations, just that we, like the other stations, have a CRTC license and must/want to operate within a certain legal framework. So for this type of entry it is the category that meets notability, not each individual entry. In fact, if some community stations are allowed and some blocked, the reliability of the category is diminished, unless you change the name to "some notable community stations in Canada".

I can point you to a recent article on the web about our station (e.g. [49] but I have two problems with this. The first is that the CRTC is the only primary source - that is the only source that can ultimately verify my claim that we are a community station (of course, that doesn't mean we're notable), and second, newspaper internet articles have a limited life and the Wikipedia entry will soon become outdated as the link fails.

I'm not sure how TedFrank concludes the CRTC is not a reliable source, please elaborate. That we webcast spirit hockey can be verified on the Spirit Homepage, which I did reference and the OPJHL website too. The statement of who the founder is can be found on whistleradio.com (and in the article I referenced above). True, that Ryan Fabro was the first announcer has not been sourced, but the claim is verifiable in principal and has not been contested - at most you would strike the sentence, not delete the article.

Comment Feel free to cite newspaper articles. They do not need to be online; the online link is just for convenience. If it is a really obscure paper, the relevant info can be quoted (in a snip short enough to be "fair use") so it appears in the footnote, or can be quoted/summarized in the talk page. I really encourage you to market your station, find volunteers, get a reported to do an article about it, and get on the air. The sources say you won't even do a webcast until there is another game, and that makes you little more than a stadium PA announcer with a web hookup via a computer. Doesn't Canada require broadcasters to actually broadcast to keep a license? You could probably get secondhand equipment on EBAY for a few hundred dollars. Edison 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The activities of WhiStle Radio have been followed by both local papers (Stouffville Sun, Stouffville Free Press). When I say "followed" I mean the story line of: group formed to apply, group applies, group gets licence, group looking for on-air volunteers, group fundraising ... has been run over the past two years in both papers. I don't know if you'd call them obscure, they have ciruclation of several thousand. On the other hand no one outside of W-S has likely heard of them. The Stouffville Sun is owned by one of Canada's largest newspaper chains (metroland).

We've also had a short write-up in the Oakville Beaver (how Canadian is that, eh), another metroland newspaper. That was about our Stouffville Spirit webcasts. There was also a similar article in a Northern Ontario paper.

We've been featured on Q107's (CILQ) morning show, a large Toronto classic rock station, 'cause John Derringer (the main man) lives in W-S, and CIUT a campus radio station at the University of Toronto (the program we were on is also on the Sirus network). We've also been featured on Rogers TV, the cable company serving York Region.

Is this stuff I can put in the article? Does it matter for an encylopedia?

I do think we're more than a stadium PA announcer - at least, as much as any play-by-play program is. We have true (and I might add excellent) live play-by-play with "colour" commentary.

And I do see the theme emerging that "WhiStle Radio may have a CRTC license yet is still only a part-time web station and so doesn't qualify as notable". This argument is somewhat easier for me to understand, although I don't agree.

Aside: Canadian regulations give us 2 years from the date of license to get on the air. The cost of the transmitter isn't the only cost; consequently we've got a project plan in place (and have explored several different options). WhiStle Radio 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first 2 paragraphs of your comment are the most important. After all, it's those newspaper articles that we can use as sources to write a Wikipedia article. It would be great to follow the excellent advice in the first 3 sentences of Edison's most recent comment. If you can show that your group has been the focus of several newspaper articles (not just mentioned in passing), then we will know that a Wikipedia article can be written here. Pan Dan 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my user-id. (formely WhiStle Radio). I do have archives of the newspaper articles about WhiStle Radio, but it sounds like I should just ask someone local, who has been following the station, to write the article for me. Would be much simpler all around. To make sure I don't have someone's work go to waste, sounds like I'm better off waiting until we're actually broadcasting. DJ-Jim 22:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison Giggy _U^CP 03:46, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) 16:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTT (band)[edit]

The subject of the article fails the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. No albums, national tours or major media coverage, etc. Nv8200p talk 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Good grief ... WP:MUSIC was written for articles like this. No last names, only link is to their Myspace, and the band may not even exist anymore according to the article. Blueboy 96 14:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gee whiz ... fails WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per everyone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, absolutely no notability to speak of. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:21, 8 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 per CSD A7. High-school students must do more than post an exaggerated resume to warrant an AfD. Xoloz 15:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Wilson (Woodbridge)[edit]

This article looks like a non-notable autobiography to me (reliable sources are missing). --32X 14:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - an obvious, not even borderline A7.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:10, 8 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 07:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Model United Nations[edit]

Contested prod. NN Student group. Mystache 14:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find evidence of notability. I'm not really sure if it even avoids speedy deletion criterion A7. --Pekaje 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pekaje. Most individual conferences or organizations of Model United Nations are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quoting from the Yale Office of Public Affairs at http://www.yale.edu/opa/v32.n17/story2.html : "Yale Model United Nations (YMUN), an undergraduate-run conference that draws to campus some 900 high school students from around the country. During the four-day event, participants serve as "delegates" of U.N. member nations in simulated U.N. council and committee meetings as they debate and address true-to-life global problems and crises." See also:

http://www.vun.org/english/basiscamp/yale/yaleintro/ymun.html
http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=4020
http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=121
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/9828
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/16418
- Comment all the above are to Yale or affiliates - they do not consitute independent sources per WP:NOTE. EyeSerene^TALK 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As undergraduate publications, the Yale Herald and the Yale Daily News are completely independent from the International Relations Association, which organizes the event and is not affiliated with Yale University in any formal way. As such, they are independent sources per WP:NOTE. The same holds for the Yale Office of Public Affairs. -Levan
  - Comment - Come on, do you expect anyone to think that The Yale Herald and Yale Daily News are independent sources of information on an article about a Yale activity? Their reliability has not been established, and while they may not have any direct affiliation with the subject of the article, they must certainly have a bias in favor of it. Or could you perhaps link to other of their articles where they give equal coverage to the Model UN of some other institution not affiliated with Yale in any way? They fail as sources without even reading the text, which looks like some fairly trivial coverage anyway. --Pekaje 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment "I haven't read this book, but I am sure that it undermines the ideological basis of the Soviet State," as someone said about Pasternak's Dr. Zhivago back in the 1950s. And yes, I do consider The Yale Herald and the Yale Daily News independent sources of information on an article about a Yale activity. The fact that the people who wrote the article and the people who organized the conference go to the same university does not change that for me in the least, because the conference has nothing to do with the university. Hence, both sources can be considered independent, at least as per Wikipedia's standards. And they are certainly not questionable, for that is defined as "those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." That does not apply in this case, for both are newspapers with an established structure of editorial oversight. And the only instance in which a Yale paper would cover, say, a Harvard activity would be if said activity resulted in Cambridge being taken over by little green aliens. Vice versa holds true as well. Levan
      - Comment - OK, let's try this once again. The reason those articles can't be used to establish notability is that they are likely to be biased in a way that would make them write about less notable events than other papers, simply because it is a Yale event and their reason for existence is to cover Yale-related activities. Just read what they write about themselves: About the Yale Daily News (the other one gives a 404 on the about link). You cannot point to a single paragraph in a policy that would allow these to be considered reliable sources. And don't assume that I haven't read the links. I did, and the coverage was fairly trivial and I really didn't see anything that indicated how this subject was particularly notable. P.S. please log in if you're going to be signing with a username. Right now you're an anonymous IP. --Pekaje 09:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment A local newspaper in West Bushwick is going to be biased towards writing about events in West Bushwick. And yet, when writing about a festival happening in West Bushwick, it is entirely reasonable to rely on this newspaper's coverage. Same goes for a college newspaper. Note that I am not relying on the opinions of the YDN to write about world affairs, for that would be pure folly. On matters related to Yale, however, the YDN and the Herald are the sources of information. As to the official Wikipedia policy, the only thing that I can see there is this: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I am pointing you to the second sentence. Both newspapers satisfy this definition perfectly well. I do not see anything else in this definition that coverage by these newspapers does not provide. PS Apologies for not signing in Levan 12:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - They're still not independent. But more importantly, you haven't address my main concern that these sources don't actually seem to establish any sort of notability, should they be considered acceptable sources. --Pekaje 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability not established by the article. EyeSerene^TALK 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - thank you Astuishin (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, NN student group. Since these are always deleted when they come to AfD, and there seems to be about a million of them, the rest should probably just be deleted as A7/nn-group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted, thanks. Mystache 02:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, esp. per nom. BTW, Yale didn't do as well as SUNY New Paltz in Model United Nations competitions back in the 1980s. Bearian 19:18, 11 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. Anas ^talk? 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Millard[edit]

This footballer has not played for a club in a professional league. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has only played as high as fourth-tier; is currently seventh-tier. Can't justify notability on that. Mystache 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only played as high as fifth tier. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Player from the Isthmian League (6th tier?), who spent most of his career in the conference. -- Ban Ray 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO (though the conference is close to being all-pro these days). Number 5 7 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mystache. --Malcolmxl5 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. as corrected by Slumgum![reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastiat Society[edit]

Fails WP:ORG and WP:ATT. No significant third party coverage of the subject. Having trouble locating the one reference cited Nv8200p talk 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like advertising, and the references and links are mostly in-house. It fails notability requirements for significant external attribution. Shalom ^Hello 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Asserts no notability. Mystache 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per everyone else. I'm trying to find reliable non-trivial published independent sources and I'm having difficultly.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. --Evb-wiki 15:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of external sources.-- danntm ^T _C 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 10 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. Anas ^talk? 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire from the Sky[edit]

Non-notable album by non-notable artist (article deleted)--WP:MUSIC#Albums. Precious Roy 13:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's a list of the sole (non-notable) release by a non-notable artist, tagged as unreferenced since April 2007:

Delete All- not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Lamb (talk • contribs)
Delete both - if she's not notable, then her albums are not either.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- artist is non-notable, thus albums are non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per TenPoundHammer above. Lankiveil 11:37, 12 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, someone clean up though, please. NawlinWiki 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Tillotson[edit]

Article about a reporter. No assertion of notability. In fact, most of this article does not even purport to be about her, but rather a single event she was involved in. A person is not notable because of a single news event. No sources provided. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 12:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~I have not read~~ WP:BLP1E~~, but I suspect it~~ was written with exactly this kind of article in mind. The event was not notable, and I don't think the reporter is otherwise notable either. Shalom ^Hello 13:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. I don't think we need to invoke WP:BLP since she clearly fails WP:BIO anyway. It's not that I don't believe that WP:BLP1E would apply but WP:BIO is far less controversial so it's easier to reach consensus that way. MartinDK 15:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a White House correspondent for a major news organization. The article as written focuses entirely on one incident, however, posing an undue weight issue. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Tillotson was the permanent host of CNN & Co. for several years (1993ish-1999). Notable enough for an SNL parody. Undue weight problems can be addressed. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CNN host and White House press pool reporter=notable broadcast journalist. As above, article focuses too much on one incident.--Oakshade 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a proper capsule bio, and moved the 1992 incident into its own section. I'm still looking for reliable sources that aren't paywalled to write a simpler version (I suspect this one is a copyvio anyway, but I haven't found the source). --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Said with clenched teeth. I do believe that Ms. Tillotson does meet the conditions to be included in Wikipedia. However, the article is so badly written that it should be deleted on principal, until a complete rewrite is performed. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:00, 13 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. —Kurykh 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IJO[edit]

Non-notable internet composer. Can't really find any sources to prove any notability, google shows very few results when searching for him; most of these are sites listing his record, and the site of his first net label is down. Delete unless proper sources can be found. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 11:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IJO stands for so many things. Having checked in the search engine, I see loads of IJos, which have nothing to do with this artist. Had he been more notable, most of the first results should show him.--Kylohk 14:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:35, 10 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 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fehras[edit]

I can find nothing about this term and suspect that either the article is a hoax or the term is non-notable. Cardamon 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (no assertion of notability). While it does seem to be a real name (at least vaguely common in Lithuania, judging by the domains of google hits), I see no sources that back up the assertion about its origin, or that suggest it is notable. JulesH 11:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be the username of someone who uploads to P2P sites after a quick Google search. Likely to be hoax, plus the contributed article has little value. —Tokek 11:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator of the article is a known vandal. —Tokek 11:31, 8 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 per CSDs G12/A7. Xoloz 15:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Student Union[edit]

High promotional. Saying "It's our hope...", etc. Also doesn't prove notability.... though it looks like it could. DraxusD 10:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student union of a single university - not notable. —Tokek 11:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student activity at a single school, probably could have been speedied under A7/nn-org. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant copyvio of [50]. Editor has been warned. Blueboy 96 14:44, 8 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 withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patlur[edit]

I withdraw my nomination as per my comments below. DraxusD 11:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't assert notability, has no references and is poorly written, Also shows some POV. DraxusD 09:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I cleaned it up. Does assert notability. Punkmorten 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as current community consensus is that villages and towns, regardless of size, are notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, given the consensus for notability, and Punkmorten's excellent cleanup, I withdraw my nomination. DraxusD 11:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above all villages ar notable. Davewild 10:51, 8 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. Anas ^talk? 16:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the Game's Been Missing![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/What the Game's Been Missing!

Non-Notible album/artist - not charted on any chart - unreferenced article HarryHall86 09:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are Non-Notible singles/albums - not charted on any chart - unreferenced articles

HarryHall86 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - notable label (Def Jam), videos appeared on notable TV channels.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - While the album may not have charted, I'd like to see some proof, Juelz Santana is famous, albiet not famous world wide, he is well known in the rap world and to a greater extent in New York. As the above poster said, he is signed to a major label. He has appeared on many nationally broadcasted television shows, BET 106 & Park, MTV TRL. He has also seen some fame in the United Kingdom. A look at the template for the group would show he has been featured in many of their albums. Also, I remember a time, in New York, where the songs, "Oh Yes," and "There It Go (The Whistle Song)," received play in both the television and radio for quiet some time.--BaRiMzI 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Me to U - Strong Keep - Another album that for some may be unnecessary but again garnered fame for the artist in question. This was Jeulz Santana's debut album. Another album that may not have been well know in all of the world but was a hit in New York. A background on the group The Diplomats will let you know that they are a New York based group and a majority of their fame and fans are from New York. Another look at the page will again show that Juelz Santana is featured in a majority, if not all, Diplomat albums. Please reconsider before deleting any of his albums. While a user may have felt these albums were unfitting to be in an encyclopedia, this album was like the album above, released under a major label, Def Jam. How can this man or his albums be seen an not notable enough if a major label, at least in the rap world, both signed him and continues to allow him to release albums. Had these albums not been successful, why I still want proof of the claim that the albums did not chart, the label would have surely released him of his contract and then we would need not know about Juelz Santana and his albums.--BaRiMzI 16:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced the albums, references are links to their respective pages with tracklisting on the Def Jam Recordings website. External Links have also been provided.--BaRiMzI 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, upon searching the albums What the Game's Been Missing!, peaked at #1 on both the Top Rap Albums and Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums charts and #9 in the Billboard 200 chart according to Billboard.com, and From Me to U, peaked at #8 in the Billboard 200 and #3 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, on billboard.com, it showed the two albums did indeed chart, contrary to the nominating users claim. Proof can be found here. This has been/will be added to the albums pages with references. If this does not prove said albums notability then I don't know what does.--BaRiMzI 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - All pages have been updated and referenced. My argument against deletion pertains only to nominated albums and not the singles although the singles themselves have been referenced and had external links also added to them. For the singles I say Keep.--BaRiMzI 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and speedy close. Juelz Santana is notable, imparting notability to his albums (see WP:MUSIC#Albums). Precious Roy 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: keep the other albums and singles, too)[reply]

Comment. No, that says albums of a notable musician may have sufficient notability for their own article. WP:NOTINHERITED. --Geniac 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And Santana's notability + #1 Billboard charting album + an AMG review = ?

Also, from WP:NOTINHERITED: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)." Why bother waving it around if it's just an opinion? Precious Roy 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying this album isn't notable; it certainly seems to be, so here's my Keep. You gave inheritance from the artist's notability as your only reason to keep, so I was just pointing out that that's not necessarily a good basis for a keep. Yes, based on an essay, but essays should be able to be waved around if they make sense. --Geniac 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Notable artist - notable albums. I may be somewhat skeptical about the notability of From Me to U, but still keep. This nomination is somewhat silly, too, if it's not too bold to say. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:16, 13 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. NawlinWiki 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uudet Kymmenen Käskyä (album)[edit]

This album doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable to have it's own article, according to WP:MUSIC. It should be deleted and merged into the Stam1na article. Hux 08:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - surely if it reached #3 on the official Finnish album charts, multiple non-trivial published reliable sources about the album must exist? I wouldn't know how to go about finding them, especially if not in English, but this should be a notable album.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - Needs to be expanded and more english sources/references added as stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English - HarryHall86 10:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Foreign language reliable sources are perfectly acceptable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A well-known album by a well-known band. Well, at least in Finland. The single Likainen parketti went to #1 on the single charts and the album itself received an Emma Award (roughly the Finnish equivalent to the Grammys) in the category Metal Album of the Year. I'll add this to the article, with sources. –Kooma (di algo) 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:37, 10 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. Quoting the nominator below: "I don't even believe there is a consensus, it seems that it's about cut 50/50 for merge/delete/redirect vs keep." I agree. Sr 13 08:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit family tragedy[edit]

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

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

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

This page shouldn't have been created. Per consensus on the talk page on the Chris Benoit article this page was opposed to for numerous reasonins. Please see [[51]] for further details. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Section 1[edit]

Keep, I think it should be kept for the moment, but it could get possibly deleted in a few months time. I created this page, as the Benoit article was starting to get overloaded with stuff, and thought it would be best to start a new page. Davnel03 08:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ::For the record, I'm not saying I necessarily support a deletion, however I would prefer a consensus be hacked out for a final measure as to whether it should exist or not. Which is why I brought it up for deletion, so that a forced consensus could be made as to whether or not it should stay or it should go. I am actually neutral as far as to whether this article deserves to have it's own page, I do however believe that the creator should have probably waited before creating it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about it, I probably should of waited before creating a new page. Oh well. Davnel03 08:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge. Not worth its own article, but most of the information should be included. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect already covered in the Benoit article. Redirect to it. Lugnuts 10:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and lock, this article should redirect to Chris_Benoit and it should be locked to prevent recreation. So like those above me, I vote to NOT keep this article JayKeaton 10:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge NO lock. The information can fit on the Benoit article for now. However, there has been extensive conversation on the Chris Benoit talk page as to whether the article should be split. The consensus now seems to be against it, but this may not be true in a few weeks. We will see what information arises, and the popularity of this issue and make the decision then. CraigMonroe 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be a separate article. <K F> 14:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge, no lock. We don't need a separate article at this point. Give it another month or two and, once we've pared down the information that inevitably gets added due to recentism, we'll see if there's enough material to warrant a separate article on the murder-suicide. For now, though, leave it on the main Benoit article. Rdfox 76 14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's already covered in the Chris Benoit article. There's no point in having a separate article. Legendotphoenix 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, probably reopen in a few months' time, if there is consensus at the Benoit talk page. Sala Skan 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't suppose that this is because folks here are embarassed by the Wikipedia Controversy, mentioned in the article. Everyone in this discussion is oddly silent about that one, which made national news when someone posted the news of Mrs. Benoit's death several hours before it was discovered. Sometimes, the medium is the message. Mandsford 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm rather fed up of the arguing over this. This event is clearly notable in its own right, for different reasons why the life of Chris Benoit is distinct. With the coverage it has attracted, and the volume of media discussion about professional wrestling, this event - as didtinct from the life of Chris Benoit - already shows signs of altering the professional wrestling world significantly. Therefore it needs a separate article and, frankly, given that there are people who believe this, I find the stubborn opposition of others to the very idea to be disturbing. Lordrosemount 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the primary reasons that I created this article, because this will probably affect WWE and Professional Wrestling as a whole for the forseeable future, and I can see this being mentioned still in the next 2 - 3 months. Davnel03 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tragedy has received extensive media coverage. The main article is titled Chris Benoit and not specifically about the tragedy. Many articles have specific titles to cover a specific topic such as the the Execution of Saddam Hussein. As we speak, there is specific media coverage on this specific event. Simply put, the title matches the event. QuackGuru talk 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the event in itself is notable enough to warrant its own article. As long as WP:RS, and WP:V are strictly enforced within the article, I see no problems with keeping it. 82.27.21.157 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC) — 82.27.21.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep: Well sourced and with a large number of notable media references. Uncomfortable subject matter does not merit the WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. Do NOT merge the article back into Chris Benoit, as stated - the precedent of Execution of Saddam Hussein existing as a separate article to Saddam Hussein. --Eqdoktor 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge This is an encyclopedia, and we need to make overviews of things. Spinning things off to other articles isn't what an encyclopedia should do. We should give a simple/fact-based version of the events, and keep it on the Benoit page for now. Also, if this page is kept, could we please change the title of it? Putting "tragedy" (even if most would agree that it is) is a real non-NPOV word. It should be something like "Benoit family homicide" or the like. Dannycali 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this can be covered on Chris Benoit's page, no doubt his death will end up being what his is remembered for and most looking for his name in the future will be looking for these details. Redirect all versions of the title to Chris Benoit and put the info there. Darrenhusted 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge I've been following the story for around two weeks, which included frequent checking of the Chris Benoit article. At one time pretty much the entire Benoit family tragedy article, as it is now, was a part of Chris Benoit, and should never have been moved to it's own article in the first place. Unless it's a mass murder, under most circumstances a person killing someone else, or themselves, or both, is not criteria for a wikipedia article. Yes, Chris Benoit is a fairly well known figure, but outside of the context of his biography, the events described in the article are not notable. Calgary 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This specific event had significant major media coverage by multiple sources. Plenty of information and sources to meet WP:NOTE and warrant it stay as a standalone article. -Nv8200p talk 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to you aln all the other beople who point out media coverage Media coverage alone is not enough to make an event notable. Chris Benoit is a well known figure, and a double-murder suicide is unusual to say the least, so it's natural that it would recieve media coverage. Still, even if he had died in a car accident, the media would have covered it, because of who he is, but there wouldn't have been an article for Benoit family car accident]. Also, think about this. There was even more media coverage of Paris Hilton going to jail, but for obvious reasons we don't have a Paris Hilton's jail sentence article. Calgary 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this different is that it involves so many people: his doctor, the companies who supplied drugs, WWE, the coincidental Wikipedia editor, the mass media alleging steroids, etc. It's become its own event! True, the media covers just about everything, but Benoit's actions' effects themselves have made this notable. Plus, if this was merged back into the main article, I see it becoming too long in the future. This timeline should stay but with a new name. D4S 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge There is no reason the information can't be reedited on the Chris Benoit page, that was the overwhelming consensus, and this page was just created because someone wasn't getting their way. It can be pared down on the chris benoit page, and there is no reason why it should not be. The argument that it's too large could be said of his "wrestling" career, since it dominates the page and is scripted. It's the equivalent of having, say, Bender from Futurama's page including his entire history episode by episode. DurinsBane87 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen... this? This AfD is about this page, not Benoit's wrestling career, considering his stature as a wrestler the page size is about right, and as for the "scripted" remark, clearly you are not a fan of the wrestling arts. Darrenhusted 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't have an episode by episode layout of Bender's existence, and I understand it's not about his wrestling career. If you thought I did, you missed the point I was trying to make. DurinsBane87 05:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect there is no reason why this information cannot remain at Chris Benoit. Brutal case of recentism and an unnecessary article. Resolute 22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a clearly notable event, and there's so much information about it that it's worth having its own article, per WP:SUMMARY. I also think it's worth moving to its own article, so that it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the information at the main bio. Let's not make the circumstances of his death, the most notable thing about his life. --El on ka 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the subject is not notable, as WP:NOTE Clearly says "notability is not temporary" Calgary 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline said almost the exact opposite a month ago [52]. Does the current wording really represent consensus? --James 11:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename I suggest reformatting the article to be a timeline similar to other tragedy timelines. D4S 23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the information is best kept in Benoit's article. For those who say that it may affect wrestling in the future, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nikki311 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough notable per notability criteria--Andersmusician VOTE 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - This article shouldn't have been created. It was made while the consensus on the talk page was 2-1 against the creation of the article. Once all the facts are clear, which should be within the next few weeks, most of the details will be weeded out, leaving only the most solid facts. After that, I feel that this "article" will only be stub-worthy. We don't have an article for all of Beverly Allitt's murders, do we? Again, the amount of media coverage does not determine whether or not it deserves an article. Jezebel Parks 04:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. Everyking 09:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with short summaries plus links on the Chris Benoit and Nancy Benoit pages. There is enough information here that shoving it in a single section of another article. It should also reduce duplication between the various articles. --James 11:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Worthy of its own article 82.17.190.86 12:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, we're not a news portal and while there undoubtedly is source material, I believe the main article covers it in adequate depth. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, sourced and too big to merge into Chris Benoit --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be all those things. However, it doesn't justify its existence as a stand-alone article; it's a topic of which only so much can be written about, and it can be summarised. Does this article really have any relevant material that isn't covered and can't be covered in the main article? Right now, I see that this article is basically a rehash of what's already in the main article, with a few more words and level of detail that isn't really warranted. Tomorrow, someone enhances this article with just about the only way it can be enhanced - with an addition of "Reactions from world leaders" and "In popular culture" sections. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect and Strong Merge back into Benoit's article, where it belongs. fhb3 19:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Benoit family tragidy is notable enough to have an independent page. User:Arthur_B
Comment if kept, I have no real opinion either way on that, it should be renamed: lots of things are "tragedies" but this is an encyclopedia so a more appropriate tone is to be expected. Carlossuarez46 23:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2[edit]

Merge back onto the Chris Benoit article; consensus was to not create a second article about it. Title does not reflect a neutral tone either. — Moe ε 23:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most discussed crimes of 2007, should clear the notability hurdle with room to spare. Mystery Meat 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't notability. You should read the arguments before you vote. DurinsBane87 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is still notability. Is it a notable event/crime, or is it just a detail in the life of Chris Benoit? My opinion is that this goes way beyond a biographical detail; I think it's actually more notable than Benoit himself, because I've heard a lot about this but never even heard of Benoit beforehand. If it was merged, I'll tell you exactly what would happen: it would be way too much content, way too much to cover amidst all the other info on Benoit, so deletionists would say that they need to trim the coverage on this event and keep it short, and they'd jabber about "recentism" (at least one person above is already trying to play that card). The inclusionist solution, on the other hand, is to split off the detail, leaving plenty of space for thorough coverage. So participants in this discussion should be very clear: voting keep means this event will be covered comprehensively, and voting delete or merge means it will receive only a brief summary inadequate to the needs of many readers. Everyking 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Benoit article until suitable information is found, or at least until all edit wars/speculation die down --SteelersFan UK06 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Reason is, it'll eventually have it's own article, why not now? let's face it, the whole crime and the scrutiny professional wrestling has had to endure in the last two weeks, not to mention the backlash this is going to have in a countless amount of things, such as the WWE is concerned and also wrestlers, this deserves it's own article. -- Shatterzer0 05:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge-There's nothing encyclopedic about it. It's not a substantially notable historical event. (As opposed to WWII or something like that). The reason why it's a popular media headline is because it just happened so it's hype, and it'll be old news and almost forgotten a year from now. --VorangorTheDemon 05:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, this crime is not as notable as World War II. Almost nothing is that notable. I would tell you that Wiki is not paper, but even paper encyclopedias include things far less notable than World War II. We require notability, as in something we have a few independent non-trivial sources for, not substantial notability as a historical event. Everyking 08:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A family tragedy is in no way encyclopedic, it belongs in an article. And Paris Hilton's prison time is also an event that probably equals this one in notablility, but would you mind explaining to me why an article hasn't been started on it if one on this event has? You're being inconsistent. There's nothing encylopedic or notable about any family involved in murder-suicide. It belongs in the involved subject's article, or perhaps as a reference if there is an article on murder suicide. 90% of the stuff in the article for this event has no encyclopedic value, Wiki encyclopedic or paper encyclopedic. And a consensus was already done, and the opposal of the creation of this article won. It should be removed. --VorangorTheDemon 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd be quite strongly in favor of having an article on Paris' legal troubles. Notability is measured by the attention something receives or the importance people attached to it. I don't care if it's a jail sentence, a murder-suicide, or somebody stubbing his toe—I'm only interested in whether the sources indicate a sufficiently high level of attention from other people. Note also that this AfD enjoys broader participation than the article talk and therefore is more representative of community views. Everyking 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - An article about Paris' legal troubles? How is that encyclopedic? To be honest, who is really going to care a few months from now? I suppose now you want to write one about Mel Gibson's legal troubles, Britney Spears' breakdown and shaving her head, and the Duff Lohan catfights? Those also garnered media attention, but are perfectly fine without articles dissecting a small part of their lives. If this is so important, where's the separate article for Bob Woodruff and his recovery after being attacked in Iraq? That captured America's attention as well. You're inconsistent and seem to want to jump on something the minute it happens. You really need to sit down and ask yourself "Is anyone going to care about this a year from now?" or in this case, "Will anyone remember Chris Benoit's name in 2008?" Other than the informed wrestling fan, the answer is a loud and resounding "No". Jezebel Parks 07:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter one bit whether the general population will care or not care at any given time in the future. We should be recording things that are considered important now or were considered important in the past. It can be taken for granted that it will be useful to at least somebody in the future. I think the "big picture" deletionist perspective on notability is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, a holdover view influenced by paper encyclopedias, and counter-productive to our goal of providing information. I assure you I am not inconsistent in the least and I am in favor of having an article on anything that receives a sufficient degree of attention combined with a sufficient degree of available detail to fill up an independent article. Everyking 08:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chris Benoit. Classic case of recentism. If the article is kept, I suggest a name change to Benoit family murder-suicide or something like that. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think it should be shortend (a bit) and merged with Chris Benoit as a new section. --User:130.89.166.51
Strong Keep too large to merge into the Benoit article, noteworthy --Naha|^(talk) 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have a feeling we might as well stop now. This is a clear No Consensus. --SteelersFan UK06 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is properly part of Chris Benoit and should be addressed there, not in a separate article. MSJapan 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chris Benoit article will get rather big if we had all of this in the article. Besides, in an article like this we can have more on the reactions from wrestlers and the WWE. --Plasma Twa 2 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Chris Benoit article. It can be cut down to reduce article size if necessary, but I don't feel it's necessary to have its own article. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the biggest news stories of 2007. If this doesn't meet the criteria for notability, I don't what know what does. Phediuk 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As it is explained above, the issue is not notability. It is about whether there is actually enough relevant information to support an article. Not all the facts are known. Once they are, that article would be nothing more than a stub. And it definitely wasn't one of the biggest news storie of '07. We hardly heard about it up here in New England. Jezebel Parks 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, if you'll notice, there's actually already easily enough information to support an article, even with not all the facts being known yet. So when more info is available, won't your case become weaker, not stronger? Everyking 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sometimes i think that the mods on here have too much time on their hands. just leave the page alone. This is an event that rocked the country's news for weeks. if this bothers you then delete JFK's assassination page. ohh "but he was a president"...so? (added by User:Bassman600)

A president who had intense dealings with the Cold War and who's assassination was and is still being reported all over, who spawned years and years of conspiracy theories, is FAR more notable than a wrestler on a scripted TV program. Do you really think that 10 years from now, people will say "oh, i remember where i was when they announced the Chris Benoit died."??? chris benoits deathh was reported for a few weeks. tops. i havent seen a news story in the paper about it in awhile. JFK was reported on for much longer, plus has thousands of books written on the subject. JFK was world famous BEFORE he was assassinated. plus there's ridiculous controversy about his assassination. Chris Benoit's case is fairly clean cut. He only became a household name after he killed himself. and in a few weeks, if you mention it to an average person who doesnt watch wrestling, they probably won't remember his name. DurinsBane87 00:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It was fine as it was in the Chris Benoit article. If it gets too long like people have said, then shorten it. There were ceratinly parts of it that didn't need to be there before the second article was made. Arrowny 00:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't care if it stays or goes, but if it stays, it must be renamed. A less melodramatic title, please. · jersyko talk 03:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chris Benoit. It is already covered in the main article. There is no article of the death of, say, Sherri Martel. bibliotheque (Talk) 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a big difference between a highly public double murder-suicide and a death of indeterminate cause that isn't foul play. Mystery Meat 03:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The vast and I mean vast majority of hits on the Chris Benoit page are people looking for this article's details. The level of detail here, is *not* covered in the main article, and if it were it would probably get cut down by cutter-downers. It's much better to have it a seperate article to satisfy all sides. Wjhonson 06:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that would satisfy all sides, then why are we even having this debate? The main argument is that this page was made despite consensus against it. Keeping it would not satisfy those arguing for its deletion, obviously. Jezebel Parks 07:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It is an episode in an etertainer's life, but it is not the whole story. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, who said it was? Why would anyone think that? What does it have to do with anything? Everyking 07:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He probably means that it isn't a particularly important event in Chris Benoit's life. Christopher Connor 11:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Redirect, Lock - The article should never have been created. A separate article is not warranted. It is not notable enough. The Hybrid 12:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Redirect & Lock echoing the above. Another example of news conflation, in violation of WP:NOT. Send it back to the Benoit page where it belongs. Eusebeus 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that this is a major event that should be covered extensively. And Benoit's life before this happened should be covered in his main biography. He shouldn't only be remembered for this event, but the event needs to be covered...hence we need two seperate articles. --SGT Tex 14:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because.
- This is not a ballot. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The circumstances of the events are large and complex enough that to present them properly in Wikipedia requires a separate entry since Chris Benoit already had a notable life and career before the murders took place. In the interest of keeping an accurate entry on the events in Wikipedia without making the Chris Benoit article far too long, it needs a separate page.Rebochan 16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - James Kim doesn't (and shouldn't) have a Kim family tragedy article, so why should this guy? Plus, which news article even calls it Benoit family tragedy? The very title violates WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP Misterdiscreet 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominate you to write the article on Kim's ordeal and his demise. Seriously, "other people haven't written some other article yet, so delete this one" is the worst deletionist argument ever. Everyking 05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - why would i write an article on a subject i already said shouldn't have one? that makes about as much since as me telling you to delete James Kim, even though you've already suggested it be expanded into another article Misterdiscreet 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was an ironic way of making the point that the reason that there's no article on that subject is at least as likely to be because no one bothered to write one (or was interested enough) as it is to be because of some big deletionist consensus on the part of its editors. Everyking 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A great big reminder to everyone: This discussion is half-pointless (basically, we're on the wrong forum and we don't have a "Requested Merges Or Else" forum). At this point, it's abundantly clear that the topic is worth discussing. Before commenting, please read the nomination: the big question, as always in AfDs is, do we need this article? In other words - should this particular death be discussed in main article, or in an article of its own; in most cases, such things are discussed in main articles? So please, don't just say "keep" because you think the topic is notable - we already know it is. It looks to me that we're ending into a dead end in regards to whether or not this needs to be merged because we get distracted by this issue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out above, notability is in fact a key issue here. We can be fairly certain that, if a merge takes place, many of the details will be trimmed out to save space, so the only way to have comprehensive coverage of the subject is to have an independent article. So, is the subject notable enough to warrant comprehensive coverage? Everyking 10:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Let me make myself more clear: The existence of notability is irrelevant because the answer is obviously positive; the amount of notability is in doubt. The question isn't "is this notable", but "how notable is it". It would be terribly nice to, for once, get a straight answer to a merge-or-not question in AfD; it rarely happens, because people are scared that someone says "delete every reference of this incident from Wikipedia", which is not - and never has been - the point of AfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. Doesn't justify its own article especially with this name. Salathi 11:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't quite understand where all of these people are coming from, possibly some message board with the idea that this is a "vote" opposed to consensus decision. I don't even believe there is a consensus, it seems that it's about cut 50/50 for merge/delete/redirect vs keep. I don't think we'll get much out of this any longer, It should probably be kept until a consensus can be formed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I just happened on the article and thought the title was inappropriate. It may be that (as with me) people saw Wikipedia in the media and decided to visit the page out of curiosity. I wouldn't have read more than a sentence or two about the event if it didn't involve WP. But yeah, it looks pretty deadlocked. Salathi 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3[edit]

Keep: The artcle is too long to be merged.--Hornetman16 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's longer than it needs to be anyway. So it can be shortened and merged. Arrowny 03:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only longer than it needs to be if you're not looking for the information. Everyking 05:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge The title is also OR, as I haven't seen any common name given to the case by the media, except maybe for "Chris Benoit Double Murder/Suicide" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Good argument to rename, bad argument to merge. Everyking 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Benoit incident has become larger than just Benoit and his family. This article should be kept and expanded with a full recap of the events stemming from the murder-suicide - Debra Marshall's comments on domestic abuse, Marc Mero, Steve Blackman and Terri Runnels's comments on drug and steroid abuse, Penny Durham's comments on the economic problems faced by wrestlers, as well as the WWE's reactions, the prosecution of Benoit's doctor and any ensuing policy changes or legislation. There's no way the Chris Benoit and Nancy Daus articles can do justice to all the details involved and still adequately cover the lives and careers of their subject matter. McPhail 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, there's basically a no-consensus, and I'm planning to do a sort of rewrite with the article and include wrestler's opinions in there. This article (if kept long-term) could easilly get GA status with good sources, look where Virginia Tech massacre is now (yes it did have more coverage than Benoit), but there's still more to come out of this. Davnel03 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree.--Hornetman16 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not sure what the deal is with 3 section subheadings, but I think this event's occurrence in the signpost is enough in itself. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-02/Wrestler death, and the 10 references on that page if you need more convincing if notability. Giggy _U^CP 03:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading though both the Benoit and this articles, and realizing that this is one of, if not the top murder story in 2007, let alone pro wrestling, I vote to STRONG KEEP as is. I also weight my decision on all of the confirmed information, details and stories. --Raderick 07:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do people look at wrestling as a breeding ground for seroids? Wrestling is about the Entertainment of the fans and getss involved in Charity work. What happened with Benoit was just a Horrible occurence that happened to include a WWE Wrestler. Nothing more.--Hornetman16 07:38, 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 no consensus. And if you want to merge articles, you don't need to go through this process. —Kurykh 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian renaming controversy[edit]

The article fails to convince that there is a notable general controversy on this issue. In fact, the article hardly talks of any controversy at all, except a hint of it in the case of Bombay (which does not justify the general name "Indian renaming controversy"). With no loss of information, this could apparently be added (i.e., merged) to List of renamed Indian public places. Unless we are convinced that there was a notable controversy (not just a few sporadic editorial articles) on the issue worthy of having an encyclopedia entry, this should be deleted. deeptrivia (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful sourced content to City renaming (which in itself needs cleanup and reads like a list of trivia, and does not read like an article with clearly set out paragraphs within sections). You're right in that it doesn't assert that there is a notable controversy, but this is quite a complex AfD and it's quite possible that the controversy surrounding the renaming is notable, but that remains to be proven - most sources just seem to be about the renamings, not the controversy. Article reads like a load of original research in places, and indeed it may not be totally neutral or factual.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This Article is totally OR and should be deleted.Bharatveer 09:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibley Merge : This article is notable in that the renamings aren't properly explained elsewhere. If we could merge the article into one or more that deal with the same thing I'd support it -MichiganCharms 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Redirect. The links cited indicate that there has been a controversy, as one might expect in a nation of one billion people; why this isn't in the main article appears to be poor writing that is now fixed to be "less poor writing" (I've also edited to water down what looks like a pro-change POV). Perhaps the controversy merits only a paragraph or two, in which case it should be info added to the List of renamed Indian public places (<--- something else that needs to be "renamed") Mandsford 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 20:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being familiar with the old names, I find the story behind the recent renaming wave interesting. Perhaps in a generation, people who have grown up knowing only the new names will find this an obscure topic, but to me, it's notable. Since part of the argument is over whether there is a notable controversy, perhaps a rename(!) to something like "Indian renaming drive" or "renaming push" would help. Then there would be no POV presumption that the renaming has been controversial. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't provide evidence of an organized, concerted, "naming drive" either. These renamings, (which have very justifiably been criticized by many), are events that are mostly independent of each other, carried out by all kinds of political parties sporadically over the last 60 years. The article has some good information that needs to be salvaged, but preferably not in the form of the present article. The least we could do is to choose a more appropriate name, but "Indian renaming drive" doesn't look very promising to me. PS: Even Indian renaming controversies would be better. deeptrivia (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because there's a section that doesnt approve of something, doesnt mean it becomes a "controversy"! Sarvagnya 01:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-OR content to List of renamed Indian public places and Delete. utcursch | talk 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then Delete per User:Utcursch. At the least, the article name is highly misleading. There is no such controversy on "Indian renaming"! - KNM ^Talk 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a story behind the renamings - certainly it was controversial for many people. John Smith's 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That there is a controversy (or controversies) is undeniable, and not only in India but also in the context of other languages. Gabbhh 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Possibly rename to something without "controversy."--Sefringle^Talk 05:24, 13 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, notability now established by reliable sources, fuzzy logic notwithstanding. NawlinWiki 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Cornard Upper School[edit]

Non notable school. No famous alumni, nor anything else of special note. Unless we would like WP to turn into an indiscriminate collection of schools all over the world, it would seem this page does not add much to the encyclopedia. xC | ☎ 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strong The notability has different levels and degrees. So, it depends. If 10 thousand of people have graduated this school, this means notability is aproximately 100 thousand. This 100 thousands has the right to obtain and spreed information about human cultural management. Ttturbo 08:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the (perhaps mis)guided impression that notability is of two types - notability and non-notability. Something that is notable, will remain simply notable, I'm afraid I'm lost as to the different levels and degrees you mention. What degree of notability/level would this school fall under? Can you provide a reliable source for this figure of ten thousand graduates? And who exactly decided (and on what basis) that having ten thousand graduates (whether notable or not)directly creates notability of aproximately 100 thousand? If you could clarify these few trivialties, I'd be more than happy to come around to your point of view. Regards,xC | ☎ 10:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea about only notability and non-notability belongs to classical logic concept of 17th age. Recently one more logic FUZZY LOGIC was created to operate different degrees of categories and even truth. It is very hard basic problem of artificial intelectTtturbo 11:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a UK secondary school (with a Six form/FE provision attached) - it will not and does not award degrees - the term "technology college" might confuse people from overseas. Ttturbo's argument is not one I am familar with and has nothing to do with any policy I'm aware of. --Fredrick day 10:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't understand the reasoning myself...at this point, without further clarification, I won't be changing my !vote, its still delete. Could I request you to weigh in on this AfD as well? Thanks for your time,xC | ☎ 10:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the schoolchildren and teacher had some relatives to whom school is important. There is some neighbourhood of every schooll in some comunity too. This makes the impressive enough natability of school enough. Perhaps, there is no enough clear definition of notability in wikipedia and this makes some confusions and missunderstandings. For example I don't know is this school far from Bush's farm, from NASA headquarters or was it wisited by Ruby or Oswald when JFK was murdered. But I like Your idea to force authors produce really interesting article about every school. I don't know, is it the best way to mark for deletion such articles, maybe better to try something of this kind but not so threatening. If there is some pupil, who wants to make his school visible to all the world - it is great. Perhaps he is going to make some more nice things for the surrounding area and wiki. Ttturbo 11:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a clear definition - notability. It is irrelevant whether this school is near Bush's farm, or near NASA HQ, or whatever else. The school has to be notable, not only its geographic location. I don't see whats threatening about an article being marked for deletion, we're all volunteers here, its not like anyone here as any vendetta against a particular school. Just for knowledge, there are five pillars that WP is built on, all us editors strive to adhere to them. As far as I can see, this school is non-notable. Happy editing,xC | ☎ 11:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the teaching of newcomer. There is notability understanding in common sense - (this school is notable enough) and there is some wiki-understanding meaning of notabilty becouse of definition. Sometimes this is not the same. Of course I've red requirements of Wikipedia:notability. I hope that school was described in some newspaper or magazine, which could be supposed to be independent source. I would like to stress about oficial UK governmental department source, which provides information about this Great Cornard Upper School - http://www.des.gov.uk/cgi-bin/performancetables/archives//shschool2_97?School=9354019.Ttturbo 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason has been given for singling this out, when there are thousands of high schools with an article. Greg Grahame 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because other non-notable schools have articles doesn't mean this one should as well. We have to start the cleanup somewhere.xC | ☎ 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Google News produces two passing mentions only. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this. --Huon 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Greg Grahame Jcuk 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This school is notable and verifiable, as evidenced by the multiple independent and reliable sources (now) contained in the article. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OK, I have added more sources and material. This is an important school in the community. It is now underpinned by the necessary multiple sources. TerriersFan 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent edits have significantly improved the article. Multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability per the [{Wikipedia:Notability]] guideline. Alansohn 03:41, 13 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krum High School[edit]

Non notable school. No famous alumni, nor anything else of special note. Unless we would like WP to turn into an indiscriminate collection of schools all over the world, it would seem this page does not add much to the encyclopedia. xC | ☎ 07:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strong. According to wikipedia definition An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. This article gives information and knowledge about some factory of information on all branches of knowledge !Ttturbo 07:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the weakest keep argument i've ever heard. Under that logic, I could write an article about the shoes I wear since it would give knowledge and information. Articles have to pass various guideline and policies, like WP:NOTE and WP:V. TJ Spyke 08:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability has different levels and degrees. So, it depends. If 20 thousand of people have graduated this school, this means notability is aproximately 200 thousand. This 200 thousands has the right to obtain and spreed information about human cultural management.If your shoes were painted by Van Gough you can try to do this. Every school is a tragedy but it is temple of knowledge too.Ttturbo 11:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t understand Every school is a tragedy but it is temple of knowledge too. Aside from that, I believe it might be beneficial to have a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia and acquaint yourself with our policies. At the end of the day we have to write an encyclopedia, not a collection of pages talking about non-notable schools or even shoes painted by van gogh :PxC | ☎ 11:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for teaching of newcomer. There is notability understanding in common sense - (this school is notable enough) and there is some wiki-understanding meaning of notabilty becouse of definition. Sometimes this is not the same. Of course I've red requirements of Wikipedia:notability. I hope that school was described in some newspaper or magazine, which could be supposed to be independent source. I think it is now sourced enough, but this marking for deletion made some stress for the authors and I hope not for the all students. This article after fullfilment corresponds to the wiki-notability definition. I would like to add source - from Sport.High school. June 20, 2007. Baseball: Krum coach leawing for new post. . If Krum school has stadium from 1922, than starting fromm 1922 it must be hell notable!(revised text)Ttturbo 19:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independant sources (only the official website), no assertion of notability (why does this high schol notable enought to deserved an article?) or anything to indicate why this isn't just another school. TJ Spyke 08:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep ~~per lack of independent non-trivial coverage.~~ Notability has now been properly asserted with multiple reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage. I still do not accept what was basically little more than links to local sports statistics but with the recent additions there are now multiple news sources so no problems with this one anymore. Good work. Ttturbo unfortunately the criteria you are using has been tried and failed. There would be too many articles with too few sources to verify what is in them and too few editors to care about them, especially if we want to avoid a conflict of interest. That said, I do appreciate that you are now contributing in good faith so please read the relevant policies when they are being mentioned and linked to it and you will soon get the hang of it. MartinDK 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes explicit claim of notability for school in terms of its Texas record five basketball state championships in its classification, supported by reliable sources. Keep this article because notability is demonstrated by citation to multiple reliable sources that address the subject and support the claims of notability. Alansohn 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reasons given by Alansohn Callelinea 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability depends on what the article shows about the school. In this case, the athletic success, extended over a considerable period, is sufficient.DGG (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well referenced article, notability claims of athletic achievements are sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason has been given for singling this out, when there are thousands of high schools with an article. Greg Grahame 21:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear pass of WP:N due to multiple secondary sources and, in addition, a range of notable athletics achievements. TerriersFan 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WEak Keep per WP:V and the Athletic section seems to make it somewhat noteble, although you may want to add some other historical info, that would help further for passing more easily WP:SCHOOL.--JForget 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing in this article that asserts notability. The achievements in athletics, in my own view, do not establish sufficient grounds for retention. Eusebeus 10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I would agree with you but in this case the keep side have actually bothered to dig up enough reliable sources showing non-trivial independent coverage to fulfill WP:N. MartinDK 10:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by reliable and independent secondary sources. A good start for an article. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because all high schools are notable, as I argue User:Noroton/opinions, although User:Husond or some other closing admin may come along to again disenfranchise me. Noroton 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above. Looks like a good article -- state champs, well-sourced (but not verified). Needs more work. Bearian 19:35, 11 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. —Kurykh 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism[edit]

There are thousands of academic conferences every year, and the vast majority of them will fail WP:NOTABILITY. This conference is no exception. I'm sure that the papers presented at this conference and later published (though in an improved form) in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism are useful sources, but their arguments should be included in articles like Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Philo, Apophatic theology, etc., not in an article devoted to the conference. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Your arguments are right - in a general encyclopedia, details of individual academic conferences do not belong, making it more like a directory. Sure, these academics would probably be useful for sourcing articles on these philosophy topics, but unless it explains through non-trivial, multiple reliable sources independent of the subject(s) - i.e. these academics, I can't see why this should stay.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was suggested to move around the contents to other articles such as Neoplatonism, but that would inconvenience users who were looking specifically for the "First International Conference..". Perhaps a move to International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism since it is not clear whether there is a need for creating an article per conference. You can find other conference articles that exist on Wikipedia. —Tokek 11:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per Tokek. { Ben S. Nelson } 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But neither of you have illustrated that the conference is notable. Why do you think WP users are going to be searching for this topic? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The conference is noted in the book "The Christaquarians?: A Sociology of Christians in the New Age" by Daren Kemp (University of London). By all appearances, this thesis is not a work that arose directly and exclusively from the conference.

It is fairly uncontroversial to say that WP users will search for the general topic of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. I admit that it is doubtful that many would go out to search for information on the conference directly. Nevertheless, I don't doubt that those interested in the broader topic would be interested in information on the latest arguments and findings of the conferences, if it were linked to from the N&G wiki. { Ben S. Nelson } 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is the second time that the article has been up for deletion because somebody has decided that an article about an obscure book and topic is not needed. Wikipedia is about politic and this article is being a target of that politic. It appears that people like to delete articles if they don't like what they say and or if the article can not be gamed into being a lie. I rewrote this article with Bryan Morton who is working on becoming at Professor in the philosophy department at University of Indiana. I consulted the main editor at the Professor Ed Moore at the [53] internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [54]. I wrote the article because this part of what Plotinus stated and all of the conferenceS. The conference and this article about very specific things that people can not get anywhere else. I rewrote this entire user Professor Bryan Morton. Professor Morton has left wikipedia considering the deletion of article nominations and now the conflict before with quoting sources that is now being attacked as "copyright" violations well. I am beginning to understand that wikipedia not about the truth or about knowing what you are talking about. It is about having a gang to protect you and your articles. I can not blame Zeusnoos (professor and member of the neoplatonic society) in leaving now. Nor can I blame Professor Morton. This getting tired and very very old.

LoveMonkey 11:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I had stated before, this article is also to introduce the many scholars (Wallid, Allen, Dillon, Armstrong) and committee (international neoplatonic society) to wikipedia. So that their profiles might also be created. It would be better if people read the works of the middle or later platonic scholars and posted the articles then engage in disruptive behavior. I have more much much more to learn then I could ever have to teach.

LoveMonkey 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If these scholars are notable, they should have their own articles. Armstrong and Dillon almost certainly qualify. I think WP needs much more robust coverage of ancient philosophy and religion, but the appropriate place for this material is articles like Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Nous, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see your conduct matching your words. I have already created this article and about 3 other on neoplatonism-Henosis for example. I created the bio for John M. Dillon. I also created the bio page for A. H. Armstrong. I also created the Metaxy article. You however have been doing nothing but deleting articles. So your point is actually pointless. Also as more and more policies get piled on to combat abuses, the policies then became (like you are doing right now with the article) tools to be disruptive and abuse. How can an article covering the multiple topics of relation between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism not be encyclopedic? Also you just above asked for more articles but then want to delete an article that you are asking for more articles on.

LoveMonkey 16:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - LoveMonkey, you seem to be personalizing this discussion, which is unfortunate. It's good that you've created those articles, but that doesn't alter my initial point--that this conference doesn't meet the notability guidelines, and that the useful material here should be put into other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your deleted an article I worked on and wrote. You are then pulling me before the Soviet or Committee and stated that an article about a large gathering of Philosophy Professors discussing the impact that a major archeological (the Nag Hammadi) discover had on their historical understanding of their respective fields within the entire field of Greek Philosophy, that this is not encyclopedia worthy and that the founder of wikipedia thinks that the book and conference are a hoax and that I, in the name of scholars, am generating a hoax. Gee are you actually conscious of any of this or are you just so out of touch that you lack conscience. I find this process and your insistence that no matter what critieria that the article is going to be deleted to be upsetting to say the least. And the fact that you ask me to not be human and to act like a robot and not express my disappointment shows just how duplicitous wikipedia really is. You are showing that the policies are really duplicity. Say one thing but mean another. Now let me guess you have another duplicitous policy on how people are supposed to act too. Constantly saying one thing but meaning another. Pilling on mountains and mountains of policies and regulations. Well back to you what Dostoevsky said to you and committee/Soviet.

LoveMonkey 12:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that, in the absence of specific notability clearly established via secondary sources, one-shot academic conferences do not need WP articles. (I can find no evidence that any subsequent conferences have been held under the title "International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism.") Ongoing series of conferences, such as the International Congress on Medieval Studies, are a different matter; but even so, many of these are discussed in the articles on their sponsoring bodies rather than in articles of their own. Deor 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The article establishes that the topic of the conference is notable, but not that the conference itself has independent notability. Despite claiming that the conference was "a turning point in the discussion on the subject of Neoplatonism", etc., the article doesn't cite a single independent source about the conference saying that it was important. The current section on Outcomes of the conference is particularly poor; the first paragraph is self-evident, the second is either a summary of the conference's conclusions or an OR interpretation, and paragraphs 3 to 5 don't seem to be about the conference at all. Meanwhile, the section on Later Conferences and Studies doesn't show that these had any connection with the conference that most of the article is about. So I say userfy the article to give User:LoveMonkey time to add citations of independent sources discussing the conference, such as reviews of the book Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. The article can be moved back into namespace if these are found. If such sources can't be found, I would say that merging a brief summary into Neoplatonism and Gnosticism is the best solution. EALacey 12:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were two conferences noted it states so in the article.

LoveMonkey 13:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no mention of a second International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism in the article, nor can I find references to one elsewhere. Deor 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Under the section ==Later Conferences and Studies==

Professor John D. Turner of the University of Nebraska has lead additional conferences covering topics and materials relating to Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Presentations from seminars that took place between 1993 and 1998 are published in the book Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts Symposium Series (Society of Biblical Literature). These works covered topics such as the following:

The controversy over the "Anonymous Commentary on Plato's Parmenides". Kevin Corrigan University of Saskatchewan argues for a pre-Plotinian and pre-Porphryrian origin for the text.
A comparison of ideas between the Sethian gnostic text Marsanes and Iamblichus (John F. Finamore, University of Iowa)
An analysis of matter (as either a first principle, or as derived from a prior) in Valentinian gnosticism, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism (Einer Thomassen, University of Bergen)
Apophasis and apophatic theology in gnosticism and neoplatonism (John Peter Kenney, St. Michael's College, Vermont)

Professor John D Turner considers Plotinus, Porphyry, and Amelius all to be Neoplatonic philosophers who were critical of Gnosticism. Professor Turner is quoted "In the late third century, Sethianism also became estranged from orthodox (Neo)Platonism under the impetus of attacks and refutations from the circle of Plotinus and other Neoplatonists which were just as effective as those of the Christian heresiologists. At this time, whatever Sethianism was left became increasingly fragmented into various derivative and other sectarian gnostic groups such as the Archontics, Audians, Borborites, Phibionites and others, some of which survived into the Middle Ages."

Professor John D Turner also states that the Allogenes group text was Sethian gnostic and that the Neoplatonic circle of Plotinus knew this text and that this was what effected Plotinus to not only be critical of the gnostics but to also refine his own understanding of Plato's works such as Timaeus.

Current studies within the organizations such as International Society of Neoplatonic Studies and Ancient Philosophy Society have been continuing research on the common ground and interaction between the two philosophical and religious movements of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Works on this topic have been published by SUNY , University Press of the South,Universite Laval, and Society of Biblical Literature. LoveMonkey 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you considered it necessary to transclude an entire section of the article here, but the fact that there have been other seminars and symposia on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism does not negate the fact that this has been the only one called International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Deor 19:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can not help you with your articulation. Since the first conference some of it's participants have held another conference. If they are that specific or not in their naming convention that is nothing but a distraction. You can see that other conferences where held.

The point consistently that this is an article about one conference and book. I have showed by posting what is repeatedly being denied, that people are not reading what they are seeking to remove. LoveMonkey 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - the article makes many assertions which we are asked to accept without sources. Some of the information in this article could be useful in other articles, and that's where it belongs. An article about a single academic conference in 1984, without sources, could be a hoax for all we know. LoveMonkey's defense of the article, which includes such insults as "It appears that people like to delete articles if they don't like what they say and or if the article can not be gamed into being a lie" fails to build confidence that this article is valid at all.--Jimbo Wales 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, (To aid the closing admin, the following is a Delete opinion -Richard) This is really disproportionate weight. There are zero secondary sources, and the article is a detailed report on a number of otherwise non-notable -- in the WP sense-- individual papers, supported by footnotes explaining the basis concepts of neoplatonism. Agreed, the coverage of scholarly topics in wikipedia is way way under strength, but this is not helped by such articles. The main argument above, is the importance of the overall subject. True, and the effort should rather have been devoted to individual subject articles.

I note in particular that there are probably several hundred conference papers a year--about equal to the number of individual scholarly articles, There have been proposals to write an article about each of them. There have been attempts to insert lists of the tables of content of individual issues of periodicals in articles about the periodical--almost as absurd.

No one can say I do not support articles on academic content, and academic biographies. I've said what I could at AfD for any that are above trivial significance, and strongly defended those for all reasonably important people when attacked by those who consider almost no scholar important. I've strongly defended the articles on Petrarch and his circle that have been here and are here. I wish we had ten times as many in WP as we now do. We should have articles on every major subject discussed at this conference. But not the conference.

Jimbo shouldn't have said it might be a hoax. The proceedings are published. But this shows the feeling that will be very reasonably aroused in even people such as he who do understand the importance of these articles.

Good causes are spoiled by excess. DGG (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe wikipedia should be more about scholarly information and less about fighting and or building consensus. Maybe it should be about books and scholarly information and sources. Rather then listening to ill informed people and then acting upon it. Maybe it should be about information. Rather then browbeating and intimidation. My article has an entire sets of scholars that it has sourced. You claim it doesn't even have secondary sourcing.

LoveMonkey 19:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I disagree that there are no secondary sources (look at the John Turner section alone you can read his article from the University of Nebraska). A mean the book is many source each part a different scholar and view point. Also this articles have reprinted elsewhere as the Dr Turner articles shows. Also he is one of the most famous translators of the Nag Hammadi. The article is about multiple conferences and I would like to know if either JIMBO or DGG knows out of the thousands of conferences each year how many how many are about the specific topic of the relationship between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism? I would have kept the article name Neoplatonism and Gnosticism but it got nominated for deletion under that title too. That was why it got changed to the title it is now. One that I did not choose. Also I would prefer to create other articles about the specific topics but that gets either edit warred out (see Talk:Plotinus) or JIMBO and the wiki staff look the other way. Here's the book right on Amazon to buy.

[55] Get the book open the book and read if it is a hoax. Why would the University of Nebraska be posting a professor's work online if it where a hoax. I mean change the name of the article to the field of Neoplatonic and Gnosticism relationship and studies but man to delete this article and have JIMBO jump in. I mean WOW.....JIMBO stated that all of the scholars works are a hoax. WOW! I mean what now is scholarly? What now is encyclopedic? WOW Here is one of the papers from the book. Professor John Turner's presentation from the First conference and book LoveMonkey 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I mean this has gotten out of hand. I posted the introduction to the edition of Plotinus' Enneads Against the Gnostics which cause this whole entire philosophy field of study on the subject A H Armstrongs you know the one you study in college. And it got deleted and called trash. It is now a hoax? A H Armstrongs introduction to Plotinus' Against the Gnostics is a hoax? I mean Zeusnoos told Goethan that I posted it word for word.

I even had Professor Morton confirm it when we rewrote the original article and this one. Here is Armstrong editions for sale on Amazon [56] LoveMonkey 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Merge to Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Per arguments above against having an article on each and every academic conference. This conference should be mentioned in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. If this conference is deemed to be a seminal event in the study of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, then it might deserve a section unto itself in that article. Otherwise, it's far better to have articles on the individual contributors and any important topics. It seems out of keeping with Wikipedia's misson to have articles on conferences with listings of papers presented at those events. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Richard 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you Richard for your support. I originally had the article written as part of the Neoplatonism and Gnosticism article. But it was the subject of debate for deletion and that is why I looked until I found someone who supported an opposing view to my own to rewrite this and the Neoplatonism article with it. If you go to Professor Morton's user page you can see the work we did creating the article.Since there is very little if any information on the two subjects and even less on academic conferences I created the article to gave a solid source the repeated wars I was going through on the Plotinus article. Which I still can't bring myself to rewrite because it was such and ugly mess. I did not understand wiki then as much as I do now. I would have done things allot different then.

LoveMonkey 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first comment by User:Bmorton3 in that talk page thread is 'I should "well know" one superceded text from 1984? Do you know how many texts on philosophy came out in 1984? Since 1984? Even if we are just talking about Gnosticism, there have been 100s of texts since then.' This comment casts considerable doubt on the notability on the book Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and by extension on the notability of the conference. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No it doesn't. I argued with Bryan over this very point in that the importance of the conference was that it was done inlight of the understanding from the text of the Nag Hammadi this was the first conference of that kind that I can find. If of all those hundreds you are talking about you can name "others" I missed please included them, this is what I first asked Zeusnoos during the first deletion nomination. Also again you are focusing on the first part of the article and acting as if there is not any other or further conferences mentioned in the article. Can you name me some more conferences if so how many?I could only find two. If I had found more I would have added without hesitation. This is not a qualifer to remove the source and clarification that the conferences brought to the subject matter. But let me please clarify. As I stated to JIMBO. Wikipedia is not about scholarly or the truth or important source information. Wikipedia is a click, a popularity contest. This conference was the first of it's kind. It was very important to actually have on paper what all the most important scholars in this field of study had to say aftert the intergrated the Nag Hammadi into their specialities. If for any then to have been the first of it's kind. As the title states. If you have not noticied this article about a bunch of papers written by scholars in the field of philosophy from all around the world. A single one little article. About history and information. It is being attacked by a system that justifies it's behaviour (which is consistently retailitory)

by attacking and trying to justify deleting it by nonsensical reasons. To remove what it decided that it did not like this is just for show. The aricle has been rewritten because it was not source enough-even though its is actually a group of highly respected sources. The article was rewritten because it did not supposedly fit the subject of wiki or an encyclodedia. Though wikipedia has articles that are not about scholarly subject matter. Though encyclopedias do use everyone of these articles and scholars to source their own articles. I even got someone from the Neoplatonic Society to work on this article. I even got a Professor of Philosophy to work on this article with me. The subject matter is obscure and hard to understand. I made sure that the article was rewritten to even address this. At this point though no one is listening. Because wikipedia is not about being an encyclopedia or I would not have had to create this article in the first place so actually add content on the subject matter to wikipedia because people were writting and adding their own material to Plotinus and they did not have a like of Neoplatonic sources to justifiy what they where doing. I found a hole I filled it. Now why am out of sync with Jimbo? Well one the environment at wikipedia as I have stated. I bet it's actually going to get worse. Specifically for me.(smile) But I am not the only one complaining, nor is it obvious that my behaviour or conduct is a direct response to how I have been treated. LoveMonkey 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename as International Conferences on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism and expand to include other conferences that have been held.--MONGO 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, do you think there's something particularly notable about this conference (or conferences, if it can be shown that there have been more), or do you think that all academic conferences are notable? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that all conferences that are noted by a secondary source can and should qualify as "notable". One has been provided above. { Ben S. Nelson } 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the source say? Is it non-trivial coverage of the conference itself, or just a citation of the resulting publication? Please note that the notability guidelines specify non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject; just one is not usually considered enough. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability may not be readily apparent or even easily referenced, but I see the article as causing no harm, but do suggest an expansion. It is a relatively obscure conference that might be interesting to those who are only just beginning to get involved in studying these philosophies.--MONGO 05:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment In partial answer to Akhilleus, I'd be prepared to say that most established series of academic conferences are important; in this case, as the first of a series that has not yet been continued, I can see starting a modest article. I think in general that individual conference meetings are not notable, though I can think of exceptions--I know one in biology and one in librarianship--and that this is an absurd expansion, comparable to writing articles about individual issues of periodicals. DGG (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I think maybe the way to go is an article similar to American Philological Association. Along with the Archaeological Institute of America, the APA holds an annual convention which is of tremendous importance for academic classicists; as well as being a forum for the presentation of research it's where a lot of initial interviews for university and college positions are conducted. That conference doesn't have its own article, but it's mentioned in American Philological Association.

I can easily envision an article on the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, with a section on the annual conference ([57]). I'm still not sure that there was more than one International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The seminars led by Turner that are referred to in the "Later Conferences and Studies" ~~article~~ section were held under the auspices of the Society of Biblical Literature, not the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies. The only relationship between them and the conference that gives this article its title is their subject matter. This still looks like a one-shot conference, and I can't see how it merits an article. Calling it "the first of a series that has not yet been continued" (as DGG did), when there has been no successor in 24 years, seems rather a stretch. Deor 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a one-time occurrence I have trouble seeing why we should have an article on it. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well originally I wanted to create an entry about Plonitus actually stated in his Enneads about the gnostics on his bio page. This caused an edit war on this BIO page. But I also wanted to created an article about the ongoing research into the subject of Neoplatonism. With the case of the conference the member from the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies- Zeusnoos noted that SUNY for example and the other sources at the end of the article where multiple sources that republished these papers in their college text book and peer review journals. Here is what the Professor noted and is part of the article already. Current studies within the organizations such as International Society of Neoplatonic Studies and Ancient Philosophy Society have been continuing research on the common ground and interaction between the two philosophical and religious movements of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Works on this topic have been published by SUNY , University Press of the South,Universite Laval, and Society of Biblical Literature. It appears that on going conferences on the subject of the relationship between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism needs coverage but how to properly handle it's inclusion into wikipedia has been the issue all along. I can say that I would never have created the article if I could have just added into Plotinus' article what A H Armstrong stated that Plotinus said as well as what Plotinus did say. But posters like User:Goethean User:Dan (recently) refuse to accept what has been put in print and published. Also no one can seem to reign them in so I am left to fighting them in this article which rather then getting deleted because what I posted is a hoax or invalid they are attacking on a technicality. Please go back and look at the nightmare of the Plotinus article. I tried to stop another user of OR and did not know I was out of line. But when I was told I apologized. But it did not stop that the user was posting OR under the BIO of Plotinus. Nor did the admins that worked on the article protect what this set of conferences and at least two of it's scholars validated which WHAT PLOTINUS actually stated about the gnostic in his tract named Those who state that the universe and the creator of the universe are evil generally called against the Gnostics. Every time I have posted it, even though I have sourced it to the point of an entire sets of scholars conferences and even very current research it gets attacked. This makes no sense. It does not matter if it is my opinion or other peoples this is what is in the scholarly works of Armstrong. Why is this not allowed. Why are administrator not protecting sourced data and even material that merely reflects what the actual person (yes Plotinus) actually stated in their own works.

LoveMonkey 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Please for a moment understand just how complicated this all is. Here is a case in point about what this article does and functions as. Before the Nag Hammadi librabry was discovered no one knew for sure what Plotinus was referring to or addressing in his tract against the gnostic. One point why is because there was validate from the gnostics themselves text that showed how much of any of their works was actually related to Plato. Turner addressed that indeed with the help of the Nag Hammadi text (of which he is a translator) he showed at the conference that the gnostics actually used Plato's cosmology in their their works not in an enemy depicting what they said but what they actually stated in their own works and words. Another point was did Plotinus distinguish between the early Christian community and the early gnostic community. A H Armstrong was exposed to this argument at this conference (which I noted in the article) and this is what he addressed in the edition of the Enneads in his introduction that he released after the conference. What he stated is the very core of what keeps getting attacked by people who claim it is POV or OR or a hoax or trash or not true. Even though the International Society of Neoplatonism member Zeusnoos stated that what I posted was word for word what Armstrong stated. Why can what Armstrong stated not be used and or posted on wikipedia? Why can not what the conference stated about the rather unethical conduct of the gnostics and their distortion of work of Hellenistic philosophy (like Dillon and Armstrong very plainly pointed out in the contents of this article) be posted or used on wikipedia? I mean look at what Dillon stated about the distortion of the gnostics and their tacts that the Neoplatonist crticiszed them for. The gnostics misuse and misappropriation of the works of Plato and the academy. John M Dillon wrote an entire article about this nefarious way the gnostics arrived their use of pleroma . Here is a perfect example of what set of unethical conduct that Plotinus was pointing out in his artcle. I did this edit today. The article Ani-kutani [58] Here is an article about the culture and history of the Cherokee Indian being hijacked here on wikipedia by a new age editor who is distorting what Professor Mooney stated and is accepted by the Cherokee. This article distorts the religious history of the Cherokee and the states that the true Cherokee are a secret society in Missouri and that the Cherokee on the reservation are not the real Cherokee. I reported this article and no one did anything. I then went and posted what Mooney stated and now another editor has went back and distorted Mooney to try and validate what this evil conspiracy to play on the ignorance of people on the internet to stumble onto this article. This is a very crystal clear example of what I am talking about and has upset me about wikipedia and why again I have been disappointed about how well wikipedia works. LoveMonkey 02:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment unfortunately, I must say that the above comments do tend to support my view that the article has excessive detail. DGG (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well once again thats thanks to fellow editors. Example: I created a separate set of articles for each of students as described in the life of Plotinus by Porhpyry the articles and the individuals did not warrant (according to the editors on wikipedia) separate articles so the content was consolidated into a single article Disciples of Plotinus. Again I did not agree to this and I don't think it was correct but no one listened no one cares blah blah blah.

LoveMonkey 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Based on no media coverage of this event Corpx 02:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thats the whole reason I wrote the article was the information about the book and the conference is not readily available and that is what makes it important and note worthy since very little from the 80s pre internet is actually online.

LoveMonkey 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just speaking for myself, I want to see these topics covered well and in the most effective way. For an encyclopedia, this necessarily involves proportion and summary and grouping. I am not convinced that those most involved in a topic necessarily have the ideal balance for this. Naturally, this does not mean we include articles only that interest everybody, or a majority. It means we include articles equally such that all likely readers will find some of what they want--not everything they might want--we're intended as a first reference--just an encyclopedia--not a definitive scholarly resource. Beyond a point, excessive detail discourages the more general reader. I very strongly support good articles on esoteric subjects--they are even more important than on familiar subjects--but they should not be treated as if of interest to the scholars only. DGG (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I understand. I just would like to find the proper way to intergrate or add this type of information or data. LoveMonkey 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Neoplatonism and Gnosticism Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge some) The current article does not quite manage to support, to a reader knowing very little on the subject like myself, the assertion that it was a "turning point" in the study of the subject. If in fact it was, I would support an article, regardless of factors mentioned above like lack of media coverage (!!), and lack of a succession of conferences in the same series. But I would expect to see "fallout" coverage of the discussions in scholarly books and articles referenced, and these do not yet seem to be in the article. Presumably only a few of the many papers listed contributed to the "turning point"; a full list is excessive. If the result of this debate is to delete, I would not want this to be taken as a precedent for deletion of other articles on papers or conferences that have crystallised a notable academic debate. Johnbod 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to lack of notability and coverage by news media or other reliable sources. Possibly the conference can be mentioned in the Neoplatonism and Gnosticism article, but this article is not needed. --Aude (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is difficult to discern why the coverage of "news media" is taken seriously as a criterion when it comes to scholarly matters. "Or other reliable sources" comment is false, as was demonstrated earlier; see Kemp citation. { Ben S. Nelson } 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage in news media and other sources is how we assess the notability of everything on WP. Up above I asked about the Kemp citation: what kind of coverage does it give to the conference? A quote would be helpful. At any rate, I'm still not seeing why we need a separate article on the conference; what we should do is use the conference papers as sources for other articles, e.g. Gnosticism and Plotinus. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your previous request on Kemp's treatment and use was a reasonable one, and I regret not responding to it sooner. My resources, unfortunately, seem to be limited to Google Scholar at the moment. Still, it seems to me that it is not a foregone conclusion that the conference is not noteworthy; this is challenged by even one citation (on record). If it turns out that the Kemp citation is a passing reference, then I would change my vote to "delete". Until then, I can't.

All that being said, I must in particular point out how seriously I disagree with the "media coverage" criterion, as applied to the case of scholarly matters. Often, scholars insulate themselves from the world. That doesn't mean that we should assume that any given Wikipedia user should be apathetic towards those scholarly concerns that happen to fail to make it into the local Times. I fear this is exactly what is being suggested, by those who appeal to the "no news media" standard. { Ben S. Nelson } 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Neoplatonism appears rarely in the news media, yet everyone will agree that we should have a robust and detailed article about it; this is because there are plenty of reliable, scholarly sources that cover the subject in detail. On the other hand, we have seen little evidence that reliable sources (including, but not limited to, news media) cover this conference, and treat it as a notable event either as an event in scholarship or as something of interest to the general public. And quite frankly, unless there were multiple sources that told us this conference was remarkable in a way that other academic conferences aren't, I would still say we don't need an article on it: there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of academic conferences every year, and almost all of them lead to an advance in scholarship: they're supposed to be about the advancement of knowledge, after all. I maintain that the best way to document this conference is to use the scholarship it produced to improve the relevant articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the book you're talking about is at amazon.com, and can be searched. I didn't have any luck finding relevant material, but I might have missed something. However, the book appears to be somebody's Ph.D. thesis, which I would not consider an appropriate source for Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This is probably not the place to have an extended discussion of this but I would think the mark of a good Ph.D. thesis is that (1) it's worthy of being cited and (2) it's worthy of being published (by a major publishing house, not self-published). --Richard 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissertations aren't peer reviewed. Once they're published by a reputable press, then they're peer-reviewed; but then they're books, not theses. The particular work we're referring to is "published" by BookSurge LLC--this is essentially self-publishing. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a strange thing to say Akhilleus. As far as none of the papers peerreview, none were seeking PHDs that made up this conference or at least none to my knowledge. Also some these presentations are in other books as I listed above by SUNY. And peer review journals and republished on JSTOR. Also they have been republished by different respective Universities internally. Like the article by

Turner that is published online by the University of Nebraska and is part of his class curriculum. I mean we do use people's PHD's as sources since in order for them to obtain the PHD the work has to be peer reviewed. Please clarify Akhilleus. LoveMonkey 12:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey, the dissertation in question is "The Christaquarians?: A Sociology of Christians in the New Age" by Daren Kemp, which { Ben S. Nelson } raised as a possible source for the conference's notability. This is a different thing than the conference papers. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of notability. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems notable as an academic conference, but I agree that there are some WP:OR issues (specifically OR by synthesis, as few independent sources about the conference itself are cited). However, there are clearly users active on the article, and I don't think deletion is the solution here - give them time to work on it. I suspect that appropriate sources will be added in due course. Walton^talk 12:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walton, would you mind clarifying why you think the conference seems notable? And please note that the article has existed since October 2006, and seems to have been created due to disagreements at Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, which has existed even longer but has always included material about this conference--this seems like more than enough time to find sources establishing the conference's notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. As EALacey says above, the topic of the conference is what is notable — and Wikipedia already has an article on this topic, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. To the extent that there is anything notable about this conference, this can be stated in that article. The conference per se is certainly not notable; I am a scholar and present my work at conferences, and often these presentations lead towards publication, etc., but, unless the conference is so important as to have generated media coverage of the issues discussed, etc., then it cannot rise anywhere near the notability standard required of a publication to be included in the encyclopedia. Wareh 16:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as others have said above, the topic of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism is notable and merits an article, but this conference event is not.--Isotope23 16:12, 10 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. Anas ^talk? 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Gunbarrel Sequence[edit]

Spam by BlackFrieza promoting some non-notable pastiche youtube clips created by BlackFrieza. -- RHaworth 06:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't even discuss the "fake" gunbarrel sequences, and these are merely linkspam at the bottom. The actual gunbarrel sequences are the only things mentioned, but we already have an article on the James Bond gun barrel sequence, so nothing to merge. Someguy1221 06:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did originally flag this for speedy, but agree that it doesn't necessarily fit into a specific category very neatly. It's one of those annoying times when you know something should go as soon as possible, but can't justify it under the regs! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Odd title. --Haemo 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I spend a lot of time on the James Bond pages. This article smacks way too much of original research and personal POV, and seriously needs to see the business end of a gun. --Fightingirish 08:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thoroughly unnotable YouTube linkspam. The chronology is 1. become a YouTube phenomenon, 2. be cited in reliable sources, 3. get a Wikipedia article. Not the other way around. --Dhartung | Talk 08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy and snowball delete. Obviously.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong, speedy and snowball delete per User:HisSpaceResearch. Dalejenkins 13:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball speedy delete A7. I don't think you would have any problems getting this one speedy deleted. Sinece there are no keep !votes we don't actually have to invoke WP:SNOW (yet) MartinDK 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Fake Gunbarrel Sequence. Being on YouTube, contrary to popular opinion, does not automatically make something notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam and no assertion of notability. Resolute 22:46, 8 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 (after all, it invented the Internet ;) ). NawlinWiki 13:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALGOR[edit]

Tagged for CSD:G11 (Spam) speedy but not a candidate. Article is referenced and the article's subject is the focus of articles in said references. Whether or not those articles appear in non-trivial publications is up for debate. I have no solid opinion about ALGOR, but I would be delighted if it ran for president in '08. Submitted. A Train^talk 06:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may be some other sources to add although Google News Archive mainly turns up press releases. ALGOR has been around in some form since the DOS days and is pretty much a standard piece of software for various kinds of engineering. This might work better if it were transformed into an article on the company instead of the product. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per does not assert notability. The only RS that may exist are the 2 that I cannot verify. Article reads like a an advert. Nice touch with the 9-digit zip though ;) the_undertow ^talk 08:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I don't know enough about the subject to really determine whether this is notable or not. Are the sources at the bottom valid? Needs cleanup at the very least.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three reliable sources in the article, all of which appear non-trivial, mean that this article meets the requirements at WP:N. The ability of any individual user to easily access them in order to verify their content is irrelevant, as long as they do exist and it is possible for them to be verified, policy is satisfied. JulesH 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added links to an online copy of one of the reliable sources, and to an abstract of another. JulesH 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response As long as it is possible to be verified...I agree, however you seem as if you would take any printed sources as truth. Also, can you please provide the 3 sources, which you find to be reliable? If the reference section were properly formatted, I would think this would be a keeper. I see #1 is a link to the subject's homepage. That won't work. #3 and #5 are hyperlinks to a main page? I still don't see what makes this software notable. the_undertow ^talk 10:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference #3 can be found by searching for its title on the main page that's linked to. I couldn't, however, find reference #5. Numbers 2, 3 and 4 are to relevant trade journals, and as such are, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable reliable sources. JulesH 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - After looking at the sources your provided, I agree that the trade journals are good resources. The article just needs an overhaul. Changing my stance. the_undertow ^talk 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on keep vs. delete, but if kept the article needs some major de-spamming. I get queasy when I read sentences like "A notable aspect of ALGOR is its extensive support; offered through free online step-by-step videos" in Wikipedia. I'm gonna try and chop some of that right now, if nobody minds... --Jaysweet 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:42, 10 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 - Keep. Non admin closure. Jorvik 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian women[edit]

This list doesn't satisfy any of the three purposes for lists dictated by WP:LIST#Purpose of lists.

Information - A pretty much indiscriminate list of Iranian women (deemed appropriate for the list by who-knows-what measure) is the very opposite of a valuable resource for information.
Navigation - As it is not like a "See also" section, this list serves no navigational purpose.
Development - Most of these people have articles, and any red links without backup sources were removed (by me) per WP:LIST reference requirements. If this is a "articles needed" redlink list it should be located elsewhere, but it clearly is not such a list and so serves no good developmental goal. The Behnam 05:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to serve all three purposes clearly to my eyes and brain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remarkable. Is it something about your eyes and brain or this there an argument for me to understand too? The Behnam 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm pretty sure this is far, far more manageable and effective as a category. --Haemo 08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep except a category isn't able to show red links to missing articles. Lugnuts 08:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Will never be satisfied, seems arbitrary, and subjective. the_undertow ^talk 08:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have changed the name to Notable, now will it suffice ? Taprobanus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorize it! --Hemlock Martinis 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Don't! Category would be utter, utter WP:OCAT. Bulldog123 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we don't have List of Scottish women, List of French women, List of Canadian women or List of Russian women - so why should we have this? Reads like trivia. I also think for the same reasons, Iranian Women should go as well, probably, but that AfD's more complex.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have to start somewhere with new series ? whu not a list of notable canadian women ? Let's create it !Taprobanus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, Iranian women looks to be more about the history and status of women in Iran. That's a far more viable article than this one. --Hemlock Martinis 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while it does have redlinks they could be placed somewhere else and not under a list of women. We don't need that. Punkmorten 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per List of Japanese actresses, List of Indian film actresses, List of female television actors and a like. The list of Iranian women contains sections for scientists, artists, politicians etc. The notability of them is either mentioned in their wikipedia page or right in front of the entry. For example the scientists listed are either directors/heads of departments or they got a prize or had notable inventions. Sina Kardar 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you realize you just mentioned all lists of actresses. Bulldog123 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the point is ? Taprobanus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this particular case I agree 100% with Sina Kardar, it shows what each woman is famous for. Callelinea 16:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Women have enough problems on their hands right now and are not waiting to see their Wikipedia page brought down! I agree with one of the individuals hereabove that the list is rather indiscriminate (not to mention that in its present form it also looks rather chaotic), however I do not believe that deletion of this page is appropriate at this juncture. I propose that those who feel strongly about this page should make a concerted effort and improve its quality, and thus prevent its untimely deletion. If for no other purpose, this list just displays the considerable achievements of the Iranian women over the course of years and will undoubtedly serve as a moral support to other women who may be despairing of the possibility of their own progress in their respective societies. On a personal note, it makes me immeasurably proud seeing such a long list of Iranian women everytime that I happen to vist this page. --BF 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made efforts from time to time, including yesterday. It is quite difficult to manage and the criteria used for inclusions is practically nonexistent. It is indeed a very arbitrary & subjective list and it doesn't appear to benefit the encyclopedia at all. The Behnam 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no criteria listed, so it fails WP:LIST#Criteria for inclusion in lists. BehnamFarid, it is not "their" Wikipedia page, nor are articles kept because they provide "moral support" or to make you "proud". Clarityfiend 18:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - this seems to be a "pride" page. Good point. There may (currently) be other such pages on Wikipedia but if they do not meet the list criteria then they should also be deleted. The Behnam 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Criteria now is Notable Taprobanus 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how you have come up with "their" and "pride page". Of course, it seems likely that having looked at my name and seen the name of a man, you have immediately concluded that I must have appealed for "them" on "their bahalf". Nothing is farther from truth. I appealed on behalf of all men and women. And incidentally, the pride I spoke of was not a superflous pride; I spoke of a pride based on real achievements by real people.

Now back to the point: I do realise how difficult it must be to maintain the page, however deeply believe that the final outcome will far outweigh the effort in terms of its value. To come out of the present impasse, I propose the following four-step solution:

(1) As regards criteria, I suggest that someone find out the usernames of those who have been responsible for introducing at least one name to the present page (perhaps someone with sufficiently high administrative rights on Wikipedia will be able to do all this quite effortlessly); for convenience, I refer to these individuals as "nominators" and to those whose names are in the present list as "candidates"; I call this first step as "call for nomination".

(2) The "nominators" should be asked formally to nominate their "candidate" (or "candidates" in the event that someone has introduced more than one name to the extant list) by sending back a brief account (no more than, say, several hundered words) in which they set out their reason or reasons for considering their nominees as deserving.

(3) In this step, a "commitee of wise women and men", consisting of some experts (perhaps from the outside world) and some official members of some women's groups, should vet the "nominees" by going through the "testimonials" and propose a final list for inclusion in Wikipedia.

(4) The names of the unsuccesful candidates or those candidates whose original nominators have failed to respond to the "call" should not be deleted; rather these names should be kept in a special section (not in the most prominent part of the page) with a heading such as "under consideration"; the readers may be invited to "nominate" from the list or from outside the list. In general, I am not in favour of blotting out people's names, which appears to me to be too dramatic an act and very probably morally objectionable (I except the names of those individuals who clearly cannot have a place in the list).

I believe that the above procedure, by its various democratic components, is the fairest way of producing a balanced list of women with real achievements. Some Wikipedia people who might know people from the worlds of literature, arts and sciences may privately seek advice regarding suitability of certain "candidates". In practice, one may just write e-mails to people whom one trusts as being in the know (in these worlds of Literature, etc.) and ask for their advice.

Why am I so keen on a list? It is always good to have a list, such as table of contents in the case of a book. The view provided by a list conveys some information and insight that separate biographies without a central list are not capable of providing. I thank you for your attention. Kind regards, --BF 20:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do appreciate the effort you put into your idea, wikipedia is not a democracy. And by implementing your idea, the whole project would suffer because it would no longer be a place where 'anyone can edit.' the_undertow ^talk 21:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the point of putting to vote whether the page should be maintained? Why can't we let the page die a natural death? why should we delete it? My above proposal takes full account of the principle that `anyone can edit'. My understanding is that some people feel that at present no one actually knows which of the names correspond to women with real achievements, as some of the names may have been included frivolously. --BF 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In step 3, you have a committee putting together a final list. Since the wiki is ever-changing, this final list would prevent users outside of your oligarchy from contributing. This isn't a vote on maintenance, it's a discussion on whether to keep or not. Maintenance is up to the community. A natural death is sort of saying that the article should be kept because it isn't disturbing anything. And it may not be, but this AfD is more about whether the article fits current guidelines for inclusion. the_undertow ^talk 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I voted earlier that the page be maintained, and I still stand by that. Incidentally, I did not propose an oligarchy, althoughh it may appear so. The fact of real life is that sometimes something has to be done and that something has to be done by someone or by a group of individuals, whatever one calles them; one cannot wait, as in that case nothing will happen. If there are no "oligarchs", then nothing will change and we are here just talking the talk. The problem is simple: there are some people who think or believe that the present list is defective. If this is indeed the case, then someone or some group of people must take the initiative and solve the problem. An alternative is to do nothing, but then why are we here discussing. Another alternative is to delete the page, but that to my best judgement looks like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Moreover, as I said earlier, I very much question whether deleting this page is morally right. --BF 03:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have very different ideas what Wikipedia should be used for. It is not a platform to promote what is good, right or moral (which would cause all sorts of problems, since editors have their own, often clashing, definitions of these concepts). It is an encyclopedia, one that strives to be neutral and has specific criteria for what should be included. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Clarityfiend 05:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put matters in a moral framework because everybody works within one (even those whose actions we might not approve of). Similarly, you, or anybody else for that matter, are viewing my proposal from the standpoint of your own moral framework. The two frameworks need not necessarily coincide. As for the present issue, I do not believe that I am particularly moralistic; I am simply astonished that some people have come up with the proposal that this particular page, from all pages, should be deleted. I personally have found this page very useful and at times uplifting. If someone has questions concerning the real credentials of a particular woman whose name appears on the present list, it is up to that person at least to leave a note on the talk page of the person who has inserted the name here, requesting that person to indicate in a particular page and in the space of one or two sentences the achievements of the woman at issue and why this woman should be named in this list. To be frank with all, I somehow associate deletion of this page, or an arbitrary deletion of a particular name because the person who deletes happens not to know that particular woman, as a king of pogrom of women on the cyberspace. This is my last message on this page, as I believe that I have already written enough. --BF 14:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I get that Iranian women are probably way less "accepted" in society and certain occupations than men but having this list is asserting some type of comment on their position in these occupation. That boils down to original research implications. Bulldog123 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really?! Do you have any statistics ? Sina Kardar 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Sina Kirdar. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is not a directory for Iranian women. The only thing these items have in common are that they're Iranian and they're women. Pretty loose inclusion criteria and delete per WP:NOT Corpx 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list would be endless--Sefringle^Talk 02:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a directory, and the title at least carries undesirable implications.
Strong keep I change thetitle to List of notable Iranian women and also please read WP:LISTTaprobanus 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Please read WP:LIST"? That isn't an argument for 'keep'. I and others have read and cited specific parts of WP:LIST in the deletion - this list doesn't meet the criteria set there and at WP:NOT. The Behnam 00:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the list does not use footnotes substantially for each of its entries by the close of this AfD, consider my position Delete with areasoning being a failure to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability as set out in WP:LIST. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons mentioned above by BF and Sina Kardar. Dfitzgerald 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which reasons? To "serve as a moral support to other women"? Do you have any response to WP:LIST & WP:NOT based arguments made by those in favor of deletion? You know, we are supposed to argue from those, not from a desire to provide "moral support"... The Behnam 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam, you are guilty of quoting me out of context; this is unforgivable, in particular given the fact that in my second comment on this page, I qualified my earlier words; further, I gave several reasons and if you would have cared to read me as I intended to be read, perhaps you would not have been tempted to take refuge to such cheap measure as misquoting me. Pointing the guilty finger to others, I must confess that I am myself guilty of breaking my earlier promise not to write in this page any longer. Needless to say, my view has been and remains: Keep, even Stong keep. --BF 05:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very informative to have a list like this available. A lot of the names included already have Wikipedia articles so they are probably notable. No reason to delete, just as valid as any other list.Hajji Piruz 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of notable Iranian women. Restrict all entries to names of Iranian women with articles on wikipedia. Wikipedia needs more indexing, and this lists serves well. --SmokeyJoe 03:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I already did it, does it make your vote then to keep ? Taprobanus 12:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, keep. With all entries being notable, the list is not an indiscriminate collection, and will not be endless. Iranian is a notable grouping. Women is not unconnected intersection, the division of people by gender is a standard practice. As others have noted, regarding WP:LIST, the nominator is wrong on all of his three points, and regardless of WP:LIST, such lists are valuable and useful to readers and should be kept. There should be more of them. --SmokeyJoe 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - LOL! I'm "wrong on all of his three points" because a bunch of people vote "keep" based upon WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments? The Behnam 02:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong because I say the list is useful for information (no, its not indiscriminate), navigation (what better way to peruse the subject) and development (we should seek to include all notable Iranian women in wikipedia). --SmokeyJoe 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. On item 1: It actually does offer lots of information, and much sought information, just as articles like List of female electronic musicians, List of female state governors in the United States, or List of female bodybuilders do. I dont know of any other page on the web that gives you information on who Iranian women are, and the spectrum of what they do, at one glance in one place. On item 2: A list is by default made to serve as a navigational portal. The difference with a category is that we can add text to the page as e.g. Women in the Australian Senate does, and that the list can be multi-directional, contrary to say List of female mystics. On item 3, it does have a "developmental goal", because blue links are added every day. What other "developmental goal" can a list have anyway, besides expanding? Like someone said above, you dont throw out the baby with the water. You FIX articles, instead of merely deleting them entirely (unless you have another goal by continuously putting up Iran related pages for deletion).--Zereshk 07:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep What seems to be the problem?? - As for a directory -no its not - butwikipedia has thousands of similar lists. Why not merge into List of Iranians?? - I would suggest this. As for it not benefiting the encyclopedia -I disagree I find it useful as it it is needly structured as brief details are given. Many other feminist lists exist so why the objection?. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally regarded as not a valid argument. SamBC 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Neither is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC regarded as a reason to delete an article.--Zereshk 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, WP:LIST is, and responses to WP:LIST probably shouldn't be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since the latter is a bad argument, you know? The Behnam 22:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think many users may be interested in reading some articles about prominant Iranian women. Arash the Archer 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zereshk. Jahangard 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under current name (which includes notability clause) Giggy _U^CP 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The purpose is better served by a category - Category:Iranian women, Category:Iranian women by occupation. utcursch | talk 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - per the reasoning of Zereshk, although my personal opinion is more along the lines of Arash the Archer. To wit, the article is of informational value and not indiscriminate, and it would be considered of value by Wikipedia readers. Quoting rules is well and good, but at the same time, the ultimate test of an article should be, "is it something that provides useful, notable and encyclopedic information for a Wikipedia reader who requires information in the subject?" If the subject is notable, externally verifiable, non-copyrighted and encyclopedic, I think someone would need a very good reason to delete, and I haven't seen that reason yet above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:33, 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. Anas ^talk? 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zolo Azania[edit]

Article does not assert the notability of this convicted murderer. Gilliam 05:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although he has his supporters he has not been taken up by any of the major organizations pushing for retrials. Only a few local stories (mainly opinion pieces) on Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely original research. No reliable sources. Does not assert notability. the_undertow ^talk 08:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per everyone else, although the existence of more sources may have to be examined.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. —Tokek 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article contains no references or sources to verify notability. Ozgod 12:16, 8 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, article is almost empty of content and doesn't explain why book is notable. No prejudice to recreating if those problems can be fixed. NawlinWiki 13:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jellyfist[edit]

~~Crystalballing,~~ unreferenced and unverifiable. east.718 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't agree with crystall ball assessment[59] That page has content description, release date, number of pages, etc. Won't put down 'keep' yet in case you want to go for non-notable CitiCat 05:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reluctantly agree with you. However, the article itself still needs sources. ⋲east.718 07:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not contain a reliable source. the_undertow ^talk 08:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per undertow (not that many ghits either), although may become notable in the future and would allow for a recreation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's being sold this month and you can preorder it on Amazon.com. I don't agree that all mentions of future events should be automatically deleted. —Tokek 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all future events should be deleted. However, articles without sources should be. the_undertow ^talk 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence CitiCat provided a link to prove that it's genuine. Unless you are looking for something else that might be difficult to find? Both the author (Jhonen Vasquez) and publisher (Slave Labor Graphics) have articles on Wikipedia and appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia, so it automatically inherits some notability. Also, it seems that most Japanese cartoon articles are automatically accepted, so I wouldn't want to see a double standard on Wikipedia where there is automatic acceptance for manga but an arbitrary criteria for cartoons from other countries. —Tokek 23:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it exists. Nobody would deny that. However, articles cannot be unsourced. Even those items which are obviously in existence, such as the sun need 3rd party, reliable sources. Amazon is not a reliable source, which is why it is not used in the article. the_undertow ^talk 10:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with dismissing Amazon as a non-reliable source. I think that Amazon is one of the best known and relied upon online sellers of books, and they're accepting pre-orders, which is a strong indication that this is a real book. There's also a press release from SLG Publishing, again, a publisher deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article since July 2004. I think it passes WP:SOURCE. —Tokek 23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the artist's blog? http://chancrescolex.livejournal.com/ First entry confirms it... Doceirias 21:11, 11 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 no evidence of meeting wikipedia policies. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FORTUNE3[edit]

Blatant spam/COI. Author fortune3 (talk · contribs) has no other edits, and the tone sounds promotional. Shalom ^Hello 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one of many e-commerce shopping cart programs, no evidence of notability other than various lists of downloadable shopping carts. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN shopping cart with no RS. the_undertow ^talk 09:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Whether this counts as a reliable source I don't know, but I'm sceptical...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection - Notability evidence: Inc Magazine Article about shopping cart: http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:FxRvo0PAJxEJ:technology.inc.com/internet/articles/200610/abandonedcart.html+inc.com+fortune3&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Google Partner (Google Checkout Official Integrator) at: http://checkout.google.com/seller/integrate_getnew.html Paypal partner - official solution provider: https://www.paypal.com/en_US/html/SolutionsDirectory/sd_prosol-fortunes3inc.html UPS partner - Official solution provider: http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol/offering/technology/alliances/application_ecommerce.html#Fortune3 Download.com (more downloads than any other E-Commerce software): http://www.download.com/sort/3150-2649_4-0-1-4.html?tag=dir
Delete being listed on websites dont count for notability Corpx 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After testing the above objection notability is easily verifiable. --upzon 01:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Has reliable sources, but the conflict of interest is of a concern.--Kylohk 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single source in this article. the_undertow ^talk 06:35, 13 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. W.marsh 21:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Alternative[edit]

Blatant COI (compare history log to article title). This looks like a wannabe third party that doesn't yet have notability in its grasp. I'll probably change my mind if someone can tone down the POV and find solid references. Shalom ^Hello 04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As only one edit has been made to the article, and since the article is less than 24 hours old, I think it appropriate to notify the creator. the_undertow ^talk 09:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Really, really needs independent reliable sources. Ghits just returned mainly "Alternative Energy" and "Alternative Lifestyle" related results.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-write. This party was covered in today's National Post (page A8). They are seeking registration with Elections Ontario, so they are significant enough to merit an article, just not this one. I have taken a first run at it. There is still more work to be done, but I ask the nominator to review the new versiono f the article. Ground Zero | t 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. If they do register and get their act together, the page can then be recreated. GreenJoe 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is now. The information now on the page is what was reported today in newspapers across Canada. Anything else is speculative and unverifiable unless you work with the party. Also, the point of "will not" or "has not" should be left as "will not". Wiki is not a crystal ball, true, but the party is founded on economic principles and takes a laissez-faire approach to social issues. Sort of a "right-wing economic, no-wing social" party. Spearmintmints 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a new voter. GreenJoe 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any political party that actually nominates candidates in any election is entitled to an encyclopedia article — the candidates themselves might not be, but the party certainly is. And since the Ontario provincial election is a grand total of 12 weeks away, we're not doing our job as an encyclopedia if any party that has candidates in that election can't be written about. Scrub for POV, but keep. Bearcat 07:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and check for POV. The party has been covered by reliable sources, and official party recognition only requires running two candidates which is a very low bar to clear. -- Whpq 20:43, 12 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 08:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiatus[edit]

Completely non-notable spam for web game. Author(s) remove the speedy repeatedly in tag team. — Coren ^(talk) 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page has been speedy-deleted twice. ●DanMS • Talk 04:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you disagree: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page." I am not the page creator, so there is nothing wrong with me removing that tag. I do however find something wrong with marking a page within hours of its creation before it can even be made. This is a sister game to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGame (they are both by the same company) and when done the page will resemble that one. Granted the people who made that page were forced to jump through hoops to get it off deletion row as well. Zynkin 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why, despite the appearances of sock/meatpuppetry, I've given you the benefit of the doubt and listed the article on AfD instead of edit-warring any further. If the game is notable, then the article must state so (and, preferably, support that statement with reliable sources). As it stands, it reads like a simple advertisement meant to drum up membership, and simply removing the {{db-web}}s without comment or fixes is non-productive.

You can make a case for the article here, but the simple existence of another game by the same company is not sufficient: notability is not transitive. — Coren ^(talk) 05:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you read the talk page you would of seen that i did leave comment so it was not done without comment.... The page is being developed. "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." Zynkin 05:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can also create the article in a sandbox (User:Zynkin/Sandbox or User:Zynkin/Gladiatus) and then you don't have to worry about people deleting your unfinished work. Someguy1221 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if I had created the page I would of done that but someone else did, and if their page gets deleted it becomes next to impossible for me to create a new page on the same topic because then people like coren come by three minutes latter and put up speedy delete tags and say this topic has already been deleted. While that shouldn't be a valid argument I have seen it work successfully time and time again. Reading through the rules for marking a page for deletion it clearly states that just because a page isn't finished is not a reason to mark it for deletion, in fact it expressly states to not mark newly created pages for deletion unless it is clearly vandalism or is in some way illegal/copyright infingment. Zynkin 05:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the speedy deletion policy? Someguy1221 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I have quoted it a couple times now I would say the answer is yes, Have you read it? and while we are on that train of thought what is the point in asking if I have read it other than to just be blatantly insulting for no apparent reason? Zynkin 06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because saying "it expressly states not to mark newly created pages for deletion unless it is clearly vandalism or is in some way illegal/copyright infingment" sounds like you're interpreting something out of it that it doesn't actually say. Someguy1221 06:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." as well as "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." There are more but there also is a rule against citing the rules too many times so I will allow you to read it. Zynkin 06:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith guess the nominator considered all of that. Someguy1221 06:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 17:11, 7 July 2007 Coren (Talk | contribs) m (635 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD a7). using TW)
(cur) (last) 17:05, 7 July 2007 Themorgster (Talk | contribs) (624 bytes)
(cur) (last) 17:04, 7 July 2007 Themorgster (Talk | contribs) (849 bytes)
(cur) (last) 17:02, 7 July 2007 Themorgster (Talk | contribs) (618 bytes) (←Created page with '== Gladiatus ==

9 minutes after the article was created.... my good faith is hard to muster within that time frame Zynkin 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to argue over this. Have you considered fixing the article so that it claims notability instead? The fact that it had been previously deleted as not notable should have been a good hint that it would (as are all new pages, actually) be scrutinized. Removing the tags without fixing the fatal flaw it pointed out was, at best, very much unproductive. — Coren ^(talk) 07:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your tag scared off the original maker from working on the page so now the rest of us are playing catch up. It is being worked on. Zynkin 07:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- CSD-A7. It doesn't even assert notability, let alone cite any reliable sources to back it up. --Haemo 08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. No sources, authors can't be bothered to fix this problem, no real debate necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of ghits, but that could be expected for a web game. I can't find any reliable sources for it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its online nature makes it automatically verifiable (just click http://www.gladiatus.com/ - you can verify its existance). Wrt notability - I think Zynkin's comment in the talk page is good enough for notability. Frankly i've never come across an encyclopedia with video game entries until I found Wikipedia. Wikipedia clearly has a different notability criteria than from other encyclopedias when it comes to video games. —Tokek 12:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- CSD A7. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep page is still under development and needs clean up but that is to be expected from a day old page. Sources and external links have been added and work is being done to improve the page. Zynkin 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - "What advantage does a premium account give you?" This is pure WP:SPAM Corpx 02:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the A7 complaint against the page has been resolved, it was simply a matter of giving the authors enough time to write the page. The point of the page is to describe gladiatus in an encyclopedic manner, instead of taking the easy way out and just calling for it to be deleted it would be infinitely more helpful to comment on the talk page about how the authors can revise the article to better meet this goal. Zynkin 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it becomes more balanced; while NPOV may be asserted because it isn't praiseful either, mentioning of positive features could be read as implicit praise. Plus, it still reads like an advert or press release. SamBC 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I play this game myself but in all honesty there just isn't enough sources, if any, to establish any kind of notability. Zynkin you can move it to user space and keep working on it but the way it looks now it is going to be deleted. MartinDK 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for the 500.000 accounts worldwide claim? Also, press releases and online game reviews really do not establish notability. You need to dig up some non-trivial press coverage by established reliable sources. WP:WEB is is not WP:MUSIC or any of the other forgiving guidelines out there, there needs to be proof of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. MartinDK 07:18, 13 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 07:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mills (TV)[edit]

Unimportant president per WP:FICTION. Any relevant information can be merged into the articles about Prison Break and its episodes. Shalom ^Hello 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after ~~merging~~ copying any relevant material into List of Prison Break episodes. The three sentences in this article say about all there is to say about this character and it would be better off ~~merged~~ added into the whole. ●DanMS • Talk 05:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "merge, then delete" does not satisfy the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does 'merge'? the_undertow ^talk 09:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used the term “merge” loosely. Rather than actually merging the two articles, one can just copy a couple of sentences into List of Prison Break episodes and then delete this one. ●DanMS • Talk 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not even mentioned in Prison Break article. Seems to have been a secondary character. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet the criter for notability and the article lacks references or sources to attest to any notability. Ozgod 12:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:46, 10 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Militia[edit]

PROD removed, so here we are. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, no refs, etc. Seattlenow 04:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no allmusic.com, zero relevant google hits using search for band and "lead singer". Seattlenow 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-notable band. Bogus claims of notability probably negate speedy deletion. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author of the article keeps removing all of the templates. Chubbles 09:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; I've tried tagging it again, a few hours later. Chris 09:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and close this AfD per everyone else.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:42, 8 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. —Kurykh 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 143[edit]

This article contains nothing but the text of Psalm 143 and some original commentary. Propose redirect to Penitential Psalms. Eliyak T·C 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 04:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 04:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Text and translations of the Bible belong at WikiSource, but since AFAIK it's already there, we don't need to transwiki this article. Shalom ^Hello 04:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles on specific chapters of Psalms (e.g. see Psalm 130 which was created by the same person and on the same day as Psalm 43). In fact, there is a template for Psalms (Template:Psalms). So by deleting this article, we will be setting a precedent that could viably delete all articles on chapters of Psalms. Essentially, I would say either Expand ton include commentary and explanations of the passages from Psalms not just a translation of the actual on this article and all the others or Delete all of them. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional reserach--Sefringle^Talk 05:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup to the standard of some of the other Psalms articles. I don't know enough about the subject to make judgements about it, and requires attention from someone who knows about it. Ultimately, though, Wikipedia is not Wikisource and merely having the text of the psalm is not an encyclopedic article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some time ago I nominated all the Psalms articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 103). There was a strong consensus to keep though no one seemed to discuss what a Psalm article should contain (it really shouldn't even contain the text itself - that should be in wikisource). Psalm 23 for example is six (!) different translations and and huge "In popular culture" section. In the previous AFD people seemed to assume that there was a lot to say about every psalm beyond the text itself (history or commentary), but this is simply not the case. Jon513 09:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this sermon into something else, or redirect as per Eliyak into penitential psalms. I don't really like separate articles for the 143rd episode of Pokemon either. Wikisource has more versions of Psalm 143 than this particular article, whose POV in this case is confined to the Latin Vulgate and its Catholic equivalent. If this one had something to say (such as a difference in perspective between Vulgate, KJV, etc) it might be more. Mandsford 21:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is WikiBooks stuff. And full-text Bible-cruft. 70.51.11.252 03:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm somewhat surprised to see the claim above that "it's simply not the case" that there's "a lot to say about every psalm beyond the text itself". The Psalms are central texts of both Judaism and Christianity, and every verse has been commented on at length. That might not be covered now, but that's not the question. In the same way, you personally might not be interested in reading about it, but that's not the same as notability. A.J.A. 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said of every chapter of the Bible. Wikibooks would be a better place to deal with this information. As it stands now most Psalm article are mostly translations. Some have trivia about where they are said by various groups in prayers which can be dealt better in a centralized article about the prayers themselves. A few have large "in popular culture" section which are not about they cultural impact on the world but trivia about how someone quoted a bible verse in a TV show from the 70's. The Psalm in question (Psalm 143 - have you even looked at it?) has nothing beside translations in the article. In fact per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text we should have just redirected it without an AFD, but once it started we should probably see it through. Jon513 11:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of whether an article on Psalm 143 can be sourced with scholarly commentary, the current article is nothing but translated text. It is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it event the beginnings of one. I've no objections to its recreation as an actual encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect unless it's going to be fixed and made into a proper article before this discussion would be closed. SamBC 12:48, 13 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. DS 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J's Mega Mart[edit]

Basically a speedy candidate, but the author won't allow for that, so I'd like to create an AFD page and send this to the deletion log. Shalom ^Hello 03:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear more notable than any other local sundry store. Also user added cross information into Sunsphere after AfD started. Ref quoted doesn't appear independent. A7 candidateHorrorshowj 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy We don't require garbage. Dagomar 04:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I've already fixed the cross pollination. — Coren ^(talk) 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G12 The article pretty much ADMITS it's a copyvio. "Text is quoted from Metro Pulse Online." Author has been warned. Blueboy 96 04:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Maxa megalon 2000 05:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the copyvio tag. There is not much left after removing the offending paragraphs. ●DanMS • Talk 05:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:58, 8 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 08:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Payable on Death (finance)[edit]

This article uses the second person, is unsourced and appears to be a possible copy-and-paste. Gilliam 02:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, incoherent and unsalvagable article. Not at all encyclopedic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the above. Nothing to be salvaged from this one. MartinDK 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then possibly redirect to Totten trust. The reason I say "possibly redirect" rather than just plain "redirect" is that the title "Payable on Death (finance)" is an unlikely search term. --Metropolitan90 04:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pretty blatant advertising, and has the distinct flavor of a copyvio. Blueboy 96 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Payable on Deletion. Delete per above. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Probably should have been a candidate for speedy delete as spam, but there are a multitude of other reasons to spike it ASAP. - RPIRED 00:44, 11 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. Anas ^talk? 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Riquelme[edit]

my prod was contested because the person believes this guy is wiki worthy. Meanwhile, he didn't improve the article at all or say why the guy is wiki worthy. I am still scratching my head wondering why this guy is more wiki worthy than the millions of other artists in the world. Postcard Cathy 02:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS The guy that deleted the prod is not that interested in improving the article. I forget exactly what he said now but basically it was if I get to it, I will get to it and he didn't tell me anything about why he thought the guy was notable. If the person that contested the prod is not interested enough to let us know why he is notable - and he is only interested enough in contesting the prod - I don't know if we will ever know why this guy is notable. Postcard Cathy 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article stands or falls based on its references. The two links given there do not assert sufficient notability to pass WP:BIO. Google has 1,000 hits, which is borderline. Shalom ^Hello 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First reference claims to be an article about subject's appearance in the F9 gallery, but it is a news post on said gallery's website and thus not an independent source. Second source seems to be a blog. Fails primary notability criterion. A Train^talk 06:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think he'd struggle to pass WP:BIO going on the sources that exist.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having checked on a search engine, I can't find any reliable sources to assert notability. This is especially the art gallery's website isn't really a good secondary source, a newspaper is--Kylohk 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have addressed the questions on the sources above. The original newspaper review is now posted in place of the Gallery's copy of the review. I also added a second gallery source, and an art critic review. TheMindsEye 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO Johnbod 16:51, 10 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. Anas ^talk? 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki DuBose[edit]

my prod was deleted with no changes made to the article. From everything I see in this article it appears to be fan/vanity page and that she is a nn model Postcard Cathy 02:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Every image hit is to her Myspace page. No verifiable professional credits or independent coverage. Agree article is NPOV and reads like advertising. Could probably qualify for A7. Horrorshowj 02:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Person isn't notable enough. A search of teh web reveals a lot of links to her myspace page. P.S I think the above user meant POV not NPOV as the article is obviously not neutral. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. You are correct. I meant to say article is NPOV violation.Horrorshowj 20:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above comments. Oyster guitarist 04:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being pretty does not notability make.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article contains no references or sources to back up any claims to notability. Subject also does not meet the criteria for notability (no awards, significant press coverage, external articles/biographies, etc.) Ozgod 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article contains a huge degree of crystalballery, and there's a possibility that she may become notable in the future, but at the moment she almost certainly fails WP:BIO.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The contributor of the article is Taranikki03. The given name of the subject of the article is Tara Nicolette DuBose. Hmmmm.... ●DanMS • Talk 05:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:48, 10 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. Anas ^talk? 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Bohdal[edit]

The creator of the article has a long track record of vandalism. There is no evidence to support the claim that this man served in WWI. He is not Austria's oldest man (yet) and simply being age 107 is not enough to establish notability.Ryoung122 22:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google has references to prove that this man was born in 1900, but that's about all. There's no further assertion of notability or evidence for what little else this article says about him. Shalom ^Hello 04:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oyster guitarist 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if someone can go through the Google hits and determine that this article is indeed factually accurate, I may change my vote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references or sources to verify that (a) the subject exists and is of the aforementioned age of 107 (b) Does not meet the criteria for notability. Ozgod 12:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Number 5 7 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:50, 10 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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick A. Babb[edit]

An article on a self-published author. Fails to meet the criteria for notability set out in WP:BIO. One of the author's novels, Unforgettable, is currently the subject of an AfD. Victoriagirl 22:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of them, as the author of the article says, is published by Saga Books, which may not be a vanity press; but no claim to notability here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete An article on a self-pulished author? Is that all that is seen? Let's see...if we use that as the criteria, then Mark Twain, Louise Hay, Deepak Chopra, Carl Sandburg, George Bernard Shaw, Gertrude Stein, Upton Sinclair, James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Thomas Paine, Virginia Woolf, e.e. cummings, and Edgar Allan Poe, were all self-published authors and should be considered for deletion. The entry isn't about self-publilshing. And self-publishing doesn't always mean "not good enough for New York Publishers" Sometimes self-publishing means wanting to maintain creative control of a story. Whatever reason Frederick A. Babb publishes with who he does isn't the article. The article is about an author that has taken the steps to perserve a childhood friend that died from cancer through a touching love story and then use the book as an avenue to raise funds to fight against the very disease that killed the person dear to the author. I ask you, is that not noteworthy? If not, then maybe the notability that is looked for here for an author has nothing to do with the author's work and the author's credibility as a caring human and the notabilithy will only be measured in booksells and awards. If that is the case, then the credibility of Wikipedia would fall in my book.

(MariahJ63 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

- Comment The fact that the subject is self-published is mentioned only in the description of the article. Self-publication is not in any way a criteria for deletion, yet is relevant when discussing an author. The AfD nomination is based solely on the argument that the subject fails to meet criteria for notability. WP:BIO provides many standards through which a subject might be considered as notable - awards are but one of many (sales aren't mentioned). While I admire Frederick A. Babb's efforts in raising funds, and MariahJ63's dedication in creating this article, I do not see that the subject presently meets any of the criteria as laid out in the guidelines. Victoriagirl 17:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I thank Victoriagirl for my appreciation for a cause. If I may permit from the criteria as laid out in the guidelines to make a case...Creative professionals: ...authors,..."The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." I feel the movement the author has made to raise funds and preserve the memory of someone special to him is a significant technique. From what I read about the publisher of "Unforgettable", it is a respectable POD book publisher and, if my understanding of POD publisher is correct, it means roughly that the author paid to published or self-published. So, apart from giving the royalties from the book to the American Cancer Society, the author paid himself to iniciate the fund raising. The book serves to conserve the memory of someone who was dear to him and to raise funds against a deadly disease. Isn't that significant? Thanks for the consideration.

(MariahJ63 17:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete for lack of any information about notability--there are no reviews, there areno sales figures, no awards, no references. .Self-publishing isnot an absolute bar, but 21st century self publishing is usually an indication that no regular publisher found it notable. Not always--I thik we found one notable a few months ago, as an exception.DGG 01:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This is a tough one. Here we have an author who had great intentions and an interesting story behind his story. Yet, in the world we live in, notable can be someone like Paris Hinton and Big Brother contestants who really have not done anything notable but are famous. After weighing both sides, I would say at least the author has made a positive contribution to society. My opinion. Susan Richards, London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.175.118 (talk • contribs)

Delete - per nomination. The author may have made a positive contribution to society, but this has yet to be covered in by any secondary sources - which in itself speaks to WP:V. I must disagree with MariahJ63 that in publishing a book to raise funds and keep alive the memory of a friend, Mr Babbs has originated "a significant new concept, theory or technique." The former is not at all unheard of; the latter covers work as diverse as Tennyson's In Memoriam and Boswell's Life of Johnson. Again, I recognize the author's good work and contibution to society. That said, I argue that it is not the job of an encyclopedia to confer notability. Again, as stated in the nomination, the subject fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A subject's contribution is irrelevant to this discussion unless it has influenced that subject's notability in terms of WP. In this instance, it has apparently not prompted independent sources to create non-trivial treatments. Strict application of WP:BIO and WP:V marks this as eligible for deletion. As always, if notability can be verified per the guidelines, my opinion can be revised. Adrian M. H. 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 2 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, JodyB_talk 02:26, 8 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. —Kurykh 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pollyfilla[edit]

non notable, no sources Kripto 00:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Kripto 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Prod, article doesn't exactly make sense either (based on article text, is this an 8-year old?) --Sigma 7 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "conceived" in this sense means the character or alter ego. Keep BTW. Multiple sources describe her as a "drag fetish icon", including the mayor of Wellington, NZ.--Ispy1981 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what does 'drag fetish icon' even mean? Does this mean that the myor has a drag fetish? Does it matter if there's no article about drag fetishism in wikipedia? Kripto 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't matter whether Wikipedia has an article on something. Wikipedia is not complete. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sorry, I misspoke. The mayor referred to her as a "Wellington" icon. Other sources refer to her as a "drag fetish icon". I'm no expert, but I think that is Kiwi (New Zealander) for an icon in the world of drag queens.--Ispy1981 03:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please add some of those sources to the article? ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I have added a few sources, an interview with her for a New Zealand gay magazine for example, and the ref to where the mayor, Kerry Prendergast, referred to her as a "Wellington icon". I'm hesitant to add this, but it also seems as though she has won the Wellington Cup (not the horseracing one) for fashion several times as well as the Glammies. As I said, I'm no expert on the subject, but if we could get a representative of the LGBT community to verify if they are notable or not, I could gauge whether or not to include them.--Ispy1981 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, notability is hinted at but most mentions of him/her/it are only in passing, or on forums and blogs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 07:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article is better, and could pass as a stub. However, notability is quite weak. --Sigma 7 08:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The external links contain enough non-trivial coverage to suggest sufficient notability. Adrian M. H. 14:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Did some searching of my own and she seems non-notable. Coverage is incidental at best. Also, I'd expect Polyfilla to be the putty, but obviously we don't have a redirect for it. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:30, 1 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, JodyB_talk 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regional performer at best, not well known outside local area.Ryoung122 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not well know out of local area. Oyster guitarist 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a person of local notability at best. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Redirect to Spackling paste (after "Polyfilla") Ohconfucius 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in New Zealand, which is all that counts to make this subject notable. Boy do I get tired of hearing the spurious argument of "not well known outside of local area." The fact that a figure is not well-known outside his/her locality does not disqualify them under notability guidelines: see WP:IDONTKNOWIT which reads Some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connect nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.. The real notability criteria for bios are at WP:BIO, and this article meets them. Article mainly needs expansion and better sourcing. --Ace of Swords 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've done some clean up of references (mainly to add complete bibliographic info) and added biographical information contained in one of those articles. Which material makes it even clearer that this person meets WP:BIO, in my mind. May the closing admin heed Wikipedia policy per this article, rather than simple votes based on lack of understanding of what notablity is ("if it's not notable outside NZ, it must not be notable"). Gee, I'm not a Kiwi myself, but that doesn't mean Kiwi topics aren't notable! --Ace of Swords 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New Zealand IS a big country and it's not as though she's only notable in Upper West North Central New Zealand. This is en wikipedia, which should encompass all aspects of English-speaking culture. As to the suggestion to redirect to spackling paste, you're joking, right?--Ispy1981 20:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources cited are sufficient to establish that article subject meets WP:BIO criterion of "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Groupthink 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pollyfilla is well known around the whole of New Zealand as one of the country's most prolific and popular drag entertainers and has been active in the LGBT community for most of the past decade. Enzedbrit 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article could use some copyediting for tone and style, in its current form it's suitably well-referenced to establish notability. ~~There should be an italicized disambiguation link on the page for spackling paste or for the correct terminology of the item referenced here~~. Eliz81 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An italicized disambig link was put on this article several days ago; [see diff. --Ace of Swords 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, comment stricken. Eliz81 19:12, 13 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. Anas ^talk? 15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Griffin[edit]

Does not assert notability of reporter. —trey^jay–jay 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- he does not appear to be notable outside of the market he works in. - Gilliam 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oyster guitarist 04:45, 8 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. Chaser - T 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob wayman[edit]

Complete hoax. How can a person born in 1990 be in a 1978 movie? east.718 01:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'll bet dollars to donuts it's a school production of the play based on the movie. I'll also bet those dollars that he ain't notable. --Haemo 02:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per DB-BIO Corpx 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. If someone's most impressive credits as an actor are in high school theatrical productions, it would be extremely difficult for that person to qualify as a notable actor for Wikipedia's purposes. --Metropolitan90 04:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speddy delete hoax. Oyster guitarist 04:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I think the author is referring to school productions of the plays, in which case the article can be speedily deleted under DB-BIO; otherwise, hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates. Maxa megalon 2000 05:09, 8 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 08:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Radd!![edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. Only one album on a minor indie label. Other projects seemed unfinished and there are some nominations for what seem like minor awards. Nv8200p talk 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally OR!! the_undertow ^talk 09:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC - non-notable indie label and just one album on it, awards seem non-notable too. Also delete Shark Attack Day Camp, their only album.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally Delete!! per above. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:54, 8 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 08:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walruses in popular culture[edit]

List of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 01:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - loosely associated collection of trivia:
- E:3= is commonly used on the Internet as an emoticon that refers to walrus's face.
- Frost Walrus is one of the Maverick bosses in the video game Mega Man X4.
- In Dumb and Dumber, Jim Carrey put French fries in his mouth and pretended to be a walrus.
We are safely not losing any information removing this article. --Haemo 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete NOT the place to document every time an animal is mentioned in a movie/book!! Corpx 02:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oyster guitarist 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. X in popular culture articles and sections are unmaintainable and will never amount to more than trivia. A Train^talk 06:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only RSes I can find mentioning the Walrus as a pop culture phenomenon all relate to the Beatles and the is Paul dead? business, hardly enough, as we have lots of coverage of that "controversy". Carlossuarez46 06:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and steal their ivory Jesus wept. Lugnuts 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, loosely associated etc. Punkmorten 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as good-faith contribution from inexperienced user who doesn't quite know what Wikipedia is not.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. It is good-faith, but it fails WP:NOT. Walruscruft. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did read the article, and it suggests that there isn't much to say about walruses in popular culture. The only really good one I've seen about animals in pop culture had to be the recently deleted Turtles and tortoises in popular culture, which I think was snuffed out in a fit of misplaced intellectual snobbery. In this case, however, there's not much... a walrus is one of the charaters in Carroll's The Walrus and the Carpenter and the Beatles wrote a song called I Am the Walrus. I did like the mention of kids putting pencils in their noses and it's description as a "reasonably popular game". Sorry, Abcfox. Do some googling (especially Google books), get familiar with the poem and the song, and consider bringing this back in a better form. Mandsford 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irredeemable, like most "in popular culture" articles. Greg Grahame 21:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also want to point out Wikipedia would safely not lose anything by deleting half the articles in Category:Animals in popular culture as well. Abcfox 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one of those travia-like popular culture-type articles that does not warrant a separate article from the parent one.--JForget 23:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom, and as all articles like this should be deleted. It made me laugh a bit though. Jackrm 23:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goo goo g'delete (doesn't really scan, does it?) as loosely associated "in pop culture" trivia article. Confusing Manifestation 01:49, 9 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 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgons in popular culture[edit]

This discussion is now moot. The article is now orphaned, and I am tagging it for speedy deletion. TAnthony 19:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion has been denied. Otto4711 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Previously merged with Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture, which has since been deleted. For some reason it was restored rather than being deleted as {{db-r1}}. Jay32183 01:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this qualifies as a DB-G4; recreated deleted material. --Haemo 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not recreated, as it was a separate article before the deleted article was ever created, and was never moved. DreamGuy 05:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here is the AFD for the other article in question. Corpx 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting, but whatever the decision is, NONE of the material in this article should go back into the Gorgons entry, which it was clogging up with its trivial nature. Otto1970 04:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should vote to keep, because the material (some of it, certainly not all of it) deserves to be somewhere -- I agree not the main article, that's why separate articles are made. DreamGuy 05:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- so that content can continue to go through the editing process. There is enough valuable content here and it would be wrong to delete everything. Perhaps eventually this page can be winnowed and tightened enough so that it would be worthwhile to include back in the main Gorgons article. But having it separate is the correct thing for now, IMO. Otto1970 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto1970, thanks for your consideration on this; please see my new comment below. TAnthony 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's all fine and good to vote delete on these articles, but they need to stay, and will and do stay. This article was an old version of one that got merged into a deleted article, a deleted merged article is not a vote to delete an unmerged copy, so the previous AFD has no bearing on this one. And, frankly, if people who vote delete also do not make an effort to make sure this stuff doesn't get added to main articles then they are causing far more harm than good. Splitting off into separate articles to prevent main articles from being swamped is absolutely necessary. Deleting them will just get them created again in a never ending cycle. Some of the content of this article may be not encyclopedic, but that's a reason to EDIT it, not to DELETE it. DreamGuy 05:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When inappropriate content builds up in the main article, under no circumstance do you split it off, you delete it from that article. The better here than there argument is unacceptable. This page should have been deleted along with the previous AFD because when pages are deleted the incoming redirects are supposed to be too, but sometimes admins don't always get them. The usual result when that problem gets noticed is tagging with {{db-r1}}, which leads to speedy deletion. The entirity of the article fails WP:NOT#DIR which is reason to delete it. Jay32183 06:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these Gorgon articles seem more like Hydra. Hydra in popular culture anyone? Carlossuarez46 06:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete that article too. --Haemo 08:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Medusa and the gorgons are iconic figures, and some of their uses in fiction are notable, in particular because they are ancient figures that persist in our culture. Perhaps if I trimmed the list of miscellaneous video game references, and rewrote in prose? TAnthony 08:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia articles are not collections of loosely associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common with one another beyond the appearacne of a gorgon, or something called "Gorgon" which may not be a gorgon, or the appearance of the word "gorgon." This list tells us nothing about gorgons, the fiction from which the examples are drawn or the world. Otto4711 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irredeemable, like most "in popular culture" articles. Greg Grahame 21:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of trivia, which contains, for the most part, simple one line mentions of when gorgons appeared on tv shows and movies. There is very little in this article that would constitute a tragic loss if deleted. Resolute 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a place to create multiple trivia-like articles such as this.--JForget 23:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly an attempt to bypass the recent deletion of Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture by reverting two apparent redirects that previously contained the deleted material, the other one is Medusa in popular culture which should also be listed for deletion. Masaruemoto 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the new article Medusa and gorgons in popular culture as a prose rewrite of the other Medusa/gorgon popular culture lists that includes what I believe is notable information and excludes the excessive trivial references and minutae of other versions. As I've said above, Medusa and the gorgons are iconic figures, and some of their uses in fiction are notable, in particular because they are ancient figures that persist in our culture.

I am honestly not trying to thwart these discussions or restore deleted material in a sneaky manner; this new article is a new presentation of information and should be considered as such. I am hoping this new article in some form will serve as a compromise, and am suggesting that Gorgons in popular culture be redirected to it. I have put a quick message about notability on its talk page and will join others in policing it for useless additions. TAnthony 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though its not a list anymore, its just a bunch of trivia in there. Per Five pillars, wikipedia is not a trivia collection Corpx 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is certainly open to copyediting, but I believe I have eliminated most of the useless trivia like the name of poems, and attempted to tie together references in meaningful ways. The dramatization of these figures is notable in many cases as it reflects, contrasts or diverges from mythology; this is a millennia-old concept that survives today, people! How is this less notable than Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln? I'm sure people in every country but the US couldn't care less that a representation of Lincoln appeared in an episode of Star Trek. TAnthony 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article should be up for AFD too. I firmly believe that an encyclopedia is not the place to document everytime somebody mentions something in a movie/show/book. I still think that new article is in violation of the five pillars Corpx 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you to a certain degree regarding the prevalence of useless trivia, but there is room for information that can realistically be useful to someone. When I am researching something as a reader, I want to know that Livia was dramatized in I, Claudius, what films were made about the RMS Titanic and yes, some places where Medusa has been portrayed and how the name has come to cannote certain things in our culture. But no, I don't care what Medusa looks like in Castlevania. TAnthony 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is still a directory of loosely associated terms, it just isn't formatted as a list. The problem with these articles isn't that they are in list format. The problem is that they present the idea that these things are interconnected because they all mention something. Changing the format won't fix this problem. Jay32183 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now moot. The article is now orphaned, and I am tagging it for speedy deletion. TAnthony 19:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion has been denied. Otto4711 02:07, 13 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. Anas ^talk? 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Band Marino[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. Unsigned with only a low fidelity demo. Nv8200p talk 01:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability for this nonnotable band. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not worthy of A7 as has been mentioned in Rolling Stone and has a few sources. Ultimately though, sources are just trivial mentions of the band and they do not seem to meet WP:MUSIC, but it's not an outright A7.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:52, 8 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. —Kurykh 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive films[edit]

The page is currently completely, minus two films, unverified by reliable sources. It will probably always be unverified by reliable sources, given the secretive nature of the topic: production budgets. Currently, the list cites Box Office Mojo, but BOM doesn't list sources for where they get their information, and some of the budgets do not match what other sources say for some of their films. At one point, they had Spider-Man 3 at 250 million, and 300 million before Variety reported the "official" budget as 258 million. Pirates 3 is another one where BOM reported the budget as $225 million. They did this before the movie was film, and then changed it to 300 million. They provide no source that said the film went over budget by 50 million, they just changed their number (thus that isn't very reliable). Budgets should usually always be taken with a grain of salt, as studios are more reluctant to report spending 3-400 million on a film, as it doesn't tend to look well for the company. Another problem is the "adjusted for inflation" list is based on information Forbes. This would generally be reliable, if it wasn't for the fact that Forbes is using Box Office Mojo's information. For one, they adjusted the Superman Returns budget, which Box Office Mojo still lists as $270 million dollars, but if you check the citation in this article, as it's one of only two films that have direct sources, Bryan Singer officiates the budget at 204 million. That makes Forbes' information unverifiable because they are using BOM's unverified information. Something similar occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books, where the concern is was also about verifiability. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Keep If we can find appropriate citations I think the article is significant enough to stay, although I think we should definitely move it to List of films by budget, as "most" indicates a superlative. Calgary 02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And if reliable sources cannot be found? Per verifiability the burden of proof is on the ones adding the information, and right now, only two articles could stand up to verifiability, one for sure since Singer is personally quoted, which means at the moment almost every one could be removed completely from the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close the inflation adjusted table comes from Forbes, any movie budget can be sourced to IMDB. If two numbers conflict, add both and source both. Problems in an article, are not a good reason for deletion, but to fix and improve. Yes, Hollywood accounting is an art, but so is calculating GDP and other leading economic indicators. This appears to be a disruption deletion over an editing war: Talk:List of most expensive films, and a "truth" versus "reliable sources" philosophical debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when did IMDb become a reliable source for this type of informatin? Forbes is using BOM information, and as far as BOM is concerned, it's just as user submitted as IMDb. Please read the two policies on verifiability and reliability. We might as well cite a Wikipedia pages as a source. As far as "fix and improve", burden of verifiability and reliability is with those that add it, and is subject to instant removal if not met. You can't say "how we'll use Box Office Mojo for all the budgets, and when it's wrong we'll just use another source". You've just created a problem, because if it's wrong, or we won't say wrong, but just contradictory to what a studio officially releases, then the question becomes "what else are they saying that is contradicted by the production studio?" This is the idea of verifiability. We can verify that BOM has a number, but we cannot verify where the got that number, hence they are not a reliable source in this instance. We can verify where Forbes' got their number, it was from BOM, which means the information they supplied isn't reliable. Forbes can be considered a "reliable source", but if they say something to the effect of "an insider said.." you couldn't use that as reliable information. The same principle applies here, as Forbes is saying "according to Box Office Mojo", and Box Office Mojo isn't saying diddly about where they got their information. If someone can provide a reliable source for each of those films, then there isn't a problem. But right now, only two have independent-third party sources, which means that the rest can be removed and we'd be left with a rather short list. The is the reason the "List of most valuable comic books" was deleted. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDB is a trusted source. Box Office Mojo is a trusted source, trusted enough to be used by Forbes. You seem to be using some sort of philosophical argument about truth. Wikipedia isn't about truth, its about verifiability. If you have another source, use both. Think more about my argument about GDP or even population of the earth, its not truth, its the best estimate available and the source that provides that estimate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me where IMDb is a trusted source. I take part in quite a few FACs for films, and IMDb is the first thing to go if it's cited in an article. It's a user submitted site. Sorry that isn't reliable. Box Office Mojo doesn't provide a source for their information, so that makes them unreliable when it comes to production budgets. If you cannot verify where Box Office Mojo gets their information then it doesn't meet the policy. You are taking things at face value, and that isn't how you should use sources. The "population of earth" is based on a census that taken. That isn't even the same thing, why, because a studio knows how much they spent on a film. You don't have to "guess", because you had to cut the check. Whether they want to tell the truth is up to them, but a website the posts a rumored budget and passes it off as "true" doesn't make that budget information any more reliable. Box Office Mojo isn't providing any time of information that states where they are getting these numbers, which is the point of verifiability. If you cannot verify where someone gets their informatin then you cannot use it. BTW, your argument that this is based on an edit war is completely misleading. Since for one thing, I'm the one that initiated the discussion on the talk page about the unverifiability of the page months ago. No one has since provided sources for each of the movies, hence the AfD. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDB is not user submitted, except for plot summaries and a few other features such as trivia and movie mistakes. If it is user submitted, log in and change one of the numbers and send me the before and after link here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can have anything changed if you can provide a good reason and some proof of the need to change it. The proof doesn't even have to be that good. You are talking about the website that once listed Aunt May as Carnage for the Spider-Man 3 film. And listed a completely different music composer for Ghost Rider than was actually working on the project. If you like, I can provide you with an interview with the director of that film scrutinizing IMDb for listing someone he's never once met. If you think that IMDb is so trusted, please go to WP:FILM and ask if it is an acceptable source on a film article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, submit a change to IMDB and show me it before and after. The New York Times lists errata every day, that doesn't make it an unreliable source, you are "grasping at straws." You have made all these arguments already on the talk page. WikiProjects are not Wikipedia policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are not grasping is the fact that an organization can be reliable, but not all of its information is equally reliable. It's called editorial oversight, and IMDb and Box Office Mojo have yet to show they do that. The fact that IMDb tends to have quite a few mistakes, means they don't meet reliability policy, which states that the source have "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." As far as the information on BOM and IMDb is concerned, it's self-published information, as they don't say how they attain the information. IMDb even states on their site, " the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you." If they claim someone from the "industry" gives them information, it would be good to know what information they are giving, and what information is being given by the general public. They claim to have a "large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate and reliable as possible", yet miss so much. So, they don't provide a source for where they get their information, and they have a large amount of fact checkers who miss obvious things like the proper composer to a film, the fact that one fictional character cannot portray another fictional character, but yet that's a reliable source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your arguing that IMDB has no editorial control, so it cant be trusted. At the same time your arguing that the editorial control exerted by IMDB makes it unreliable. You cant have it both ways. If you can send them an error you see in the database and they correct it, thats editorial control. All reliable media make errors, and correct them. Thats what makes them reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sent them errors, on the pages that are restricted from editing by readers. Nothing changed, not even when I've provided links to sources that contradict them.

BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again your contradicting yourself. Your previous argument was that they can't be trusted because anyone can send them information and they accept it. Now you are saying they can't be trusted because they don't accept your changes. Its a delicious irony. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't contradicting myself, you are simply trying to twist my words. You told me to do something, I told you I've done it before. The site is user submitted, their own description tells you that, but what they do not tell you is what information comes from users and what information comes from "the industry" as they refer to it. I never claimed that anyone can edit every portion of that site, because they cannot. There are sections that one must actually request a change, and wait until they "review" your information. I've done this, and nothing changed. I didn't even get so much as an email explaining why the change wasn't made, especially since I provided plenty of sources and reasoning that contradicts their information. I've requested information from them. I've requested sources from BOM and IMDb, and never received a reply, and I've done this more than once. If you cannot provide verification of where you get your information, then you are not reliable. The information could be simple self publication. BOM is most likely using some sort of "estimation" technique, because they have several movies that incorrect budgets. Just recently checking again, Jason X and Freddy vs. Jason are both off. So again, if their budgets are being contradicted by a more reliable source, it makes one wonder where exactly they are getting their numbers. BTW, it was you who insisted that being "user submitted" meant you could simply change things at will, not I. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article (the most expensive to make films of all time) is notable, but I agree that it needs to be better sourced. TJ Spyke 06:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily verifiable. Whatever happened to fixing rather than deleting? --Hemlock Martinis 08:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because verifiability and reliabiliy are the burden of the adding editor, and budgets are topics that are not always released, and rumors become facts for some places. Disney has never released an official budget for the two Pirate sequels, yet Box Office Mojo has a budget for both...they had a budget for both before the films were ever shot. It was based on an early interview where someone stated that the budget for both would be around 450 million, so BOM just divided that in two, before the film was ever shot. That isn't very good editorial oversight, that's just making an assumption. The big problem in that is who is to say that while filming the second movie they just stopped when they reached 225 million? Then, after the third film came out, they had 300 million up there. No explaination for the change, no source to show where they got their information. That isn't a reliable source, when they don't publish who is feeding them information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to serve a purpose in terms of what lists we can allow, not a mere indiscriminate collection of information.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - Subject is clearly notable and of wide interest, article is WP:RUBBISH. -Halo 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never doubted the subject was notable, it is. But the subject is highly unverifiable. Budget information is not a very public topic, but yet, using BOM or IMDb means we have to trust they are getting information from an "insider"? We cannot verify they aren't just making up the numbers based on rumor floating around. BOM is great for box office stuff, but that doesn't mean it's got verifiable evidence for the budgets. Where is this 270 million Superman Returns budget coming from? Singer was asked in an interview what the budget was, and it wasn't near 270 million. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup This information is all verifiable. I don't see the issue? If you think the sources are bad, find better sources. However, I do agree the article needs more sourcing.CraigMonroe 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and verify: Remove all unreliable IMDB or BOM sources, and keep films with reliably sourced budget information. Alientraveller 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete define "expensive" - where's the borderline? Small film studios could call their biggest film expensive, yet the same money would be run-of the-mill to a big studio. Also, countries like India make lots of films which are expensive to them, yet which western countries could afford easily. So there's no absolute definition of "expensive". Totnesmartin 15:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the topic does not warrant an indiscriminate list of films' production budgets. Only the top few entries are really notable, and there should be a Most expensive films prose article. There's no use for the rest of the entries, as nothing indicates that their production budgets are important to note. There's a whole bunch of them in the $100 million group -- what's the notability of these films so far down the ladder rungs? There should be prose coverage of the media's reports about the 21st century's blockbusters, but it needs to be written in a way to avoid recentism -- more and more money will be spent on films as time goes by. This list, however, is not warranted beyond the handful of top entries, especially considering the user-submitted setup of the Internet Movie Database (where information comes from readers like us) and the mere estimates of Box Office Mojo, which does not seem to take into account Singer's official budget confirmation. The topic of high-budgeted films is notable, yes, but it doesn't warrant an indiscriminate list. I also agree with Totnesmartin about his criticism for what it means for a film to be the "most expensive"? The topic seems to have been Americanized. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe a prose article would be more acceptable. Something that mentions the secretive nature of film budgets. Not in a detailed way, since there is already an article on just film budgets, but more in an overview to explain how the idea of "most expensive" is not an exact science, and even estimations (like Superman Returns) can be way off the mark of an "officially released" (but not necessarily factual) budget. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a pretty g'damned staunch deletionist and generally dislike lists of all kinds, but this is clearly a list that's worth keeping which concerns a highly relevant and interesting topic. All the hair-splitting about what "expensive" really means is overly pedantic, subjective and not particularly constructive. If there's a problem with verifiability, delete content, not the page as a whole. Work on actually fixing the problem instead of trying to decide the issue through bureaucracy and ruleslawyering. Peter ^Isotalo 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The concern with WP:V and WP:RS would delete the majority of the page, if not all but two of the films. That was leave a pretty bare article. I believe that that you proved the point that people were trying to make, that "what is expensive" is subjective, and I believe Erik made a suggestion about how to "fix the problem". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two films would actually still be content, so the request to delete would fail on that issue alone. While I'm not going to comment the debate over what's reliable or not (because it would take ages to read through just through Bignole's contributions), the issue of "what is expensive" is quite clearly being discussed with more attention to trifling detail than the big picture. What's expensive isn't subjective unless one gets ridiculously philosophical and relativistic. Someone appears to be trying to throw out not just the bath water, but the healthy baby with it; it smacks of point-making. Peter ^Isotalo 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hardly point making, since the "point" was made quite awhile ago, with nothing done to the article. Let's say, hypothetically, that it's agreed that BOM and IMDb and any placed that doesn't explain where they get their information is considered unreliable. That leaves 2 films that have sources which state that the budget was made "official" (not true, just official). Why have an entire article for two films? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't agree with the nominator's rationale, which is that

"The page is currently completely, minus two films, unverified by reliable sources. It will probably always be unverified by reliable sources, given the secretive nature of the topic: production budgets. Currently, the list cites Box Office Mojo, but BOM doesn't list sources for where they get their information, and some of the budgets do not match what other sources say for some of their films." I don't see Box Office Mojo cited in the article. I do see that BOM was cited by Forbes.com, and if it's reliable enough for Forbes, it's reliable enough for me. Ditto for imdb.com which is considered reliable as well, more so than even wikepedia.org Mandsford 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep encyclopedic list, mostly reasonably sourced. Greg Grahame 21:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Greg Grahame. MetsFan76 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think most biggest tallest lists are inherently notable because they are recorded for their record. A list of films by budget wouldn't be notable but this is. Just like List of highest grossing films, no? Bulldog123 08:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article expains it are estimates that are given. IMDB, Mojo & the Numbers are not just fansites, there are runned by profesionals, therefore can qualify was reliable (enough) sources. --Patrick1982 16:48, 13 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. —Kurykh 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend Rock List[edit]

One of the regular features on Rolling Stone's Rock & Roll Daily blog, which itself does not have an article. Many music publications or TV channels feature non-notable "top" lists, and it's not clear why this particular one stands out. Unint 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability for this column Corpx 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oyster guitarist 04:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak delete, certainly not worthy of its own article but possibly worth a mention.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:14, 8 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. Anas ^talk? 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Online (column)[edit]

Fails to assert notability (a magazine column running 2003-2006... about movie websites?); Google for "'hollywood online' adam pearce" gives only 8 hits. The parent magazine, DVD Monthly, may be notable, but it doesn't even have an article. In addition, conflict of interest is also a concern as the creating user, Adamjpearce (talk · contribs), identifies as the author of the column. I recommend userfy, which should be harmless. Unint 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see any notability / media coverage just for this column Corpx 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability for this column. Oyster guitarist 04:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If DVD Monthly magazine doesn't seem to have an article then how can a column within it be notable? Perhaps the magazine is notable and should have an article; I don't know.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:16, 8 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) --soum ^talk 08:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Disco Police[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC by not providing why this band is notable. KJS 77 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume you mean "band" and not "bank". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no notability even claimed in article. Tagged as {{db-band}}. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Blatant vanity article. Calgary 01:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of notability and complete vanity. Note, someone should also put the picture up for delete. Note it was taken 3 hours ago, clearly by the band itself purely for this self absorbed article. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notabillity. Oyster guitarist 04:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per notability. Jmlk 1 7 05:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the band members is Brett Mahoney, and—surprise, surprise—the author of the article is Brett-mahoney. ●DanMS • Talk 05:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No notability, written by one of the band members. DraxusD 06:33, 8 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 article had time for Reliable sources to be added on but didn't. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Films[edit]

Non-notable anti-war documentary film company. I know that imdb is not the be-all and end-all, but they only seem to know one of their films - [60]. Corvus cornix 00:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notablility. Calgary 01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Oyster guitarist 04:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong The notability has different levels and degrees. So, it depends. If million of people have aquainted with the antimilitar films, this company is 1 million notable.Ttturbo 08:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep might be useful after a cleanup, at the moment lacks reliable sourcesxC | ☎ 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - claims to notability, needs major cleanup, needs major sources, I don't know enough about the subject to gauge.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serious verifiability issues here compound notability concerns. Eusebeus 12:39, 12 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 this page is more like it. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalise this page[edit]

Nonsense Jackrm 00:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I've requested speedy deletion already. --Mysdaao 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Thanks Mysdaao, i'm quite new to the whole deletion policy, but i thought as this was a rather clear delete, i might as well add it. Jackrm 00:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletions are for pages that are clear deletes. You can see the reasons to request a speedy deletion at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. One of the criteria is patent nonsense, like the article in question. --Mysdaao 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Epitome of Speedy Delete I've heard of Steal This Book, but Vandalise This Page? No, that just doesn't sit well with me. Calgary 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now the page has been blanked (by it's creator, no less). Oy...Calgary 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Vandalize~~ Er, I mean Delete. -WarthogDemon 00:35, 8 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 per G11. Sr 13 07:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rellik[edit]

Non-notable novel by a non-notable author, so it fails WP:NOTE right there. Also, there are no references or citations, and in addition it is (poorly) written in such a manner that suggests that it is advertising/promotion/spam. Calgary 00:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Absolutely nothing notable here, not even the author is notable. Possibly vanispami... Vanispuft... vanispammy... I can never pronounce that! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11/spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable, no references and spam. Oyster guitarist 04:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam. Tagged as such. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:23, 8 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. Anas ^talk? 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scornacosh[edit]

Original Research. No sources, no references, no Google hits. Hu 01:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a cook book Corpx 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the grandma's recipe book. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a cook book. Oyster guitarist 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no confirming GHITS, suspected hoax or very non-notable "regional" dish. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, nor is it for unverifiable original research. Asserts notability as claims to be "considered a delicacy in certain remote spots of the Mid-Atlantic United States" so not A7 but also not verifiable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Original research about something unencyclopedic. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:54, 10 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. —Kurykh 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ewing[edit]

This is one of many unreferenced articles about characters from the TV series Dallas.

The rest of the articles can be found in Category:Dallas (TV series) characters. All of the articles are written from the fictional world instead of this one, and it seems that none of them contain referenced claims. I'm willing to bet that there's very little that can be said in the real world about these characters, so we should consider following up on this AfD with all other articles in the category except for J. R. Ewing, who the Dallas (TV series) article claims is the character who made the series take off.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very week keep We do accept articles on fictional characters based on the WP:PAPER argument but I will admit that almost all of these appear to be of very poor quality (who really cares what car Lucy drove?). I say keep for now to let someone improve the articles but if that doesn't happen they will likely end up here again. Also, thanks for not mass nominating these as most such nominations turn out to be trainwrecks. MartinDK 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning about mass nominations -- since I've seen such trainwrecks before, I've revised the wording of my nomination to make it more clearly a single nomination (for now). If the consensus is to delete, perhaps the right course of action would be to PROD the similar articles.
Now, I recognize that we have many articles on fictional characters, but we should not have articles whose content is fictional, as per WP:WAF. For instance, what car Lucy drives is not just unimportant, it's fictional. It seems to me that J. R. Ewing is the only character with enough real-world significance that an encyclopedic article could be written about him. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you which is why its only as very week keep. If no improvement takes place over the next few days I will most likely favor deletion of not only this one but all the minor characters. MartinDK 08:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's very little about Jack in the article. What little there is should be merged back into Dallas and some of the garbage that's already clogging up the main article should be deleted or at least split off. Clarityfiend 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor characters should be mentioned at the main article, which this one is. Carlossuarez46 06:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with some of the other more minor characters to an article on all the more minor characters as per the Simpsons example List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. Davewild 08:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been a while since I saw any Dallas, and I never followed it religiously, but I don't think this was a major character. JulesH 11:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PAPER (and its nephew, WP:POKEMON) illustrate the sad double standard that exists in Wikipedia. Here, we've got a guy forced to argue a "weak keep" for something that's (a) pure original research (b) unsourced and (c) uninteresting and useless. If this were an article called, say, "Oil barons in popular culture", let's face it, it would be held to a different standard. It's refreshing to see a "dumb" article nominated for deletion for a change.... Jack, take Lucy and the rest of the gang with you. Mandsford 19:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not forced to !vote very weak keep. I am, however, not sure that we should delete all of them. JR, Cliff Barnes and Bobby Ewing were all significant to the plot of this very notable TV series and I want to see how many editors are really interested in maintaining these articles. Like I said I can certainly be convinced into !voting delete on this one if no improvement takes place but I want to give the people who cares about maintaining and improving these articles a fair chance before we go ahead and nominate the rest of the minor characters for deletion. It is not completely unlikely that a decent article could be written but if no one reacts to this AfD by improving it I would say that it is unlikely that such improvement will take place and then we might as well delete it or merge them all into one article on the minor characters. I often change my !vote on AfD's - it depends on what happens during the course of the AfD. MartinDK 05:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:55, 10 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 as per WP:CSD. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 11:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go!Go!Waitress[edit]

A song article that does not state notability. Tokek 11:17, 8 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, the article clearly fails to assert the notability of the subject or to provide reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester DuBenion[edit]

The article admits that his recordings were self-produced. Also, the subject of the article was its author. Fails WP:MUSIC. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I take it I can't create an article for myself? I'm also sorry it's not up to par with Wiki's music standards. --Syl DuBenion 22:23, 8 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorcerer's Cave[edit]

Contested WP:CSD#A7 deletion (lack of notability). Closing admin agreed to undelete and list at AfD. Procedural nomination, no opinion -N 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. It looks like a decent subject for an article, but the given sources do nothing to establish any sort of notability. If some are found, I would be happy to amend my thoughts. Powers ^T 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Weak keep per sources found by Davemon. Collectively they seem to be sufficient. Powers ^T 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of non-trivial independent sources, even though I have heard of it. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article should have some independent non-trivial sources and suggest the following: Computer and Video Games, Sinclair User #38 1985 and Games and Puzzles Magazine (Autumn 1980) (Doc file), there are slightly less reliable sources such as Home of The underdogs and Inform Fiction - The Reliques of Tolti-Aph Davémon 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sorcerer's Cave and it's sequel Mystic Wood are also briefly mentioned in this paper / talk given at a science-fiction convention in 1987 Designing Adventure Puzzles by Jonathan R. Partington, maths professor, and the author/designer of several 1980's interactive fiction/adventure games - which along with RoTA (above) shows 'peer acknowledgment'. It may also be noted that the game is still being played online in a PBM format on this website - which might not fulfill the criteria of 'independance' for notability but it's not bad for a game nearly 30 years old.
Very weak keep the Computer and Video Game link as well as the article in Puzzles magazine are arguably independent non trivial reliable sources. JoshuaZ 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, the CVG link is trivial in a sense, as it is just a passing mention. Powers ^T 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is really just based on my personal knowledge of the importance and influence of this game. The issue is that the game is pretty old so, unlike modern games, reviews and articles about it are probably not web-accessible. I've certainly read interviews where the game is mentioned as influential, though not discussed in detail. I know that "other stuff exists" is not a good argument, but when you compare it to modern games that do meet the PNC, you really have to wonder about how we set up our criteria. I'll see if I can find some additional sources, but even without them, I think this is a keep. -Chunky Rice 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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