Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Anderson (mathematician)

James Anderson (mathematician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Relates to the person responsible for today's Nullity coining and the Transreal_number deletion, see that entry/talk page for more details. Also vanity publisher and not suitable for a sourced encyclopedia. Lee-Jon 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Article has been moved to James Anderson (computer scientist), the AfD notice persists there also and links to this discussion. fintler 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. He's a staff member in the computer science department at the University of Reading. (He's not a professor.) Maybe somehow somewhere he's got some interesting research, but it sure doesn't seem like it merits an encyclopedia article just yet. So far he seems just to have a bunch of papers in conference proceedings (which, to clear up some confusion, are not reviewed). His list of publications (at his home page and at the University) doesn't list his dissertation; who knows what he's a doctor of. See also the AFD for perspex machine. Lunch 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Fifteen minutes of fame (or infamy) doesn't qualify one for an encyclopedia article, IMHO. There are lots of "current events" and "ideas going 'round the internet" that don't merit an encyclopedia article. Lunch 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the term professor has a different meaning in the UK from the USA, so not being a professor does not automatically make a person non-notable. Markb 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but it does put him one step lower on the ladder.

    Also does anyone know where else in the news this fellow has appeared? That is, besides a one paragraph article in Slashdot and the article in the Berkshire local edition of the BBC. And on Slashdot, virtually all the comments are poking fun of the guy. Lunch 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: He is an "academic staff" member, which seems to be what the department is calling faculty. Conference proceedings are quite common in computer science and are perfectly respectable in some areas; you can't expect to translate your knowledge of credentials from some area of mathematics to a completely different field. Also, as pointed out, making "professor" is actually quite different (and harder) than at an American university; it really is a different kind of position. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep... his ideas are going around on the internet and his identity should be explained. - Stoph 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As above. --Soyweiser 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; one Slashdotted item of minor local news coverage isn't enough for WP:BIO. He has his own web site to explain his identity. --McGeddon 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is more than one news article, as of today. See the article. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete His grants are neither plentiful or notable, his publications are not peer reviewed. This guy does not yet deserve an article. Carboneyes 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. -Ahruman 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Alternatively, change (mathematician) to (Internet), and delete the redirect. There's no mathematics here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Grandiose claims do not make a person notable. Fails WP:PROF but may pass WP:ICANSQUARETHECIRCLETOO!!!. shotwell 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN linas 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. TSO1D 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, one mention in a news story does not confer notability. WP:PROF is the criterion which should apply here. -- The Anome 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep... his ideas are going around on the internet and his identity should be explained. Narssarssuaq 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete as per nom, can't even use the WP:PROF as he doesn't qualify there!SkierRMH,07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Some journalist just happened to believe he has solved something on the scale of Einstein or Newton. He has not. Any interest in this will go away soon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if the interest goes away soon, delete after it has gone away, not before. Nothing worse than not being able to find at all in Wikipedia something that's all over the internet. maidden 11:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable. To reply some Keep: Wikipedia is not web space - Cate | _Talk 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, just the idea that this many people care to delete this article makes it notable, oh, and the media attention ;P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fintler (talk • contribs).
• Keep The sources make their own argument for notability. Just because he may be known in history as a "one hit wonder" doesn't mean that one hit isn't notable. -Markeer 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Zé da Silva 14:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete People asking for this to be deleted does not make it notable. This is not worthy of a bio. It may be in the future, but not yet (though I doubt it) JonGUK 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Recent papers published don't seem to be peer reviewed, and one bbc news arcicle does not a notable person make. Inner Earth 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Marginal, though in my view over the line, establishment of notability. That he is also a vanity publisher has no bearing on it -- might be noted in criticism section. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable bio stub. Abstrakt 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, in the news now, let's wait two years to see if his name has any recognition value Dr Zak 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "This is all over the internet" is not a reason to keep it here - it seems to me that this is exactly what the original research policy is there to prevent. --Dmz5 04:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to James Anderson (computer scientist), defer deletion depending on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspex machine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transreal number. If the other two pages stay then I guess this should as well, but lets call a spade a spade, this guys a computer scientist not a mathematician. --Salix alba (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN --RaiderAspect 13:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pierreback 14:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - WikiXan 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm still in favor of a delete, even if the proposed Wikinews article actually becomes published, and even if Perspex machine and Transreal number are kept, but I would move to amend Salix alba's proposal to "rename, substitute, and excise redirect". He is not and has never been a mathematician, as far as anyone can tell. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. After careful consideration of related backlinks such as transreal number and perspex machine, I voted delete on those articles, from which I have to conclude that Anderson is just not notable (possible merits of his work notwithstanding). So what remains as a reason for keeping this bio? The only thing I can see of is some minor Internet notoriety due to Slashdot (the BBC thing is not so convincing, as it was in a local edition). But being mentioned on Slashdot once is a dubious kind of notoriety. No backlinks (other than the ones I mentioned) exist, so I doubt it's any loss to just delete. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to James Anderson (computer scientist) He is in no way shapre or form a mathematician. His training is in CS. I'd say redirect "Perspex machine" here and keep this article stating that "James Anderson is a math crackpot who asserts that a flawed version of NaN has major mathematical consequences." Alternaticely, create a "Mathematical crackpots" article which talks about the phenomenon and lists several "notable" ones; redirecting all articles to that one. Perspex & Anderson are not notable for scientific merits but they are notable as well know parts of the cultural phenomenon of mathematics crackpotery. JeffBurdges 11:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep marginal and rename to his actual job. not quite notable as a working academic biographical article, not quite notable as a crackpot, but together the two add up to more than nullity. there is a notable lesson here for academia--Mongreilf 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete His training isn't even in CS, he's a psychology major. Jgrahamc 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• On balance, Delete, largely per The Anome. WMMartin 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - if just out of sympathy for him after reading the comments on the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml? There 98% of the comments demonstrated beyond doubt the writer had neither read Anderson’s paper, nor had the slightest clue as to the nature of axiomatic systems, that is, of mathematics itself. Whether Anderson’s definition of "nullity" is a truly useful improvement on IEEE’s “NaN” logic, is an open question – I don’t know. It is, however, a consistent axiomatic system, every bit as logical as anything else in mathematics. I don’t want him shut down by “truthyness” police lacking a clue about mathematics, but knowing that you "can't divide by zero" is the only true religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.31.106.34 (talk)
  • i'm not sure if it is a consistent axiomatic system. it may be, he claims it's been tested, but it hasn't been through the peer review process. it's now going through the review by internet process--Mongreilf 12:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that no-one above has actually said anything of the kind, that is a straw man argument. You appear to be conflating this discussion with the BBC web site. The issue being discussed here is whether this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As per above comment. For some reason people seem to be personally attacking him. It doesn't seem that anyone has come up with anything proving him wrong, they just seem to want to call him a crackpot for no real reason other than to retain their own elitist/purity view of mathematics. fintler 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm open to changing my mind, but I don't see how he meets criteria in either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Is there some other guideline you'd suggest? Lunch 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • See the article for a new citation that goes towards satisfying WP:BIO. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It's still a local BBC program. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Or if you're referring to the Reading Evening Post article, that comes from a newspaper with "a circulation of about 18,400" according to the Wikipedia article Reading Evening Post. Still local. Lunch 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The circulation is irrelevant. Notability is not fame nor importance. The size of the target readership of the published works is irrelevant. Only the number, depths, and provenances of the published works are relevant. We don't, for example, exclude articles on obscure species of beetles just because only a few entomologists read the scientific journal articles that discuss them. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't think anyone else agrees with you on this issue. Even so, your view is not specifically even up to the guideline level. Also, does this mean I would have been notable in 1975 because I was interviewed (for about 30 seconds each) on two local television stations (if they archived their news footage then, so we'd be able to verify). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
            • WP:BIO agrees with me. It draws no line that delineates "local articles that don't count" as you are doing, and rightly so. There's a great deal of systemic bias that flows from such a notion. It is your "It's local, so it doesn't count." that people don't agree with. And the answer to your question is "No.", because, unlike you with those 30 seconds of interview, James Anderson has been the subject of several articles all of which comprise more than just a single paragraph. The PNC requires "non-trivial" published works, remember. "It's local." is not a valid rebuttal. The valid rebuttals would be that the published works were not from independent sources (e.g. they are re-hashes of press releases), that they were trivial (i.e. are not in-depth coverage), or that there was in fact no more than one single piece. Until yesterday, there was no more than the one single piece. That is no longer the case. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 199.212.18.131 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia has other articles on frauds, like Sollog; it doesn't mean that we endorse their ideas. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that keeping entails endorsing ideas. People are saying he is just not so notable. Sollog appears to me to be much better known than James Anderson (mathematician). --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • He's had multiple articles written about him in the BBC. His pseudomath is not notable, but the media frenzy he's created around himself is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Those are local (Berkshire) BBC articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • That's irrelevant, as explained above. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If you feel that local news coverage is sufficient for notability, fine, that's your opinion and obviously I can't change it. But if you are suggesting that somehow there's been major international (or even national) coverage on this man, you are grossly mistaken. If the BBC decides to pick this up as a national story, then I would be forced to agree there has been indeed a "media frenzy". --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You are wrong to exclude published works just because they are not widely read. We don't do that for small towns or for obscure species of beetles, and we don't do it for people. Notability is not fame nor importance. The size of the target readership of the published works is irrelevant. Only the number, depths, and provenances of the published works are relevant. If you could make a case that the published works are not from independent sources, or that they are not in-depth, or that there were not multiple works, then you would have a good argument. But you have not made such a case. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Ungle G, as you may have guessed, I don't abide by your PNC. Notability has to do with importance/usefulness in my opinion, and in that way serves a constructive function. Your guideline is basically set up so that some Little League coach that gets local news coverage about rescuing a cat from a tree gets a Wikipedia bio. How does that further Wikipedia's mission? Nobody here is arguing that obscure species of beetles should not be covered, so you may want to consider why not in order to understand the nuances of the position being held here. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is wrong, and it is you that needs to consider and understand what notability and the PNC actually are. Importance is subjective. Notability is not subjective. Editors' personal evaluations of importance, including yours, are not the way to decide what to include in an encyclopaedia. Doing so would result in a mess very quickly, and basing your arguments upon your subjective opinion of what is important does not help Wikipedia at all.

    Moreover, your argument about rescuing cats from trees is a straw man. You are ignoring the words "multiple" and "non-trivial" in the PNC. The rescue of a cat from a tree would almost certainly not be an in-depth article, and other articles would be required. Please think about notability, about why it is not the same as importance, and about why arguments about cat rescues are straw men. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Sorry, but you're not the arbiter of whether my opinion is wrong and yours is right. And no, I didn't ignore the wording in your PNC. I say "your PNC", because despite your attempt to make it seem like your opinion is policy or a major guideline, it is not. If you are referring to the first bullet of a list in WP:BIO, then note that also part of the guideline is "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." (my emphasis) Not to mention that the guideline also states that this is not an exclusionary list, so it's not as if your PNC was not met, the article should be deleted. Insisting that "keep" and "delete" correspond to satisfying or not satisfying PNC is just your opinion; don't pretend otherwise.
      "Multiple" obviously means "more than one" and "non-trivial", interpreted by you here as "in-depth", can obviously happen in any human interest story such as the one I mention. So it's not a straw man, but a valid example. For example, please look at Cat Rescued From Tree] and explain why it is not "in-depth". In terms of "multiple", i.e. more than one, with Anderson, I see two independent sources, the local BBC station and the Reading Evening Post. The only aspect of your arguments so far, that I can see is valid is that here we have more coverage than in the "cat in tree" case. "more coverage" here means one more source. But I would think this is a pretty borderline case. If you're going to say "here we have two sources, whereas you have only one". Then that's a weak argument, in my opinion. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      BTW, I do not consider that Wikinews story a reliable source here, especially for notability purposes. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If indeed James Anderson's is a crackpot, why not keep the article but specify the holes in his theories? That might provide useful information to anyone else trying to develop similar ideas. He passes notability by merit of the ongoing public discussion. Oneismany 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because, as I explained at length when you asked that question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspex machine, specifying the holes in xyr theories is original research if it cannot be sourced to existing critiques of the theories, which do not exist at all in the case of the "perspex machine". Original research is forbidden here. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Oneismany. —Ben FrantzDale 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• The article cites at least three published works (2 news articles by the BBC and 1 by the Reading Evening Post) from independent sources that talk about, in depth, this person and xyr presentation of xyr "nullity" idea to schoolchildren. The Wikinews story, documenting the ensuing reaction, is a fourth. The WP:BIO criteria, in particular the PNC, are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (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 speedy delete and salt the earth by Alkivar. MaxSem 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudy (Ru) Klein

Rudy (Ru) Klein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article, being about high school athletics, is not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Jackhorkheimer 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Clearly non-notable. TSO1D 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, {{db-bio}}, tagged as such. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete would someone just get rid off, it has no place on Wikipedia. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:59, 8 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The X Factor UK and Ireland series 4

Page contains no useful content, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. _JD^talk 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Crystalbollocks. Get shot of the article (and preferably, the show too) Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Crystalball. SkierRMH,07:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Too far in the future for anything decent to be written about it at this stage. Series 3 isn't even finished yet. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ballin' Joe Jklin (T C) 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom; violates WP:CRYSTAL --Mhking 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, BUT needs to be ReCreated near the time in Summer 2007. 86.20.53.195 17:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers Cider

Brothers Cider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet guidelines of WP:CORP. Advertisement. -Nv8200p talk 00:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Rewrite: Easily meets the guidelines of WP:CORP through this article in the UK Daily Telegraph, Daily Telegraph Article on Brothers Cider together with honourable mentions by BBC and Manchester Online. Does need a rewrite to NPOV though.Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: I wrote this article but i'm hardly an expert writer so it needs someone to have a go at this. I dont work for the company of any of its subsiduary or anyhting and didnt mean this to be advertising. It's just as worthy of a page as Magners is. While it needs a rewrite to remove my bad prose it certainly meets the notability criteria. --Mercifull 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete The Daily Telegraph article even says they have never been in a national newspaper. Seems like there is potential to be notable, I just don't think they are quite yet. If it is kept it needs a good rewrite to NPOV it up. Joe Jklin (T C) 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Rewrite; Just needs some minor rewriting to come more fully in compliance. --Mhking 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Rewrite down to a stub (looking at this version); It needs more than a minor re-writing: the 'contact information' section should disappear; the pictures should be whittled down to a logo only; the text needs to be tightened all around; and the Daily Telegraph piece needs to be incorporated - it is not right now ... in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete currently fails WP:CORP as there is only coverage by a single independent source. -- Chondrite 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Easily meets WP:CORP. Just because I could only find one online resource originally doesn't mean its not notable. The company and its product have been on the BBC "Points West" news and also on the regional ITV channel. Here are a few more independant links: manchester online, Runner-up for Best Design & Packaging in The Drinks Business Awards, Wholesaler Magazine clipping about the BPC advertising campaign --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 11:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. The additional sources are pretty trivial, nothing substantial enough to base an article on it. -- Chondrite 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, i guess it's just unfortuinate that there are very limited online sourced to cite for you. I wasn't aware that something could only be notable for an article if it had a massive online prescence no matter how many times its been on regional TV stations or newspapers and how many festivals it sponsors. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no requirement that sources be online, just that they are reliable, verifiable, independent of the company itself, and coverage is not trival. The idea is that there needs to be enough independent coverage of the company to support a proper article. If the company sponsors festivals, then that should be mentioned at the festival article(s), and can be included in this article (if kept), but it doesn't establish notability under WP:CORP. -- Chondrite 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Agent 86 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Paul

Marc Paul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Autobiography. Unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I added references. If you are suspicious about an article which claims that its subject has appeared on television, check on http://www.imdb.com/ , which in this case confirmed at least some of the claims. --TruthbringerToronto

(Talk | contribs) 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand YamSan 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems to have enough notability. MaxSem 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Stuff the White Rabbit was a good show. Definitly needs expansion but there's enough notability for it to stay. --Mercifull 11:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just needs to be expanded Joe Jklin (T C) 17:34, 8 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 02:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Brown (8mm Fuzz)

Strong Delete A member of a band whose article has already been deleted....Yeah. Just H 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8mm Fuzz. utcursch | talk 03:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no point discussing notability if the band was determined to fail WP:MUSIC.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom & Utcursch, SkierRMH,08:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete absolutely. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Joe Jklin (T C) 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; per nom --Mhking 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:24, 8 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Order of Druids in Ireland

The Order of Druids in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This advert for a newage religious group (which is "neither pagan nor wiccan but Irish") is formed of equal parts original research and conflict of interest, with a heaping scoop of complete bollocks. Recreated after speedy-deletion, then PRODded, so let's do this officially. ➥the Epopt 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and salt Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sources cited are not reliable and the bulk of the article is OR.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt looks like [[WP:BALLS]WFT article]]

SkierRMH,08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; observe we've deleted churches with larger memberships than this group's for lack of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete : nonsense. "Modern Druids have no direct connection to the Druids of the Iron Age. Many of our popular ideas about the Druids are based on the misunderstandings and misconceptions of scholars 200 years ago. These ideas have been superseded by later study and discoveries" - quote from Druid
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:46, 9 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiderman:aracniphobia

Spiderman:aracniphobia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete as nom. Can't find any data on the subject. Looks to be either fancruft oif not original research. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Several google searches with the correct spelling of Arachnophobia included resulted in nothing relevant for me as well. Dina 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't even find anything when I looked at the jawiki's Spider-Man article. If there's anything like this, it would be there. ColourBurst 04:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... and fanfic sites search with this spelling came up as 0. SkierRMH,08:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete can't find anything on it Joe Jklin (T C) 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; per nom. Geek though I am, I don't recall this at all. --Mhking 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this misspelled hoax. Doczilla 03:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this probably does exist but its also probabaly some one-time/unknown manga w/hentai mixed in --61.114.193.19 12:47, 10 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-man 1995 live action show

Spider-man 1995 live action show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete as nom. Article provides no sources for what looks to be a non-notable, chancelled program. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn cancelled program: "In 1995, 13 episodes of a new Spider-man show were made, but were never aired" because they "never made the cut". MER-C 04:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources can be provided in the next five days. (aeropagitica) 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite, and added online references. (Rcehoppe 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC))
• Delete unless sourced, nothing turns up except the 1995 animated show. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - article is unsourced. Googling for sources turns up no results that confirm any sort of link between Star Productions and a Spiderman TV series. -- Whpq 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously non notable Joe Jklin (T C) 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; per nom. Not sourced; and AFAIK, it didn't exist. --Mhking 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this unsourced hoax.Doczilla 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Verifiability. -- Satori Son 06:52, 12 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soul squad (band)

Soul squad (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete as nom. Article is horribly written and seems to discuss a non-notable musicial group. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not much presence on Google. Likely failure of WP:MUSIC. MER-C 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. low ghits, nn Glorified garage band... SkierRMH,08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Joe Jklin (T C) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Mhking 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete $+vp!D. Danny Lilithborne 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and per page creator's history, however brief, of bogus pages. Doczilla 03:14, 10 December 2006 (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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moisés Espírito Santo

Moisés Espírito Santo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This one has WP:COI all over it. First copied directly from the Portuguese Wikipedia as a never-ending WP:COI resumé and thus deleted under WP:CSD#A2. One week later, recreated by a sockpuppet and deleted again. Now it's back (brought by yet another sock), with most of the resumé gone and a small biography written in English. No reference to the contributions that made this professor "very influential". Also poor sources, original research, and did I mention WP:COI? Húsönd 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be vanity and essentially a resume, doesn't sufficiently establish notability and uses unjustified POV terms. Terribly formatted and badly translated, too. --The Way 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He's not up for AfD on the Portuguese WP, I think they'd know if he's non-notable. (yeah, I know, WP:INN, but they're just as hip on deleting non-notables as here). Also, since when has an article being poorly written in English been a reason for deletion? He certainly seems to have a good number of published books and articles to his credit. Tubezone 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Portuguese Wikipedia is far less efficient than the English Wikipedia. It can be months until somebody notices the article there or even bother to do something about it. The poor English is the least of the concerns here btw.--Húsönd 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment It looks like they have about 20 AfD's per day, which is about proportional to the number of articles they have (1/8 that of the English WP), but that's really neither here nor there, I can read enough Portuguese to tell you it looks like the guy's written a number of textbooks, including a 10,000 word Phoenician - Portuguese dictionary and a 535 page textbook on 5000 Years Of Western Culture. Looks like he edits a magazine at the New University of Lisbon, too. (I got that off the University's web site) If this article was referenced properly in English, I have little doubt it'd be obvious he passes WP:BIO and WP:PROF.

If he's an important professor then obviously he has done a lot of work, publications, etc. That does not grant notability per se though, and furthermore the article lacks references as you say and it would require full rewritting to be kept.--Húsönd 05:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Voce pode ler o portugues melhor que eu! It looks to me that if a US professor had that much stuff on his CV, he'd be a shoo-in per WP:PROF, there's nothing in WP:PROF that says the publications have to be in English, or the citations, or that the article needs to be well written. I'm not sure I buy the WP:COI argument either, why would you think he wrote this himself? If you think he's non-notable, why haven't you PPE'd him on the PT WP? I think that'd be a no-brainer, if he had been determined to be NN in the Portuguese WP, an AfD here would be a gimme. Tubezone 07:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sim, posso ler o português e todo ele me diz conflito de interesse. It seems obvious that either the professor himself, or someone very enthusiastic about him would write and recreate this article so avidly. Have you seen many WP:COI articles lately? Regarding the Portuguese Wikipedia, it's a sister project but we don't abid by each other's decisions. We have different policies and something being included in one doesn't grant inclusion in the other per se. Besides, the Portuguese Wikipedia doesn't function as effectively as the English Wikipedia. Bad stuff can be kept there for ages until someone even cares about it. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I left the project.--Húsönd 15:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above, and put pt:Moisés Espírito Santo on the chopping block too. MER-C 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a thought, I've been looking for um razao practicar o portugues. I'll probably be the laughingstock of every university from the Pantanal to Porto, but the question of whether this fellow is notable or not would get uma resposta definida. Tubezone 07:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Has written multiple books and articles. Passes WP:PROF. --Oakshade 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, currently it does not. No sources confirm the guideline criteria that establish that his academic work is "significant or well-known".--Húsönd 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • He's published 16 books in Portuguese, a number of which have had multiple printings (unless you are saying what's on his article in the PT WP is inaccurate or a hoax?), and it looks like several are university textbooks (which would qualify him per WP:PROF). Really, this fellow looks at least as notable as Rodryg Dunin, who survived an AfD not too long ago. Tubezone 09:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not disputing that he's published what he says he did. But the article on the English Wikipedia is just a WP:COI pool, and if all the conflict of interest were removed, we'd be left with a stub that lacked sources and asserted no notability. Furthermore, the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia does not state what sort of books are those. It's very common for university professors in Portugal to publish or co-publish a lot of work that in the end has little impact. Only good sources documenting his work would suffice to prove any notability. I should once again remind of WP:COI, WP:OR and WP:RS, Wikipedia policies that I presented as reason for deletion and who aren't being contested.--Húsönd 15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I certainly think foreign language sources can be used to support notability, but I am concerned when there appear to be no English language sources. --Kubigula (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any english-language sources of his work either, and articles created by editors contributing a single page are always suspicious. DrKiernan 15:51, 12 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sports culture albums

List of sports culture albums (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A list of compilation albums containing music popular at sporting events. Most are red links. With generic bargain-bin themed compilation albums probably numbering in the thousands, there's really no reason why they would be notable; furthermore, "sports culture albums" is a phrase with zero non-Wikipedia Google hits. We are much better served by the existing Category:Songs popular at sporting events and List of songs that might be heard at sporting events. Unint 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbitary, incomplete, useless and indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 04:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Most of the entries on this list are redlinks. It might be a better idea for the creators of this list to create a category instead which would include those albums which do have articles. --Metropolitan90 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... and the criteria for getting into this list is so vague... And you'd have to put every tune done on bagpipes, as you'd have to include the Caber toss as the sporting event. SkierRMH,08:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; per nomination --Mhking 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very sketchy - Again. 86.20.53.195 17:44, 12 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of "Best of" or "Greatest hits" albums with punned/modified names

List of "Best of" or "Greatest hits" albums with punned/modified names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

List of greatest hits albums with puns on or jokey variations of phrases like "greatest hits" or "best of" in the title. Depending on how narrowly or widely you interpret the concept, however, just about any title deviating from the "Best of Band X" template could potentially be (and some of which already having been) included here, and that's far too many for this to be useful. Unint 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Damn it doesn't fit speedy deletion criteria.--M8v2 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and defenestrate. --Dennisthe2 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbitary, incomplete, useless and indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 04:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bleedin' listcruft.SkierRMH,08:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this twaddle. Oh I so nearly clicked that Delete button myself. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Now that's what I call delete. Trivia of the worst kind. Keresaspa 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary scope for a list.-- danntm ^T _C 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; per nomination --Mhking 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• What - no The Worst of Jefferson Airplane or Hot Rocks (or the aptly-named Sucking in the Seventies)? Delete per nom. B.Wind 01:46, 11 December 2006 (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 Speedy Keep Alex Bakharev 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Brunner

Jennifer Brunner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I deleted this, and am now submitting this to AfD as per a request on my talk page. This is CAT:CSD related. No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The rationale of the last AfD was that Brunner was non-notable as she was only a candidate. She has now been elected, so that rationale no longer applies. Not every elected official is notable, however, she is going to be the second most powerful official in Ohio (after the Governor) and she is going to be filling the office of Ken Blackwell and changing the election policies he put into place. So she will soon be as notable and perhaps as controversial as he is now. We might as well get started on her article now. — coelacan talk — 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Coelacan SoS for a state makes her notable now. Article needs expanding. Marcsin 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Coelcan. TSO1D 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, elected to key statewide office, meets WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, per coelcan. Bearly541 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with Coelcan. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:SK says that an article can be speedy kept if: "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves." I think that applies here. Everyone has voted Keep, and Eagle said "No Stance" so it looks to me like we're in SK territory. Can we please Speedy Keep now? — coelacan talk — 23:48, 9 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 02:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of hidden messages

List of hidden messages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article seems to want to list every secret message, of any nature, ever placed into any media of any kind. Already we have backwards strings of text in videogames, morse code messages in songs (would that be a coded message or a secret message?), really hard-to-hear bits in songs, and one-off jokes from individual episodes of television series.

But there's a lot more untapped potential here too. We could rightfully include every easter egg that contains a secret message (eeggs.com lists thousands of potential items]), every computer game that uses secret messages as clues (most adventure games), every film with a joke that plays after the credits, every hidden track on an album, the entire field of cryptology, The Ring, The Da Vinci Code, the list goes on. Imagine the size of the references section alone when it's all done. Unint 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm, seems like a random and indiscriminate list to me. It may also contain original research. MER-C 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete : indiscriminate list. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• eteleD .denifednu, suoluben oot, eugav, ooT. SkierRMH,08:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete precisely per SkierRMH, especially the formatting. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unworkably broad in scope.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - list of backmasked messages now contains anything useful from the original list. Λυδαcιτγ 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 4Kids is the devil! Danny Lilithborne 21:54, 9 December 2006 (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 Whomped. WP:CSD criterion A7 applies. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whompa

Whompa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:CORP. Whompa Labs Inc. yields zero results, as does Whompa Labs. Whompa skateboard brings 63 hits. The top page is YouTube, MySpace, MySpace, blog, blog, blog, wiki, wiki. Consequentially 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, while Whompa is a company per-se, they do not advertise their brand name commercially in any way. This page was never intended to serve as an advertisement, it was merely a factual record of the skateboarding organization. I apologize if it was taken any other way, I will attempt to rewrite the article as soon as possible and eliminate all promotional material. Whompacats 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, should have been speedied as a non-notable organization. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Whompa is a prominent skateboarding group in Half Moon Bay. A record of the skate team is a neccesity for the town. The article should not be viewed as an advertisement for the company, but simply an informative written record of the history, goals, and beleifs of the Whompa crew. — 24.6.145.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Speedy delete as WP:VSCA and/or failure to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Whompa is in fact a small organization of young Coast Side locals that are in the process of gaining notoriety among high end skateboarding Companies such as E.L.F. and Es. For one to say it is a non-notable organization is understandable, but to say so without knowledge of the area is something else entirely. — Saltdawg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Speedy delete per MER-C above. A special note to those who are part of the group and in particular Whompacats, notability must be established from other sources. If you're looking to get yourself out there, try a web host such as Angelfire or Geocities. This ain't it. --Dennisthe2 06:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This is a production of up-and-coming youths who are actually making a steady rise in local notoriety. They will soon attain the fame required to be "notable", so I see no reason to delete this. Besides, this is an innocent attempt at showing pride for someone's area. This extends to the whole Bay Area Coast, so I believe this would classify it as significant.--Yasuna 06:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't have articles about things because they may be famous in the future, we write about them for what they have now. Fame has nothing to do with it; there are simply no reliable sources to write an article on some local skate group. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "They will soon attain the fame required to be "notable"." Good for them. When they actually attain the fame needed to be notable than an article can be created for them. Until that happens, no article. Otto4711 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete agree it should have been a speedy; "will soon attain", sounds like Crystalballin' to me... SkierRMH,08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per MER-C. No assertion of notability, no notability regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 8 December 2006 (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. --Daniel Olsen 02:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headford International Airport

Headford International Airport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Non-existent place; no references to it on Google or the site of any Irish airport authority. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. It does not appear to be blatant nonsense to me, perhaps some more careful consideration? Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The place doesn't exist. There are airports in County Galway, but this isn't one of them. The edit history suggests that the text may have been partially lifted from Kerry Airport, since there are edits removing references to that. The listed airport codes are invalid; one doesn't exist and the other is assigned to a municipal airport in the United States. Sorry for putting it in the wrong AFD category. Dppowell 03:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be hoax. Looks like there is a Galway airport. But no ghits for Shane Falvey either. Marcsin 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't exist. --Dennis The TIger 03:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seems pretty clear it's not real. Heimstern Läufer 04:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. TSO1D 04:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - for what it's worth, one - count 'em, one - ghit, and it's here on Wikipedia. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. --Dennisthe2 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless: (HPT) Ireland is now in Iowa - possible, but not really probable! SkierRMH,08:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Do UFOs land at it? Is it a Zeppelin port? Jack Bauer was there the other day, right? Oh yeah, and someone made it up on the spot. w00t for whomever, go ahead and write fiction about your fictional place and try to make it notable, and I'll reconsider. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; per Rickyrab -- paging Art Bell...paging Art Bell... --Mhking 20:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)#
• Delete: No comment needed. Scolaire 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a hoax. Bastun 13:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The title of this page gets only 3 Google hits, none of which are outside of Wikipedia. That should definitely say something. Scobell302 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No mention of such a place exists online or on any aeronautical chart. Hoax. AuburnPilot^talk 02:02, 12 December 2006 (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 per consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LUEshi

LUEshi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Before we get this thing started, let me iterate that I am a member of both LUE and LUElinks, the central locations of the meme. Now, I clearly realize there have been previous decisions to keep this article. However, those decisions almost entirely ignored the rule and guideline violations, most of which it cannot live up to. This nomination is not of bad faith.

The article violates the following policies and guidelines:

• WP:NOR

I quote: "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." - now, there are no reliable sources for this article and I don't believe there are any in existence. Due to the fact its main presence is on a private board, it's very unlikely for a source to publish any information on it. The "GameFAQs archive" is barely reliable, I don't believe it is. It a list of topics submitted by users, which means anything could easily have been modified.

• WP:V

The only thing that can possibly be verified is its origin (the source isn't very reliable either) and its existence. This isn't fact, but it is shown with the article's great lack of references.

• WP:WEB

Quote: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The article does not have any references showing this, and based on my research, I cannot find any.

I assure you there are a few more guidelines the article violates, but I believe this is enough to convince deletion. I have gathered a list of things that the ASCII art claims notability for, and rebuttals:

• Signed by Shigeru Miyamoto

This was simply because a person asked him to - Miyamoto would likely sign my arm if I asked him to, that doesn't make my hand notable for an article.

• Popular on the GameFAQs message boards

Unfortunately, for the purposes of WP:NOR, it's not, since it seems only to be popular on "Life, Universe and Everything", a private message board on GameFAQs - its popularity therefore cannot be confirmed. I invite you to give a reliable source that asserts its popularity.

• Interesting/I like it/Why not?

These are not reasons to keep an article. Observe the policies and guidelines to give a valid argument.

• [this meme] was kept on Wikipedia! Why can't this stay?

That's a different situation. The meme has most likely been more popular, or is able to be researched without violating WP:NOR. Regardless, if you believe that article should go, you're free to nominate it.

• The previous consensuses were to keep

The previous consensuses were also rather ill-founded. I have taken the liberty to give the violations and provide rebuttals to arguments. These rules weren't even argued against in the previous nominations, leading to a simple battle of votes, not consensus.

I remind everyone not to blindly vote. The result is decided with consensus, not vote amount, so don't waste your time if you have no argument. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Votes and discussion

• Delete - I am the nominator. Other options are to merge/redirect to GameFAQs, ASCII art or create a new Non-proportional ASCII art page. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to GameFAQs. Honestly, I'd been considering nominating this again myself for a while. Simply put, this is yet another example of unverifiable internet stuff that's been kept around due to a lot of WP:ILIKEIT, meatpuppetry, and other such nonsense. The only sources here are archived GameFAQs message board posts, which are far from reliable sources. Any claims to notability need to be backed up with verifiable information from reliable sources, and there really isn't any in this case.
  Meanwhile, note that the second-to-last AfD ended with a suggestion for a merge to GameFAQs message boards, which never materialized. That article has since been merged into the main GameFAQs article itself, which is a sign that all of the GameFAQs-related stuff should be confined to a single article.
  Finally, the last AfD was speedy kept as a bad-faith nom, "citing the GNAA clause". Of course, the GNAA article itself has now been deleted due to WP:V concerns, so it's now safe to say that there isn't really any kind of policy exemption given to repeatedly-nominated articles. WarpstarRider 04:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Aggressively redirect GameFAQs cruft. A Grue will eat anyone who uses this to claim no consensus to delete. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to a later redirect. Yup, funny, good ASCII art, but not encyclopaedic due to lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, zero secondary sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Ridiculously weak keep, there's a picture of it, making it verifiable. So this would be a good time to Ignore all rules. The only problem would be if it's important encyclopedic or not. It's not, really... -Ryanbomber 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What's verifiable? That there happens to be a picture that looks like mario riding luigi? That in itself doesn't constitute an article, and the rest is unverifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'll knock up a terrible ASCII picture of a guy with a sword and call it LUElink. It's verifiable now! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, fine, point made. I know it exists but there's no proof and I doubt there's much out there. Sheesh. -Ryanbomber 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • IAR is for preventing WP:CREEP, it's not really used for deciding whether an article goes or not. Hbdragon88 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone finds good sources. Recury 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I eventually plan to create a fork of ASCII art for non fixed-width art, so this content probably will end up there in some form or another. I have no doubt that this will be deleted - it really isn't notable. --- RockMFR 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & Salt; Uh...no. Just, no. --Mhking 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Roses are red/violets are blue/in Soviet Wikipedia/bad article delete you. FirefoxMan 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, don't know how this keeps surviving. No sources and seems very unnotable.++aviper2k7++ 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This alleged meme is found primarily on a single message board which is now closed to new members. It does not seem to have received much attention among the general Internet public. As a remote second choice, redirect to GameFAQs with no further merge needed. --Metropolitan90 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, at best Merge but needs trimming. *sigh* an ASCII pic. You'd need good reasons on why we need an article on an ASCII picture in the first place. There's claims of fame but these aren't really all that convincing. Merge material if kept, and unlikely to change to anything else. And let's hope we don't need "(18th nomination)" this time =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per nom, WarpstarRider, WP:V, WP:WEB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is an article about a piece of ASCII art whose sole assertion of notability is that it "became popular all over the GameFAQs message boards." Am I missing something? This survived multiple previous AfDs? Anyway, the nom spells out reasons in vastly more detail than I could. Gnfnrf 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 21:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt as it was in 2005 (and should have stayed). Danny Lilithborne 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't try to keep this. --- RockMFR 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What kind of comfort is that? You could've at least given reasons to keep. I don't think the LUE brigade is going to hunt you down and kill you, nor will your subconscious explode if you are against having a LUEshi article on Wikipedia. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid my subconscious would explode :( --- RockMFR 04:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I hinted at article on a recent DRV, finally someones done something about it. Delete as per above. This article is a crock (of shit). - hahnchen 02:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:RS. (Has anyone looked for sources?) --Quirex 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep - this is internet notability at its finest. --61.114.193.19 12:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is not a free pass on sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. LUEshi wins teh internet Onewordpostguy 05:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading the above, I vote to keep... you the hell out of Wikipedia. Damn LUEser. User's edits seem solely to be semi-vandalism. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment'. TEG, do you have a personal feud against LUE and its descendants? This article is being nominated for deletion the seventh ****ing time - most of previous ones were your work! What if someone gets a forum invasion with ton of LUEshis and wants to look up WTF the LUEshi is? Your claim about it being non-verifiable is false, since any GameFAQs staff member could do it, should you ask. As for notability, ANY Internet fad could be rendered as such, since one always could find a million people who doesn't know about it. xyzman 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • According to the verifiability policy: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Reliable sources" refers to actual published sources; "GameFAQs staff members" do not qualify.
    "Someone might want to look this up" is also not a valid reason for having an article here; you could insert just about anything into that hypothetical. And anyway, if one were to look up "LUEshi" in such a situation, they'd be redirected to the GameFAQs article. Then they could scroll down to the "Message boards" section, where LUEshi is mentioned under the "Life, the Universe, and Everything" heading.
    And I don't see any previous AfDs started by the nominator of this one. What are you talking about? WarpstarRider 10:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have a personal feud against "LUE and its descendants", in fact I enjoy going there. None of the previous AfDs were my work - where are you getting this from!? If someone gets a forum invasion with a ton of ASCII-art renditions of my arm, does that mean we need an article on it? No, not really. It's a terrible analogy, I know, but it works. A GameFAQs staff member verifying it is called "original research" and is against the primary policies of Wikipedia. I'd advise you to read these, they're the basis for the deletion. Sure, a "million people" don't know about anything, but that's irrelevant - Wikipedia needs sources and verifiability, and articles that cannot achieve this do not belong. I have nothing against LUEshi, in fact it's pretty funny sometimes. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I really don't understand why members of LUE can't differentiate between the two. --TheEmulatorGuy 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the 7th nomination to delete this article. Give it up. - The Norse 21:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the article breaks rules, and all it needs is a lengthy nomination so it doesn't get sabotaged by blind voters. Came from this topic, didn't you?--TheEmulatorGuy 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. TEG, unless you can somehow prove that people are being lured here to serve as blind voters, please don't throw around the accusation. You cherry-picked WP:WEB, which gives three criteria, and only one of them needs to be met. "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Given that this is simply a meme, "distributed" could reasonably be interpreted to mean that an explanation, as well as the ASCII itself, are present on the site. A quick google search shows Urbandictionary, encyclopediadramatica, and YTMND all on the first page, with YTMND having 43 hits for "LUEshi" and the other two having articles.

Additionally, LUEshi is being used as a mascot, not just as the ASCII. The Urban Dead wiki has an article about a group called "LUEshi's Undead" (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Lueshi's_Undead&printable=yes). CafePress offers a LUEshi shirt (http://www.cafepress.com/buy/andrea/-/pv_design_prod/pg_1/p_storeid.11085364/pNo_11085364/id_4397428/opt_/fpt_/c_360/). LUEshi is (admittedly slowly) spreading across the internet due to the actions of LUEsers, has reached a variety of sites, has links to archived topics off GameFAQs (including his creation); what more is really needed? Just because you don't like the GameFAQs archive doesn't mean it isn't a valid source, with fictional entries removed when they are noticed, which is essentially the same system of peer review that Wikipedia itself uses.Alternator 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You've voted a strong keep and yet you've simply ignored the policy violations. As well as that, every single site you've listed is user-created. Urbandictionary, ed, YTMND, Urban Dead, Cafe Press. They're all user-edited sites. None of them are reliable sources, and all articles need reliable sources. There simply aren't any, and you're foolish to ignore that. Really, I'm trying extremely hard to control my anger. You're throwing false accusations and ignoring points all over the place. "What more is really needed"? A RELIABLE SOURCE. "LUEshi is spreading accross the internet"? You'll need a source for that. "you don't like the GameFAQs archive"? Actually, I like it. The problem is that it is user-submitted material, meaning it is not a reliable source. You cannot ignore this. Your argument is so lacking in logic it's not funny. Next time try making a relevant argument to the WP:WEB guideline, and the two policies that you plainly ignored. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In addition to that, I think you misunderstood the thing you quoted in WP:WEB. If you'll read the footnote, it's clear that user-created material is not fulfilling the criteria. Because of this, it does not pass WP:WEB. May I ask, why do you want the LUEshi article? It breaks rules, and you know it. Don't deny it. There must be some reason for it, I'm assuming it has something to do with LUE's fame. I realize I'm swaying into bad conduct here, but when only LUE members are keeping, it simply makes me curious as to why they want the article. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • First off, civility would be appreciated. Stop badgering, harassing, accusing, and/or badmouthing people who express different opinions. Further, you're ignoring the very important differences between the rules for articles (which are strict) and talk pages (which are meant to be discussions), complaining when people express their personal viewpoint. I'm not going to reply to your accusations, nor to any of your complaints save one, because quite frankly you've demonstrated a complete inability to maintain a civil discourse. I'd like to note, however, that Wikipedia is technically a "user submitted site"; WP:WEB discounts sites with no review process whatsoever, such as Newgrounds; while this would discount YTMND (which was more about Notability, which has been brought up in prior VfD), it would not remove the other Wiki sites that I included. I'm maintaining my Strong Keep, and noting that I feel this is a Bad Faith Nom.Alternator 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • My mistakes in following discussion rules are not a reason for you to ignore the article rules. You have still yet to provide any argument whatsoever that disprove any of the policies I have given. May you answer my question? May you back up your vote? I think you know exactly why I'm being uncivil, it's because your arguments are false, ignore points, and have no basis. I hope you realize those sites are not reliable sources under any terms. Please, just read the rules. It is not a bad faith nom AT ALL! HOW COULD YOU EVEN THINK THAT? I provided THREE CLEAR VIOLATIONS, and a rebuttal to any points brought up. That's the most anyone can expect from a nomination. You disgust me. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikis are far from reliable sources. That includes WP itself; that's why third-party published sources for verification are insisted upon here. Suggesting that pages from other wikis with even lower standards of inclusion could be taken as sources is just silly. (And of course, ED isn't even allowed to be linked to on WP any more, so that's even more unusable.) WarpstarRider 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Alternator, look at the sixth AFD. It was ****ing flooded with anonymous users who were all voting keep. I know that the both the third and the sixth nominations at least have had a LUElinks topic on the AFD, which naturally led to the use of SPAs, anonymous users, and some dead accoutns piling on the keep votes. This article has had a history of massive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, so this accusation is just a precaution against this happening again. Hbdragon88 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of this, and if this is his reason, he should have pointed out the prior issues rather than blasting away without substantiating his complaints. Some editors might not be aware of the prior issues, and to simply accuse out of the blue is inappropriate.Alternator 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the Longcat AFD. Hbdragon88 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not even assert meeting any of the criteria of WP:WEB, before we even get to the issues about reliable sources and verifiability. GRBerry 03:00, 13 December 2006 (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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franklin Arkulary

Franklin Arkulary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Doesn't yet seem to meet notability standards. I could not find enough external coverage. Perhaps later he'll become notable enough but it's rather early in his career. Crystallina 03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a state "Young Composer of the Year" award is not real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. WP:BIO Bearly541 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. I took a look at the University of Iowa web and did find him mentioned several times, but not in a campus publication, only in the context of membership lists and standard student meta data repositories. Perhaps in time ... --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even if state award is cited, notability bar not met. The English Wikipedia community wishes the subject of this article well, and we hope one day we have reason to regret our decision to delete the article Jake created in your honor. BusterD 02:24, 14 December 2006 (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 cool down, no consensus. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to be particularly happy with having this closed this way, and it's not particularly pleasant to simply reschedule a debate that has apparently already resulted in one editor leaving the project, several accusations of libel, and even possibly an instance of actual libel. So my first suggestion is that everybody involved in this discussion cool down and let some time pass before reopening this debate.

I'm closing this as no consensus based on the oft referenced "professor test" in WP:BIO. While WP:PROF has set a higher bar and includes more rigorous criteria by which to evaluate notability in this case, it is also a proposed guideline at this time. Given the entire nature of the discussion here, I'm not about to base the decision on a proposed guideline. Based on the criteria in WP:BIO the question of notability would seem to be a close call. Too close of a call to make in this heated environment, so the decision is no consensus with the strong recommendation that no further nomination of this article be made for at least a month. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan James Pantone

Dan James Pantone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a vanity page. User:Matses has recently admitted to being Dan James Pantone, who under various names has inserted links to his webpage and references to his organization, MATSES, (recently speedily deleted), in all sorts of articles on wikipedia. Because there is absoutely zero proof that MATSES is a legitimate organization, because the webpage of this organization asks for money, and because User:Matses (Dan James Pantone himself) has engaged in a campaign of editing other users comments, and because he has accused anyone of asking for information about him and his organization of racism, it seems likely that this entire thing in an ad for a scam. In any event he is not noteable as botanist or anything else other than being a spammer on Wikipedia Descendall 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Descendall, please accept my sincere apology for anything I said to offend you. I was only trying to defend the name of MATSES, an indigenous rights organization that is providing aid to the Matses people. As you have been repeatedly warned by other editors, this is not the place to vent your anger and make personal attacks on other editors.

In any case, you should not use your power as an editor to make personal attacks and defame the name of a notable scientist and his indigenous rights organization. Wikipedia is not meant as a means of anonomously defaming individuals or organizations. MATSES is a legally registered non-profit organization. To say that this scientist and this indigenous organization is a scam without any evidence is libel. This is clearly against WP Policies. Moreover it is illegal and immoral. Suggesting that MATSES is a scam because it accepts donations is simply outrageous. Vitually all charitable organizations seek donations so that they can provide aid.

Please be advised your statements left at the MATSES page questioning the ethnicity of this scientist and the ethnicity of the MATSES President based on their names are also way out of line and would be considered by some as racist. I merely warned you of how your comments could be interpreted. Please note that any comments as to his ethnicity are not pertinent to the notability of this scientist or the indigenous organization. You deleted similar comments I made at the MATSES AfD before it closed as seen at the following diff -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMATSES&diff=92781237&oldid=92718255

Descendall, please tell me why you delete my comments just before the AfD was closed, thereby not giving me a chance to respond to your personal attacks? What are you afraid of? This reflects poorly on your honesty and fairness.

In addition, please realize that you are wrong to reveal my alleged real name. I never stated that my identity as Matses was the same as this scientist. You are incorrect in stating that I did reveal my identity. Your revealing of my alleged identity is clearly against WP Policy. Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent the facts and violate other's anonymity? In addition, you are incorrect in stating that Dan James Pantone or Matses created the page in question as it was created by another user Jamirabastos.

Unfortunately, your only purpose of this Request for Deletion seems to be to expose the alleged identity of Matses and defame a notable scientist and a legitimate indigenous organization. But why? Is providing medical assistance to indigenous people who are being decimated by malaria and hepatitis such a terrible thing. Why do you want to hurt this scientist and the people he is assisting? You would be better to invest your energy into helping others, as this scientist is doing, rather than trying to prevent his helping people.

In any case, a simple analysis of publications shows that this scientist is indeed notable using the "Professor Test" of notability found at:

• Wikipedia:Notability (people)

Which states that "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included."

Guettarda made this test as seen below and at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

Based on Wikipedia notability guidelines, Dr. Pantone passes the notability test as shown below. --Matses 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an excerpt of the "Is this botanist notable?" discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants :

Here's the full report from ISI

21 pubs, 12 first authored (not counting one correction) - first authored pubs marked with *. These are in reverse chronological order. The number of citations (in other ISI indexed pubs) is listed first. IF is the impact factor of the journal

2* (Journal of Nematology IF 0.810) - 1987

0* (Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science IF 0.759)

9* (Weed Science IF 1.536)

11* (Weed Science IF 1.536)

12* (Weed Science IF 1.536)

0* (Correction:Weed Science IF 1.536)

16* (Crop Science IF 0.925)

11* (Weed Science IF 1.536)

32* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121)

3* (Weed Technology IF 0.749)

41 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473)

0 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473)

7 (Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science IF 1.147)

11* (Biological Conservation IF 2.581)

1* (Fundamental and Applied Nematology)

7* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121)

8 (Transactions of the ASAE IF 0.664)

4 (Weed Technology IF 0.749)

1 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857)

0 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857)

0 (Pest Management Science)- 2005

Based on this I'd say he passes WP:PROF, since 21 pubs puts him above the "average" professor (since the guideline uses the American definition of Assistant Prof or better). Guettarda 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lest anyone be confused, the IF is a ratio, and journals with the highest impact are the ones with the highest IF values. The journals listed above are all very respectable journals, but should not be confused with superstars of the IF system. Several of these journals have IF values less than 1. The highest impact journal listed is Biological Conservation, with IF=2.581. For comparison, http://www.cncsis.ro/PDF/IF_2004.pdf indicates that American Journal of Botany has IF=2.4, Ecological Monographs has IF=4.8, Ecological Letters' IF=3.7, Ecology has IF=3.9, New Phytologist has IF=3.1, Planta has IF=3.0, Science has IF=29.2, and Nature has IF=31.2. --orlady 05:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And lest you be confused, an IF in the 2-4 range is high. Ecology and Ecology Letters are the high impact journals in their field, as are Plant and New Phytologist. Science, Nature and Cell have incredibly high IFs - once you get past the big 3 things tumble into the 4-5 range very quickly. Regardless, the "proof" of a paper is in its citations, not in the IF of where it is published - 20+ citations is high. Guettarda 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As shown by Guettarda, this scientist is clearly notable using WP Guidelines. Please note that this analysis omitted many publications by the author in the fields of entomology, plant pathology, nematology and soil science which would further enhance this assessment of his notability.

In conclusion, this scientist is indeed notable using WP Guidelines. It is very wrong for Descendall to use the AfD procedure as a means to personally attack a respected scientist and the indigenous organization he co-founded. Wikipedia was never meant as a forum for people to anonymously defame people or organizations. --Matses 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now and withdraw this nomination ASAP -- I am concerned that we are nominating this argument at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. Wrong time: because feelings are still a little raw from the MATSES AfD debates. This article can wait a few days for things to calm down. Wrong reason: perceptions of the author's motivations and behavior. An AfD is about an article, not an editor. User:Matses could be the devil incarnate and it would make no difference in this AfD. If any of us are concerned about Matses' behavior or motivations (or anyone else's), this is not the proper venue. That includes linking, charges of racism, page-blanking, accusations of scams, bad feelings, etc. I think we all need to just cool off. See the Resolving disputes policy -- there's a whole sequence of processes to deal with the people side of Wikipedia. Deleting articles is not one of them.

On the article side, we're supposed to be producing a very factual, neutral encyclopedia. If Dr. Pantone is notable, the article stays. If not, it goes. To use a Star Trek metaphor, we need play Spock and stay objective when we're making these editorial decisions.

I also don't read the WikiProject Plants discussion as definitively shooting down Dr. Pantone's notability. I think one has to read the whole discussion. If we were really going to proceed with this AfD, I think it would be good to ask the WikiProject Plants people to join the discussion rather than interpret their remarks for them. But as I've said, I don't think we should proceed at this time. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute here. I don't care if Dan James Pantone is a good editor or not. That's not what matters and I don't want to come of as if I am saying that it is. We have all sorts of articles on people way worse that Pantone. The only reason that I mentioned Pantone's behavior at all was to give context to the article -- namely, that Pantone created this article simply as yet another way to market himself on Wikipedia. Pantone is not noteable, and the only reason that this article exists at all is because he is trying to use Wikipedia as an advertisement for himself. I understand what you're saying, and I certainly respect it, but I genuinely think that this article should go. --Descendall 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I think that it should also be noted for context that User:Matses has also added some great content and images. (And with that, I really do need to move on to other things -- I'm pretty well-matse'd out). --A. B. ^(talk) 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete. I originally opposed this AfD because, while I had concerns about the article, I was even more concerned about the process. Now that things have calmed down, I am changing my vote to weak delete. I was going to vote "weak keep" based on the good research by Guettarda, but the additional careful analysis by orlady has convinced me that Dr. Pantone does not quite meet the notability threshold. Perhaps as his MATSES initiative grows, this will change and we can re-examine this then. I wish Dr. Pantone the best of luck with his work in the meantime. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and ignore arguments like "Open scab!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no evidence of this one passing the professor test. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because non-notable academic, and only for that reason. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for Now support A. B. arguments. Also editor was responsible in volunteer withdrawing the MATSES article before the deletion debate. Give a little time for things to cool, more evidence of notability to surface or not and them decide at leisure. There is an element of not biting Newbies in this too.--BozMo talk 12:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the "notability" test for an academic. However, if he had identifiable scholarly articles in claimed areas of expertise such as GIS or Amazonian conservation (in addition to his work in phytopathology and weed science), or if the MATSES organization became notable, this topic might become "notable" due to the diversity of his expertise and activities.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orlady (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis that he passes WP:PROF (as per my comment quoted above). "The average professor" doesn't have nearly that many pubs, and is unlikely to have more than one paper that's been cited more than 30 times. Guettarda 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment (I already voted): Yikes! With those criteria, Wikipedia would need to have an article for many thousands of academics who are not generally considered to be particularly notable. A large fraction of my personal acquaintances would need articles on that basis, but I am not about to suggest that most of these people are sufficiently notable that they need to be listed in an encyclopedia. --orlady 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia would be a better place for doing so, and making it less likely that hitting "Random article" will get you some fictional manga or anime character or television episode. Gene Nygaard 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly notable, keep The number is enough, the importance of the journals in their field is enough, the number of citations is enough. Two are on Amazon conservation, as requested by Orlady. GIS is a tool in which one becomes expert, tho also an object of study in computer science. Perhaps Orlady is notable, & simply modest about it--if he'd give us enough info to try to write an article.... I wonder on what basis the people who simply said "non-notable academic" did so? I think it would contribute to the quality of these discussions if people who just said notable or non-notable gave a reason. In a instance where there is extraneous personal controversy, it is desirable to use formal criteria as a sufficient reason to keep. DGG 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any papers on Amazon conservation. What am I missing? --orlady 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; per Guettarda. Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and based on (here's a novel idea) looking at the subject rather than who added it. Descendall, read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Preferably multiple times. The article either deserves to be deleted or does not, and it looks like in this case, does not-the person's work is apparently pretty well-recognized. Matses, do read WP:AUTO yourself-there is an understandable and justifiable fear of bias when one edits an article about h(im|er)self or an organization with which one is closely affiliated. Seraphimblade 12:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This AfD was nominated for speedy deletion by Matses as an attack page. I don't see why it should be deleted while discussion (which does not seem to contain attacks) is ongoing, so I reverted this speedy nomination. If there is something I am missing, please tell me. Kusma (討論) 14:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Guettarda and A.B. plus either prove, or delete and apologize for slander/libel. Presumably Dan James Pantone passes the WP:PROF professor test under Criterion 3.3. "widely cited" for which there is "no objective criterion". Then we're informed that "It is hard for those not in an academic's own field to judge criteria 3 and 4", but "The importance of a paper can often be deduced from the number of citations of it." I assume Guettarda is in the field, he lists the papers with citations and says Pantone passes. For a spot check I look at the list and see:
  

32* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121)

41 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473)

which says in the peak cases, 73 scientists think Pantone wrote something notably scientific that they think will enhance their own theses and notability. Is Pantone's work WP-notable? Yes. Is it professor-star outstanding? No. Is the notability bar low? Yes, WP:PROF says so. But to quote Stan [2] "if paper-counting is a WP-wide consensus, I'm not going to get into that debate."

A.B. wrote "Keep for now and withdraw this nomination ASAP". I agree with that, not because I know anything about the MATSES debate, but because the nominator has endangered the Wikimedia Foundation by writing an unproved slander (or potentially a libel) in the nomination paragraph at the top. The nominator should either immediately provide proof that the slander word mentioned by Matses is true, or delete the defamation and humbly apologize to Dr. Pantone. If the nominator refuses, admins should do it. For that matter *I* apologize to Dr. Pantone on behalf of Wikipedians who know better than to do such a thing - please don't sue. Milo 15:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Give me a fucking break. I know a heck of a lot about Peruvian indiginous institutions (that's my job afterall) and I can tell you that this guy does not run one of noteability. His organization isn't noteable, and neither is he. As for an apology, You're talking about a guy who constantly says that I deleted his comments on an AfD despite the fact that I did no such thing, ever (if I did he could provide diffs). A guy who has himself deleted comments on and AfD at least four times[3] [4] [5] [6] and calls the following "racist":

Organization has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the organization itself. Please note that "Matsés" is the name of the actual tribe, so there are many hits on Google for that word. Almost all of the hits for "Movement in the Amazon for Tribal Subsistence and Economic Sustainability" are either by the organization or it's president Dan James Pantone (who recently created an article about himself). Descendall 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's an example of "racism" to Wikipedia, than I want nothing to do with the project. I quit. --Descendall 17:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"I know a heck of a lot about Peruvian indiginous institutions" Ok, I know nothing about them (or Matsés or MATSES). But I do know that in journalism you basically can't state, "it seems likely that this entire thing in an ad for a {defamation}". When you state that, technically you are suggesting that the subject is likely engaged in criminal or at least unethical activity — which if believed would tend to discourage funders, harm his career, and his general reputation. The required defense to a slanderous/libelous defamation is provable truth, yet in the same sentence, you are suggesting that you lack proof ("it seems likely"). Juries award damages for doing that, if he can prove any harm, so don't let this spread any further. Not only are you exposing Wikimedia Foundation to lawsuit, you could become a defendant under your true name (you can be located by a court order). If you currently work under an academic code of ethics, and a hypothetical suit were successful, hypothetically you could lose your job.

Now, I can't give you legal advice, and maybe you should consult a lawyer, but I can tell you what I would do if I had screwed up like this. I would delete the slander/libel statement, and replace it with a statement within square editor's braces [ ], reading something like "I retract any statement I made that might cause anyone to believe erroneously that Dan James Pantone is engaged in any activity contrary to law. I intended no malice, and apologize to Dr. Pantone and Wikimedia Foundation for not verifying my unreferenced statement prior to expressing an opinion."

Maybe you really are the ok guy here. I haven't researched who deleted whom; but, I notice Matses did offer an apology that you have not reciprocated. After you (quickly) consult your attorney, or otherwise clean up this mess, then we can discuss mere notability, and the WP:PROF low bar to entry. Milo 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Descendall, suggestion: since you work with Peruvian indigenous institutions, why don't you cite some references, such as:

• "A search on the Peruvian Google turns up [0, 10, 100, 1000, whatever] hits on MATSES and [whatever] on Dan James Pantone
  • "Of these hits, 50 fall in the category of ..., while 38 ..., etc."
• The Peruvian association of indigienous associations (or whatever) shows [no listing/a listing/whatever] for MATSES
• Etc.

That would be useful and appreciated.

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am not personally acquainted with Dr. Pantone, and his resume no longer seems to be available on his Geocities website. However, from the limited information that has been shared in the Wikipedia article, plus other things I can find on the web, I conclude that he earned a PhD at UC-Davis in the 1980s, worked for several years as a junior faculty member at Texas A&M (during which time he accumulated a commendable record of research and publication), then apparently left the university a few years ago and went to the Amazon region. Presumably he either got tired of Texas, got tired of doing research related to US agriculture, or failed to earn tenure. I have nothing against him personally, but from an the perspective of academia in general, this inferred CV is hardly that of a "notable professor." --orlady 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to another discussion participant for pointing me to the Google-cached version of Pantone's CV (resume). The CV indicates that after receiving his PhD, Pantone held several different positions (none of which appears to have been a tenure-track faculty position) for periods of one to five years. This is not characteristic of the CV of a "notable professor."
--orlady 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To say that Dr. Pantone never held a faculty position simply is not true. Dr. Pantone indeed held a professorship at Texas A&M University. Anyone can easily verify this information with Texas A&M University by calling Human Resources. User:orlady is using misinformation to libel Dr. Pantone by implying that Dr. Pantone lied and that he never had a faculty position. User:orlady should please refrain from spreading libelous misinformation. --Matses 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

orlady apparently didn't misinform or defame, so no libel. If Dr. Pantone never held a tenure-track faculty position, the sentence as written is true and not misinformation. From reading orlady's previous comment ("[Dr. Pantone] worked for several years as a junior faculty member at Texas A&M") I previously read and assumed that Dr. Pantone was on faculty, but everyone associated with academia knows how unlikely tenure has become. (Two more comments about this below.) Milo 08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument for notability seems to be based on WP:PROF 3.3 -"work must be widely cited (excluding self-citations) in the academic literature." Pantone's papers have a reasonable (but not huge) quantity of citations. Using Google Scholar to get an idea of how these papers were cited, it appears to me that most of the citations are in the context of citing "someone else who collected data on this same topic". From the titles and abstracts of the papers that cite Pantone's work, just one of the papers looks to me like it might be cited as a source of useful insight (rather than data). This is "The reproductive attributes of an endangered plant as compared to a weedy congener." Google Scholar shows just 10 citations since its publication in 1995 (note that 10 citations in 11 years is not regarded as "widely cited"), but the papers that cited it are about a variety of topics. However, the one citing paper that I found in full text ([7]) cites "Pantone et al." only as one of a long list of previous investigators who reported a particular type of result. It would be possible to argue forever about what quantity of citations constitutes "widely," but I the quality of the citations also should contribute to the understanding of "widely," and what I see in this regard does not suggest that Pantone's work has made a big splash. --orlady 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Publications list is clear enough for justifying the article. LHOON 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per A. B. with a nod to Gene Nygaard's random article argument. This AfD hangs on the notability question and looks like it passes with respect to the guidelines. If the guidelines need to by updated, take what can be learned by this case and create a more useful measure. Then come back to this article in six months or a year and reevaluate. As the editor who was probably the first to raise the notability question with respect to this article, I am extremely disappointed by the way this has played out and by the behavior of both sides of this discussion. JonHarder 01:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per A.B. I'm not sure that what Mr. Nygaard has pointed out is necessarily a bad thing, though. --Merovingian ※ Talk 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not convinced that the subject meets the criteria of WP:PROF. Arguments seem to suggest that the subject meets criteria 3 and/or 4.1, but evidence that Pantone's works have been influential in the ways described in those criteria has not been provided. More importantly, it seems that there is a lack of independent reliable sources that discuss the subject, and therefore nothing upon which to base an encyclopedia article that is compliant with Wikipedia policies governing content. -- Chondrite 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It appears the User:Descendall has retired. That is very sad. —Moondyne 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I see shades of grey here and am in two minds but will vote Weak delete. He seems to be on the cusp of notability, verging towards non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. But more importantly, the article does not demonstrate any effort has been made towards verifying his credentials nor does it provide any serious primary sources. If the article does survive this debate, I'd like to see that improved as a priority. I still have doubts which I raised at the MATSES debate and they have yet to be answered. Independent sources would be helpful. —Moondyne 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep I never knew about him & his subject till yesterday, but from what I can determine , this is not a consideration of an AfD, but a vendetta. There really does seem to be a concerted attack on the person and his work both, and this is something which cannot be justified. He's reasonably notable, with work both as a academic and as an environmental activist. It's well documented. I call upon my colleagues above to reconsider the basis for their opinion. If it's personal, then it's COI and you shouldn't vote. DGG 04:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I see a bit of astroturfing going on here. --Brianyoumans 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Similar statements were made on the Talk pages of about 10 people. None have appeared since a warning was placed on the user's talk page (by Erielhonan): User talk:Matses --orlady 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Matses has since posted an apology for canvassing, which he claims he did under advice. Erielhonan 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No coverage of subject by multiple, reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. -- Satori Son 07:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep' I'm a journalist and I can tell that this professor is very notable. This article adds important info to wikipedia and the afd seems like someone taking revenge at someone elseTerveetkadet 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Notability is not subjective: it is a matter of there being multiple reliable third-party sources reporting on the subject of an article. So 'I'm a journalist and I can tell...' is not a relevant argument here. Where we seem to have got to is that Dr Pantone is a real and possibly quite interesting person, doing worthwhile work. But this is true of many, many academics and ex-academics (including, I'd like to think, me). We don't have evidence of the influence or public presence that makes for notability. Yours, Sam Clark 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Terveetkadet's comment was the product of astroturfing[8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.108.135 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

This comment by 72.75.108.135 could be the product of a Sockpuppet by Descendall. It originates from the Washington DC area where User:Descendall has reported he is a student at American University. Would one of the administrators please verify if this is a sockpuppet of User:Descendall. Thanks. --Matses 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Please note that User:orlady has made no less than nine comments on this AfD. Unfortunately, User:orlady is using misinformation to libel Dr. Pantone. User:orlady implied that Dr. Pantone lied and she says that he never had a faculty position at Texas A&M. This is simply not true. Dr. Pantone indeed held a professorship at Texas A&M University. Anyone can easily verify this information with Texas A&M University. User:orlady should have simply called their Human Resources and asked them, rather than have spread libelous misinformation.

This is an issue of plain-text statements made on this page, which all of us can read or we wouldn't be editors. orlady did not imply that Dr. Pantone lied, because orlady wrote:

1. "[Dr. Pantone] worked for several years as a junior faculty member at Texas A&M" (18:40, 9 Dec)
2. "Pantone held several different positions (none of which appears to have been a tenure-track faculty position) for periods of one to five years." (03:40, 11 Dec)

Thus, orlady wrote collectively that Dr. Pantone was on Texas A&M faculty, but not tenure-track. There's no misinformation, certainly no libel, and in fact, there is no dispute. Milo 08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an attack page by User:Descendall whose primary purpose is to disparage its subject and as such should be speedy deleted. This AfD came about as the result of a personal dispute and the AfD process should not be used to settle personal disputes. Moreover, Wikipedia should not be used as a means to anonymously defame others nor to reveal their anonymous identity against their wishes. In addition to his combative and libelous behavior in this AfD, User:Descendall has frequently used abusive personal attacks in personal disputes. Please see [9] to see how he uses profanities as he has done in this AfD.

It it is immoral and improper to anonymously libel someone using Wikipedia and spread misinformation. I know that most of the participants on this page have higher morals than this. I am very sad to see a few people act so poorly, but am very glad to see others who bring logic to the discussion, rather than concentrating on spreading misinformation and making personal attacks. --Matses 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There was one editor who stepped out of line — but only one — a person you identified as a student, and students are known to make mistakes. By contrast to the student, orlady also has an strong opinion that the subject doesn't qualify, but based on career facts. By plain-text reading, orlady did nothing wrong in expressing this opinion, including making multiple comments. Every editor (and subject) at Wikipedia has to live with having their work and opinions being criticized, sometimes strongly. Public criticism of the performance of public persons like Dr. Pantone, notable or not, is generally permitted by slander/libel law under the concept of fair comment. Milo 08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Phew -- I try to do original research to substantiate or refute the statements made in an online encyclopedia article, and I end up being accused of immorality, impropriety, anonymous libel, and spreading misinformation! I guess it's a good thing I'm not an admin here, or the list would also include "arbitrary" and "capricious."

Please note that I voted here only once. Because I have the notion that decisions on article-inclusion-or-deletion ought to be based on informed discussion, rather than on the number of unexplained "votes" cast by a somewhat random collection of passersby, I have endeavored to bring additional information and potentially relevant perspectives to this discussion. I have tried not to make my additional comments appear to be "votes," but Matses' remarks indicate that this was not clear to everyone. My apologies to anyone I have misled; I assure you that I did not intend to deceive.

Phone calls to past employers are not exactly the type of reliable published source on which Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based (see WP:NOT). Since I am not considering hiring Dr. Pantone, I have had no other reason to phone his past employers to check his employment history. The only information I have about Dr. Pantone's position at Texas A&M is the CV that he formerly posted on his Geocities website. That CV says "Texas A&M University / College Station, TX / Scientist / 1992 - 1997". The position of "Scientist" in a university is not normally a tenure-track faculty position. If this was a "professorship" as Matses contends, I think that Dr. Pantone would have called himself a "professor" on his own CV. --orlady 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:orlady, please understand the fact that Dr. Pantone was a faculty member is a non-issue and that you are wrong to try to make it one. Having at one time referred to oneself as a "scientist" should not be construed as evidence he was not a faculty member and you are mistaken to do so. Some of us are very proud to call ourselves scientists. --Matses 08:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Orlady hasn't tried to make it an issue: you have. You raised the point, you claimed that Orlady had libelled you, and now that it's been pointed out that this is not the case, you're claiming that it's a 'non-issue'. Yours, Sam Clark 09:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:PROF is a proposed guideline. The only criteria in it which we have any evidence that he might meet is #3, on the grounds that one of the papers may be widely cited. However, the only analysis of citations in the discussion thus far, including that at the WikiProject's talk page, is that the citations are mostly not all that significant. Just counting the citations appears to be original research on the part of our editors, which fails verifiability. Nobody has bothered to say here, and the article doesn't say, what that work was about; just which journal it appears in. If it isn't even worth mentioning what the work was, how can it possibly be a basis for notability? Nobody even suggests that he meets the other criteria of WP:PROF. In his editorial and NGO role, WP:PROF isn't relevant - the relevant standard is WP:BIO. We have no evidence that he meets any of the criteria there. Most importantly, there is no evidence that he meets the primary notability criteria - being the primary subject of multiple published reliable sources from independent authors. With inadequate evidence of notability, the article should be deleted. GRBerry 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I repeat my earlier position of keep, and urge everyone to stop this discussion which is becoming sterile and based on personal attacks more than on the facts. LHOON 09:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Orlady's research. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:40, 13 December 2006 (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. I don't find that the case has been made that the subject of the article is unencyclopedic, or impossible of writing in a NPOV manner. However, I do find the POV, lack of sources and essay complaints do have merit and consensus. So this decision is without prejudice in regards to recreating this or a similar article that addresses those concerns. I am leaving the talk page since it contains discussion of the problems with the deleted article. (BTW, I have no stake in the subject here.) —Doug Bell ^talk 21:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion and Evangelical Christians

Abortion and Evangelical Christians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article cannot be NPOV, as the article's title precludes the presence of points of view other than those of Evangelical Christians. Besides, it only cites the bible, nothing links to it, the title is not only POV but unclear, and the content is unencyclopedic. GertrudeTheTramp 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, essay, original research, cannot hope to be NPOV. Per JoshuaZ's edit summary. riana_dzasta 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for all of the above reasons. Nick Graves 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: This is a noteworthy topic, but the existing article is too POV seems to be OR, as well. Topic is covered somewhat under Abortion debate and Pro-life. If there's anything worth salvaging, it might be merged there. Heimstern Läufer 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: agree with Heimstern. ShadowHalo 08:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it can't help being solely POV, as realistically as each church sets itself up as a/the true interpreters of scriptures, every one will have a diffferent POV about this type of issue - so to make it a NPOV article, you'd have to get every independent Evangelical group/church's POV. SkierRMH,08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we really don't need yet another fork of abortion. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - but only after seeing if any sections could be merged to appropriate pages, per Heimstern's suggestion. Quack 688 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Kill with hellfire topics covered in this article are probably already in Abortion. Article is NPOV by definition. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete inherently POV.-- danntm ^T _C 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is in need of major work; however, it is a decent attempt to spin-off parts of the abortion and religion page, which is very large. Perhaps it should be split into two, one part being evangelical views on abortion, the other being say "the Bible and abortion" or something like that. Considering how the religion and abortion page is quite long, I believe the spin-off attempt is legitimate. I don't see why the page would be inherently POV; sure, it is describing a POV, but it can be neutral in describing said POV. Ngchen 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I could see that being viable if there was a section or article of comparable length and quality that treated the views of godless heathens on Abortion. —A Godless Heathen (^talk/_contribs) 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think (although I'm not sure) that there is already a page or pages on atheist views on abortion. FWIW, there are both pro-choice and pro-life atheist groups. If you feel that the articles there are inadequate, perhaps you can be bold and add to them.Ngchen 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm... I wouldn't mind seeing individual pro-choice and pro-life articles, if the original article's grown too big to hold them. But if you go down that path, I wouldn't use terms like "Christian" and "athiest" when defining the articles. Perhaps have a pro-life article, which mentiones active pro-life groups, and lists all the reasons they put forward for their case, including the Christian angle. Same idea for the pro-choice page. Quack 688 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Those already exist: Pro-choice and Pro-life. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Summarize and merge as appropriate with abortion and religion page. If that article has become "too large," begin to pare down that page (rather than proliferate pages for each denomination's particular view). Encyclopedias are supposed to give summary treatment of their subject matter; they are not monographs. External links can direct to more locations providing more extensive treatment. Pop Secret 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the [abortion and religion] page, and that page is 33 kb long as of right now. Although it is true that encyclopedias are supposed to summarize the topics covered, a look at that page would reveal that the coverage is cursory for almost every religion. Hence, attempting to pare that article down would be a fruitless task. I know that oftentimes related topics have a bit of overlap between articles, with notes along the lines of "for a more detailed look at something, please see this or that other article."Ngchen 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per GertrudeTheTramp. Others are suggesting merge, but there's actually nothing I see here to be merged, it's just "evangelicals believe... evangelicals believe...' without any further substance. — coelacan talk — 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep I continue to vote against deleting articles about things that I sincerely dislike, and if there's anything i sincerely dislike it's the views of evangelical christians on abortion (& on one other subject). Therefore I am aware of my possible bias, and I think we do much better to keep rather than give he i,mpression of our own non neutral stance.DGG 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the article can ever be NPOV with a title like that? I would also ask, is there any well-cited content here that could conceivably be merged elsewhere? If not, that's something of an indication that the content doesn't belong in this article either. — coelacan talk — 06:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense DGG, but right there you seem to tell everyone that you simply aren't going to follow procedure and create a factual, unbiased encyclopedia with us. So why should you even be allowed to continue editing, and why should anybody here trust you? And I do apologize if I'm sounding confrontational. I don't mean it that way. Tragic romance 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not really an article about a clearly definable entity, like a car, titanium, neuroscience, Iran, or embarrassment. Tragic romance 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly a WP:N subject but needs to be cleaned up with proper not just the Bible. RaveenS 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads like an essay, original research, unencylopaedic. Merge what can be salvaged to Religion and abortion, and, perhaps create a spin-off, Abortion and Christianity, if the "Christianity" sub-section becomes too large. Unless we're going to have balanced, well-researched sub-sub-articles for every single Christian denomination (Abortion and Methodists, Abortion and Episcopals, Abortion and Roman Catholics), this POV fork isn't justified. -Severa (!!!) 03:58, 12 December 2006 (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 Speedily deleted by Proto. (aeropagitica) 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-clip

E-clip (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Orphaned Article, and it contains only 2 sentences SpookyPig 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Possibly even speedy under CSD A1. Heimstern Läufer 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as A1. riana_dzasta 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or redirect somewhere Apparently it's a real thing, a Google image search provides lots of these e-clips.--Húsönd 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - lack of context. So tagged. MER-C 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete albeit it is a real thing, with a good number of ghits, this article is so nocontext... maybe put into the "requested articles" bin and see if someone can do it justice? SkierRMH,08:32, 8 December 2006 (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 Speedily deleted by Proto. (aeropagitica) 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamefalcon

Gamefalcon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

It is a vanity article about a non-notable website, and is unfinished. Has no link to the website itself even. Pernambuco 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Er, the website doesn't seem to exist either. Either way, it fails WP:WEB, so delete. riana_dzasta 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Nick Graves 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete appears to be dead. SkierRMH,08:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. tgies 08:38, 8 December 2006 (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 self-referential neologism, possible WP:POINT violation, definitely original research. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Con Artist

Wiki Con Artist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

non notable Afilwx 05:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable. This is what happens when you don't back up your opinion in AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Term does not appear in any of the three cited sources. Google yields one non-Wikipedia result. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung, nn neologism. Self-referential. MER-C 09:51, 8 December 2006 (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 Userfied as obvious autobiography. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Barbara Biggs'

'Barbara Biggs' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not verifiable, seems to have a biased POV and includes original work. See original author's username, seems coincidental. Alan.ca 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment The article didn't make it easy for me, but I see notability here. Perhaps it's unsalvageable in its current form, though?--Dmz5 06:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I know what you mean, I can see how it may be possible, but we can't even consider notability when the information is not verifiable. I am a little more sensitive to accuracy in this case because it seems the subject is writing their own biography. May be a total farce, the user could be completely unrelated, but their contribution history suggests conflict of interest. I'm erroring on delete for this one. I also put a warning template on the new user's page.Alan.ca 06:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• For reference, the author's contribution history Special:Contributions/Barbbiggs Alan.ca 07:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• As well, please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, as it discourages this very topic.

I am Barbara Biggs, the person who has written the entry for myself. Please tell me what you suggest. I have added some links to verifiable interviews. A google search will reveal at least ten pages of interviews, articles etc about me, hopefully demonstrating that my social presence in Australia is considerable. I have added some of these links to the article. Or is it not ok to write your own? If anyone has advice on how to make it more Wikipedia friendly I would welcome it. BB.

I have just gone into the article to add more verifiable links and see that it has already been deleted. I went to quite a lot of trouble to write it and if it can be salvaged, would be good to have it back rather than start over.

• First of all, Welcome to wikipedia Barb. I did some summary reading on your web page and it seems that you have an interesting past. You may in fact meet the wp:notability guidelines, but autobiography writing is discouraged on wikipedia. You will note that I did not remove the request you had placed for someone to write an article about you. Typically this kind of discussion should take place on your user talk page. When you finish making a comment, you should end it with four ~ to sign your name. I will chat with you on the talk page.Alan.ca 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This still reads like a notated bio. And given that the majority of the printed works are autobiographical/semi-autobiographical it appears that the author/subject has a need to self-promote. This t'aint the place to continue that... Sorry... but delete it. SkierRMH,08:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd like to be flexible but minimal notability combined with WP:COI means there's no reason to keep this article, unless it can be rewritten from verifiable sources establishing the importance of the author and/or books. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Still getting the hang of this thang. Just replying to the comment above that my works are primarily autobiographical. My fourth book, Chat Room, ws written with the help and at the request of Victoria Police. They felt there was a strong need for a ficitonal story about the dangers in teen chat rooms. It is a fictional book for teenagers and has received widespread publicity for that reason. It is also endorsed by Australia's governmnet funded internet safety body, which is now referenced. My fifth and latest book is also not autobiographical and now has a reputable review in one of Australia's most respected finance liftouts of a major metro daily paper. Hopefully the other references will also help the article. As I've said, any other helpful hints about what could be deleted or, in terms of where sourcing is required, added. Thanks Barbara

• Barb, we understand you're new here, but you have to appreciate that encyclopedia's don't endorse people to write their own articles about themselves. I am trying to help you on your talk page, but posting this chatter here isn't going to help the cause. Alan.ca 09:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete for goodness sake. Pure spam. Barb, when you become notable, someone will write your bio here for you. -- RHaworth 13:34, 8 December 2006 (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 speedily deleted by Ugen64. MER-C 09:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlisted (band)

Unlisted (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Yet another band that fails WP:BAND and even admits it's not notable. Tagged for speedy, but giving it a chance here so the author can maybe come up with some sources attesting notability. Sandstein 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Unsigned Grand Rapids band who have a Myspace page but can't get their website to work; WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete passes the Glorified garage band test. SkierRMH,08:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian and Tyson Tomko

Christian and Tyson Tomko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't a guide to every tag team ever. These two have teamed/been a duo in WWE for a bit, and now in TNA. There isn't a ton of notable information about their pairings. The relevant and notable information (the little there is) can be explained in their wrestler articles. This is a good example of what I'm now calling "tag team cruft". RobJ1981 05:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom --- Paulley
• Delete another example of, should be in their profiles. So in essence this is duplication. Thats why I say delete. Govvy 18:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. This team lasted for over a year and a half in WWE. However, they didn't really do a whole lot as a team. I'm torn on this one.Mshake3 01:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- THLR 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not necessary for their own page, can be put into other articles. Booshakla 02:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this team is still in wrestling, but now in TNA, if deleted you will be deleting a TNA Tag Team. 86.20.53.195 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Then you don't know what a tag team is considering they haven't teamed in TNA in a match. Sure, they teamed a few times in WWE, but Tomko's role is more of a bodyguard role than that of a tag team partner. --James Duggan 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - each wrestler already has his own article and the partnership can be noted there. Otto4711 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable tag team that's been around for awhile, provided some good momentsm and wrestled together as a clearly allied unit in both WWE and TNA, and you're justifying its deletion by saying "Wikipedia is not a guide to every tag team ever". By this token, Rated-RKO (which despite actually winning tag team gold and having its own name has only been around about TWO MONTHS) should also be deleted.
• Rated-RKO is now nominated for deletion, thanks for bringing that to our attention. Otto4711
  • And it is probably going to be kept. Winning a title is equal to notability acording to the concensus established by countless wresting afds in the past. This case is dissimilar to Rated-RKO, as this team hasn't won any gold yet. -- THLR 06:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed that this is dissimilar to Rated-RKO, who have their own name and tag team gold. However, the mere fact that Christian Cage and Tyson Tomko have been unified like this for an entire year in one promotion, and then brought back together in another, provides almost (if not exactly) as much notability. Unless they break up before doing absolutely anything of noteworth, Christian and Tomko should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.224.143 (talk • contribs).
• Weak Delete Their run on WWE was never really as a formal tag team like Edge and Christian or even like the Rock 'n' Sock Connection. Tyson Tomko was Christian's heel bodyguard, not his equal as a tag team partner. Kinda weak under WP:NOTE. --Eqdoktor 13:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This tag team ended when Christian got drafted to SmackDown! last year. It wasn't by choice, only by circumstance. Shortly thereafter, Christian did not resign with the WWE so he could go work for TNA Wrestling as "Christian Cage". He pushed to get Tyson Tomko into TNA, and currently, hes there as "Tomko". Who knows what Tomko's role will be? We have seen TNA put tag team titles on a lot of makeshift teams, so what if TNA decides to put their Tag titles on this duo? Then this article will have been deleted for nothing. I'd say give it a couple of months, and see where things are headed with this team. If Tomko doesn't really do anything but be a bodyguard and beat people up for Cage, then delete it. --James Maxx 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Tomko and Christian, through their time in WWE, have established some kind of depth in character as a unit beyond just "wrestler and bodyguard". And already in TNA, there seems to be some indication of this, with Tomko "knowing something about Abyss's past". The minute Tomko starts to speak or team up with Christian regularly, this keep will be completely solid. 63.215.29.185 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This is to everyone who doesn't have an account. Just to make you all aware, if you don't have an account, your votes aren't counted. -- THLR 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. They are now a Tag Team in TNA. Davnel03 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not an actual team, Tomko is more of a bodyguard. --James Duggan 02:14, 14 December 2006 (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 Consensus to Delete per not being notable.. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holden Street, Fitzroy North, Melbourne

Holden Street, Fitzroy North, Melbourne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable street. We don't need articles for most streets in the world, notability stops at the town level, except for very famous streets (Champs Elysées or Times Square, that level). Fails WP:V to show any importance beyond existence (I don't doubt its existence, for all clarity) Fram 06:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It does exist but some bus stops and a school crossing do not add up to notability. (aeropagitica) 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under A7, no assertion of notability. Although the author has asked on the talk page for it not to be deleted pending more information, in its current state, I don't see the article improving much as any notability would have already been outlined. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are loads of articles on Wikipedia about various streets in the USA (for example: Decatur Street, Spur_557, Bennington_Street,_East_Boston,_MA ) If these are considered notable enough, them sure this article is too? Markb 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The first is a disambiguation page, but should better be deleted as well (disambiguating between two redlinks that probably don't deserve individual articles is quite unnecessary), the second is a highway (highways are deemed more important than other streets), and the thirdd should better be deleted as well. You can see from the talk pages of these articles (first and third one) that they have not been discussed for deletion yet, so there is no way to know if they are considered notable enough (I doubt many editors would think so). There are many, many articles on Wikipedia that don't belong here, but there aren't enough of us checking articles to get rid of them. You are unlucky to have been spotted, those other streets have not been spotted until now and so are not up for deletion yet. Fram 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article does not make any claims of notability. A Google Search does not indicate notability with the first returns being real estate listings. [10].

A Google News Archive search comes up with stories about contaminated soil in a playground, Melbourne real estate values and a traffic accident but nothing indicating any notability for this street. [11]. I will leave a message for User:Cnwb as he is a local but I see nothing notable about this street. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not really a notable street. Lankiveil 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
• Delete, I live near this street and there's nothing notable about it at all. --Canley 08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I live in the area, and I can attest to the fact that this is not a notable street. Cnwb 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Inter alia Bert Newton grew up on this street. Why does googlability have to be standard? Have our lives been reduced to this? Lentisco 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Two comments. First, Google indicates what we (non-local editors) can find about the subject when the article makes no claims to notability and provides no sources. It indicates that we have tried to find indications of notability with the means available to us. Everyone participating in this discussion is free to provide off-google sources of course, and then (but only then) the argument "but there's nothing on Google" becomes invalid. Second, a street does not become notable because someone notable lived there. A street becomes notable when there are secondary sources about the street (and not mentioning it in passing), as per WP:V. So even if you would produce a source qtating that Bert Newton lived there, it would still not help you unless the source went on to discuss the street at some length. In the absence of such sources, the street is non notable, fails WP:V, and should be deleted. Fram 10:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into the Fitzroy North article. Perhaps a subsection on main thoroughfares in the Transport section. --Polaron | Talk 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- no claim to fame. - Longhair\^talk 00:24, 13 December 2006 (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. Non-notable, possible vanity article. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Nolasco

Stephanie Nolasco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

non-notable Pigman (talk • contribs) 06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and WP:BIO SkierRMH,08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete, apparent vanity. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, not really notable. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks more like a vanity page.--XLR8TION 14:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Bearly541 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete It is far from vanity. It's to inform people of this very talented, up and coming writer, who I am a fan of. I've seen articles much shorter than this with less detail on unknown wrestlers and such, and they do not get deleted. Just because she is "unknown" in your eyes, doesn't mean she's unknown to others. SideShowFreak 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - SideShowFreak is the creator of the article, including sections on name of the subject's poodle and how long she's been dating her boyfriend. Just sayin'... --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What does the fact that the name of this person's poodle and boyfriend are listed, have to do with anything? And I don't see this as advertising. I've seen many articles that contain less information about far less relevant people. This one is certainly not causing any harm 216.49.220.163 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

**Note (for Delete Purposes): The unsigned entry only shows another attempt by the subject or someone close the subject to retain the page for advertsing purposes. Who cares if one's dog took a dump and the subject wrote an article on a blog. Anyone can do that on MySpace! It doesn't make them famous. Unlike bloggers such as Ariana Huffington and Perez Hilton this writer is not famous and has not made any contributions to constructive journalism. As a journalism student and one who works with many in New York's publishing industry, I have never heard of this writer. Plagiarists such as Jayson Blair deserve an article on this site, not someone who owns a dog name foofoo or who has to mention her boyfriend (who also is not notable) in order to cover ground in article that is simply a vanity page. Simply there is no argument here -->DELETE.--XLR8TION 18:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • One More Additional Note: Sideshowfreak deleted my comments on this page in order to eliminate my POV in reasoning for the deletion of this page. I have reported him/her to the site administrators for vandalism. The deletion occured on December 11, 2006. Please be aware of this. --XLR8TION 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Once Again This appears to be a very weak attempt by the subject to retain the page on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be used as an advertising forum. If this page is permitted it could provide a loophole for many others to use this valuable resource as advertising space. Doing so might slow down servers as well as take up valuable space on them as well. --XLR8TION 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• --Wow, you do not read. Nowhere on there does it mention anything about a blog, or writing in a blog. You brought that in on your own. And I'm sure you're certainly not a notable journalist. Look at the first sentence in your comment, there's an error in sentence structure: "The unsigned entry only shows another attempt by the subject or someone close the subject to retain...". Go reread your own writing before you go out and criticize the writing of others.SideShowFreak 05:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteWow? That's how you start a sentence? Guess that GED has brought you acclaim for your writing skills. Note to others: Sideshowfreak (AKA 216.49.220.163) has deleted my entries because he/she is not in accordance that this page is headed for deletion. Wikipedia should not be utilized as a sandbox. This is a valuable resource. If anyone wants to brag about their dog unfoofoo or talk about the number of deities the worship, then MySpace is the forum one should seek. This should be the end of this conversation. Any further deletions will be considered vandalism and prompt action by authorized administrators will be taken.--XLR8TION 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Once again your comment has errors. It's amusing."talk about the number of deities the worship..." What's funny is that the page doesn't mention anything about how many supposed deities anyone worships. Stop making things up. Some journalist you are; you can't even get your facts straight about what you read.SideShowFreak 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete: Pagan = worshipper of many gods; polytheistic. Unless one is the subject you should not be upset about this. Again, another attempt to keep a vanity page. If Ms. Nolasco wants to do readings she can do at a chicken beheading ceremony where she can pay homage to Yemaya, however I am sure the subject would agree totally that Wikipedia is not a forum to brag about her dog foofoo-a-loo, her favorite writers, and her boyfriend. Here is a link to [MySpace] that you can forward her. End of conversation. Delete--XLR8TION 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Another deletion by SideShowFreak. This person has been reported already and possibly faces account deletion and/or IP address block. Please do not blank pages or delete POVs. --XLR8TION 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: SideShowFreak, please stop vandalizing this page. Blanking the comments of other editors is vandalism. XLR8TION, your recommendation for deletion, and reasons for this, are noted. You don't need to start every comment by re-stating what you've already said :-) Both of you need to calm down and back off. Might I suggest you refrain from further comments unless and until you have something new to add to the discussion. At this point the consensus on the AfD seems clear, and I don't think further re-stating will make any difference. Thanks! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • note: SideShowFreak has been blocked for vandalism and personal attacks. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lightbulb joke

Lightbulb joke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Although I was considering myself as a strong inclusionist, I couldn't make sense of this endless list of jokes in an encyclopedia. May be we should keep it somewhere as a cultural heritage (wikibooks, wikisource) but I vote for deletion from wikipedia. What do you think? (Talk page says that Jimbo Wales deleted the jokes wikibook last year.) -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 07:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. We could definitely trim down the actual list of jokes a bit but I think the article is notable enough. ugen64 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles aren't notable. Subjects are notable, and there's no notability guideline for jokes. If you mean "written about in independent sources," I have yet to see a source that writes about lightbulb jokes, instead of just being a jokelist itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete everything below the introduction, but keep the article. There has got to be some scholarly discussion on this subject, which could be used to write a externally verifiable, third-party reliably sourced article, but I personally believe that Wikipedia is not a jokebook. If this is not an acceptable solution, delete the entire article. -- saberwyn 08:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that's what I'm talking about! Keep per answering of my complaints. -- saberwyn 12:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Ugen64. This is notable as a cultural phenomenon. But a list of jokes -- any list -- runs into potential comedy copyright issues. --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an article on one of the oldest jokes in the book (per Saberwyn, there'd have to be some folklorist or another who's actually looked at this from a scholarly perspective). Including masses of examples of the form is probably not a good idea, since there'd be a mix of copyvio and attack-page problems. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is perhaps one of the best known jokes in the english language. It should be tidied up tho. Graemec2 09:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs to be seriously trimmed down. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• I so enjoyed reading through, looking for my favourites (all there) and picking up some good new ones, but I have to say it is not really an encyclopaedia article. Perhaps keep part, i.e. the intro and a few examples; delete the rest. Shame though. Emeraude 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep,get rid of a few of the jokes though. I like the meta humour. 141.3.12.120 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and mark for cleanup. -Ryanbomber 13:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If we took out the list of jokes, the whole content of the article would be four or five sentences, every one of which would be unverifiable original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is verifiable. I'll prove that it is when I have more time. In the meantime, why not prove that it ISN'T? -Ryanbomber 16:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Per WP:V and WP:NOR, the burden of providing sources falls on the editor who wishes to include the material. Proving a negative would be impossible; but, given the fact that I've never seen any sort of writing about the joke in my entire life, I consider that grounds enough to say that this wasn't based on reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That last sentence implies that you know the joke exists and you're just taking the rules way too literally. What are you trying to prove? Instead of deleting perfectly good information, why not, y'know, improve it, especially if you know it exists? The point of Verifiability is to prevent Joe Smith from making an article on something he just made up or keeping it from being cluttered. The difference here is that the lightbulb joke has value (as you yourself seem to know) and should be included in a repository of information. -Ryanbomber 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • "exists" is not sufficient content for an article. We need to be able to say something about the joke without resorting to original research. Information about the joke would have value, but what information can you possibly include an article about the joke without resorting to doing your own research? As it is now, that's exactly what's happened: the article is just what its authors think, instead of facts cited to a reliable source. We can recreate the article when we have a source. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with Night Gyr. Also if we keep this one what would stop people from creating a whole series of articles blonde jokes, doctor jokes, Italian jokes, Muslim jokes etc. etc. (see! one is already started! more on Category:Jokes) There is no notability guideline for jokes for a good reason, they are simply not encyclopedic unless there is a certain social impact or event worth to talk about. Jewish humor is along these lines for example. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 18:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move the list of jokes to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, but keep the introduction. Koweja 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is, without a doubt, one of the best-known jokes in the English language. It's also a cultural phenomenon. The list could be trimmed down or moved to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --SunStar Net^talk 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't BJAODN for wikipedia babble? I didn't think "real" jokes go in there. -Ryanbomber 16:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought it was also for humorously bad article content as well. I might be wrong about that.Koweja 16:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleanup. And I also recommend creating a WikiList for people who like making lists. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote, please provide a rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Clean-up and keep Look what I found at JSTOR:

• Kerman, Judith B. "The Light-Bulb Jokes: Americans Look at Social Action Processes". The Journal of American Folklore > Vol. 93, No. 370 (Oct., 1980), pp. 454-458.
• Dundes, Alan. "Many Hands Make Light Work or Caught in the Act of Screwing in Light Bulbs". Western Folklore > Vol. 40, No. 3 (Jul., 1981), pp. 261-266.

Reliable sources do exist, so WP:NOR shouldn't be an obstacle. Zagalejo 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nice, these are exactly the sorts of reliable sources I've been asking for. I'd still recommend rewriting from scratch, because nothing currently there is actually based on sources and any assertions of fact may be wrong. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or re-write Even if/as sources do exist, the article does not make use of them. The article, to survive, surely should be about the joke, not simply an interminable list of its variations.--Anthony.bradbury 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep but cleanup and transwiki most of the jokes to Wikisource or Wikibooks. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the topic is encyclopedic and there's plenty of encyclopedic material in it. Fg2 01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or re-write unsourced, and the only way it could be sourced would break copyright laws unless it referenced only public domain "lightbulb" jokes. More to the point, an encyclopedia article is meant to describe a subject, not list endless examples of that subject. Canderra 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, with some cleanup. Difficult or impossible to fully source, but nonetheless very notable. --S0uj1r0 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sheesh. Danny Lilithborne 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Get rid of the listcruft but keep the article. Lightbulb jokes are a notable phenomenon. - ∅ (∅), 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Clean up, don't delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• I took the liberty of removing the listcruft. I hope I didn't trigger the anti-vandal bot. :-) - ∅ (∅), 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that the listcruft has been removed, and per the discussion above about sources that can be added. --Interiot 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & improve to better comply with verifiability policy. Verifiable social phenomenon, per works already cited. The original research moniker has been applied increasingly liberally of late. This article is about the lightbulb joke and, while it needs better sourcing, it can be pretty readily distinguished from attempts to advance fringe science. Of necessity (tongue in cheek):

Q: How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Twenty. One to create the lightbulb, two to argue about content on its talk page & revert each other's edits, one to nominate the lightbulb for deletion, two more to argue the merits in AfD, one to close the debate as keep, one to speedy the article after the AfD, one to complain at deletion review, two more to argue the question there, one admin to undelete the page, one to wheel war with the previous admin, one to request arbitration, four arbitrators & a bureaucrat to arbitrate, and potentially Jimbo Wales or the Foundation. --Ssbohio 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Encylopedic entry on one of the most used jokes in English language history. --Oakshade 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is much better than simply a list of lightbulb jokes. Although it will naturally have a tendency to attract joke addition, the topic is unquestionably notable and there is good content. How was this not closed speedy keep already?--ragesoss 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) because the article has improved signifcantly since it was nominated. 2) because there's nothing wrong with leaving a discussion open for the full five days. -- saberwyn 12:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• How many Wikipedia editors does it take to replace a lightbulb joke article with a finished article? We don't know yet, it isn't done, and there is no deadline so we don't know when we'll be done. But we should keep the new improved lightbulb joke article. GRBerry 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is definitely a cultural phenomenon and should be mentioned on Wikipedia. Of course with these kinds of subjects nothing can be verified definitively but you can't still deny that this is a very relevant article to idk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wfisher (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was Delete, subject may be valuable if researched properly, and verifiability demonstrated. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attitudes and reactions to returning soldiers

del unreferenced original essay. `'mikkanarxi 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - the article right now's pretty useless, and several paragraphs don't even deal with the returned soldiers themselves. However, this could make a very interesting article if handled properly. If someone wants to recreate it in the future and expand it with proper sources, they should be able to with no prejudice. Quack 688 11:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research essay. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like OR, half-unfinished essay and it's a contentious topic that is probably best covered in the articles on each individual conflict. Dragomiloff 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete essay. Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Rhinoracer 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's an original idea, and may even have a place in the encyclopedia, if it could be better sourced and reformatted. Tragic romance 09:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to a future, referenced, article. The current article is massively incomplete. It doesn't even attempt anything before World War I. Current text is unreferenced and feels more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I'm almost certain that the topic has been studied in some of the academic literature on military science and military history (topics that are quite unfashionable in Western academia these days) so that a referenced article could be created in the future. I do know that there is plenty of popular discussion and awareness for the topic to be notable, but I don't believe the current text or even organization structure would be much of a help toward a future adequate (or better) article. GRBerry 03:35, 13 December 2006 (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; laden with POV material and non-notable. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teenz in da 'Hood

Teenz in da 'Hood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Originally proposed for deletion as a non-notable local access TV show. There are hundreds of student-run, public access, non-regulated TV stations such as KBEV, and having an article on each student-produced program that airs on these stations is indiscriminate information. Delete in lieu of a merge, since as it is, most of the content is POV and unverifiable, and even if so would likely be non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless it could be merged into sponsoring group? SkierRMH,08:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The information should be on a KBEV website and the KBEV wiki page can include a look up. Paul Hjul 10:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable student TV, and lacks the necessary sources to show any notability. Jayden54 10:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and Kinu. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. Dragomiloff 01:23, 9 December 2006 (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. (Several merge suggestions, but no suggestion of where to merge.) —Doug Bell ^talk 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watermelon (color)

Watermelon (color) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:V. I don't think that everything that gets mentioned somewhere (even in a serious work) should get an article. This kind of info could easily be put into a table (list of colours, with their RGB codes, a sample colour box, and a reference). There is no need to have a separate article about this or most other non-standard colours (by standard colours I mean red, green, blue, ... and cyan, magenta, ...). It has been named and defined, but that's all there is to say about it. It hasn't been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources (per WP:V) (and the reference you give is apparently not such a source: it is a passing mention, a short definition, not an article, paper, historical event, ... which has the colour watermelon as its subject). (It doesn't fail WP:OR though, like I mistakenly thought in my ProD notice.) It can arguably be said to fail WP:NOT as well (as a dictionary definition), but WP:V is my main concern. Fram 08:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge - I agree that we don't need a separate article for every RGB color, so this article can be deleted or merged with a (new) article that lists all the colors in a table. Jayden54 10:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we have Web colors but that wouldn't include things like this otherwise it will become huge. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to a relevant list. This color is among standard definitions in art, but if we had an article every standardized color it would simply be too much (about 60 - 70.000 articles). Maybe someone wants to start a standard color wiki ? Alf photoman 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and maybe Transwiki to Wiktionary if it turns out to be a real color. Watermelons have two colors anyway. And a lot of candy markets watermelon as green, too. Axem Titanium 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Anyone who has ever eaten watermelon will know that there is a colour graduation from the centre to the rind. And if Watermelon happens to be some manufacturer's label for a colour (UK spelling) that does not make it notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment: by the standard RGB scale there are over 16.5 million possible distinct colors, but a fraction of those are standardized, while I'd have an issue with an article on 120,120,130 cool grey, I'm not sure how I feel about a standardized common color. Wintermut3 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Anthony.bradbury. Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/merge per WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTABOXOFCRAYOLACRAYONS. --- RockMFR 00:06, 10 December 2006 (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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Rose Glassman

Sarah Rose Glassman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

One-sentence stub on a child actress. Asserts notability but not very plausibly; what were the roles? Bit parts? Not an A7 candidate but merit is far from obvious. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no listing at IMDB; not credited on "windfall" or "numbers" websites or tv.com. SkierRMH,09:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO because she doesn't pass the actor bit (i.e. not a large fanbase, well-known roles or anything else). Jayden54 10:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per criterion A1. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:25, 8 December 2006 (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. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yummy (Gwen Stefani song)

Yummy (Gwen Stefani song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I asked the owner of the site from which the cover supposedly came; she said that this had not been confirmed as the next single. In fact, she noted that the title track from The Sweet Escape "has been pretty much confirmed [as] the second single". So, not only is this article completely false, there's no reason for it to exist. ShadowHalo 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete looks like a combo of fancruft, crystalballin' and rumor-mongering - not verifable. SkierRMH,08:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per the nominator. There's no point in keeping this article if it's not true. Jayden54 10:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SkierRMH. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This user explained the details to me on my talk page, and I strongly concur. Even if this song was to be the second single, there are no references. Delete it. Velten 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. On my local radio stations here (Chum FM 104.5 Toronto), they keep playing "The Sweet Escape" (The actual song). So I doubt this is the next single.
• Delete "The Sweet Escape" is the confirmed second single. There is no source to prove this is the third single or not. Anom8trw8 19:00, 13 December 2006 (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. Dakota 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megabinx

Megabinx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Does not appear to be a notable work of art. Article's been around for a year, so I'm surprised nobody has done anything with it. 36 unique Ghits, most of which wiki and mirrors. Included was one art gallery listing, and this link of info posted by Greenberg that the project had been "detroyed and delayed for the Contemporary Art Center Biennial".

• Delete per WP:RS. Ohconfucius 08:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the ghits might be even lower w/ some cut&paste from this article & gallery listing. SkierRMH,08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the article doesn't really explain why this art work is notable, and I can't find anything about it. Jayden54 10:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable artwork. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, nn artwork. Verkhovensky 03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, improve, remove non-verifiable info. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meish Goldish

Meish Goldish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Very vain piece about this author, who may be notable. Created by User:Literarymagic, a single purpose account, and could be a conflict of interest. It's written in a thoroughly non-encyclopaedic style, and is a best case clean-up candidate. Ohconfucius 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Massive re-write Author does have over 60 books available @ Amazon; however, this article is definately a fluff/vanity piece. If not cleaned up, I'd change position to delete. SkierRMH,08:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - As SkierRMH said, he has written dozens of books, and I'm not sure if that means he's notable per the guidelines of WP:BIO, but for now I'm going to go with keeping the article, although a rewrite is certainly necessary. Jayden54 10:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even after removing a lot of the fluff, promotional statements, and unverified/unsourced material, it appears that there is enough here to merit a keep. As stated above, a serious {{cleanup}} is in order. Agent 86 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Just at Amazon, I'm finding this a very prolific writer of childrens/young adults books. Can use a re-write. --Oakshade 23:33, 8 December 2006 (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 speedy close -- as CSD G1 (my error) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College marketing

College marketing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Incoherent stuff. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:09, 8 December 2006 (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. Dakota 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogwar

Blogwar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

neologism Skrewler 09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - indeed a neologism, and not a very popular one, so delete per WP:NEO. Jayden54 09:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism... if not at least transwiki to wiktionary where this sorta crap belongs. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all blogging neologisms. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - made-up word, supposed meaning is unclear. - Femmina 12:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, neologism. Eusebeus 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Made-up by some guy, nothing special, not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, unreferenced and if this is a real term it does not seem to be a notable one Dragomiloff 01:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If only Wikipedia was a paper encyclopedia because then we could burn this. The Mirror of the Sea 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 22:02, 9 December 2006 (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 Speedy deleted by Alkivar. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hearya

Hearya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

nn Alexa[12] Skrewler 09:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:WEB, since it doesn't have any awards or press mentions. Jayden54 09:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara West

Her only claim to notability is having been an infant on board the Titanic and one of only two living survivors. Andrew Levine 09:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - she is only one of the two survivors, so doesn't that make her notable enough? Jayden54 09:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a strange one. While she is still alive she is notable. When she dies she briefly be very notable but afterwards she will not be notable. I'd keep her in. I can imagine people being intersted in the lives of those survivors still alive.
• Keep - it's a sad fact of life, but as the number of survivors from anything is reduced, the remaining ones become more notable. Quack 688 11:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayden54. Edison 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayden54 and James086. She's a notable person. Morhange 20:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This case has been featured on many other sites, not just Wikipedia.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above. Last few survivors are notable, like the last few WWI veterans. --Berks105 17:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep while alive; remove soon after death. --LittleSocrates 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. For heavens' sake, she's notable now, and she will be notable even after her death for being among the last survivors to die. The last American Civil War veterans to die remain notable even today. The Titanic is a very popular historical topic among amateurs, because of the film among other things, and its longest-lived survivors are (and will continue to be) notable for ages to come. Xoloz 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as above. Dovea 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Xoloz KaragouniS 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The last survivors of certain events are often a topic of interest. --BHC 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Most surely this is to be kept. Titanic is one of the most famous incidents in history and survivors of tragedies always interest people. Arnig 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have two cows

You have two cows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article is not encyclopedic. See talk. Ghewgill 09:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not a very notable joke, and no sources or references to show any notability. Jayden54 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - changing my vote after a few references have been added to show its notability. Jayden54 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is an extremly notable joke. It has been used in many text books and a google search will show thousands of hits. Also it is written in an encylopedic fashion. Graemec2 09:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Notable things are those that have been written about in reliable, independent sources. Can anyone cite a secondary source about the joke, or just more examples of the joke itself? I could find thousands of examples of blue cars, but unless someone writes something about blue cars as a group, we can't support having an article on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep (weak since it's largely unsourced but it probably could be I uess), undoubtedly a common genre of joke. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Graemec2. Google before proposing for deletion. -THB 10:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I did google, and all I found were joke lists. Joke lists aren't sources for an encyclopedia article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep even as a joke, it's still used enough in political classes and discussions to be noteworthy. Quack 688
• Weak Keep needs sources, but I can see how it would be notable. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems useful on the topic. Jamesbuc
• delete, seriously needs sourcing, but I doubt that should be hard to find. I'll change this to a keep if sources are added. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The only interesting article that could come from this poor attempt at humour and effective attempt at propaganda would be one on its real origins, early spread, and pre-online diffusion in the media.EstherRice 12:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• People have different senses of humor. Just because you don't think it's funny, doesn't make the article any less notable. It has cultural significance. Strong keep. Only advice I could give would be a few more sources. -Ryanbomber 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from insults, and give a reason why it's notable. There are no sources and it has been questioned whether any could be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't trying to insult. Re-reading it it was a little crueler-sounding then I meant it to be. I meant that people have different senses of humor and just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean nobody else does. Reworded it a bit for civility. As for notability, [Google's neat.] -Ryanbomber 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • # of google hits != notability. "white car" gets 8 times as many hits, but still isn't a legitimate article topic. Notability is shown by being written about in independent sources, which still has yet to be shown. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, I was hard-pressed for time and I had to go to Google. I still don't have all THAT much time so I can't get any "real" evidence, but the point of having at least slight significance because it had Google hits still stands. It proves that it exists and it's not just nonsense someone added for giggles. This is OBVIOUSLY not something someone just invented in school one day. Notability shouldn't be too hard to prove, and I'll do so when I get more time. -Ryanbomber 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notable and relevant psychological and sociological sources can be added, besides that in Fireland the joke goes: you have two lamas... do they get an article too ? Alf photoman 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  Alf the fact that their is an alternative version of the joke, as per your lamas, just proves that it is notable. Immitation is the greatest form of flattery.Graemec2 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. verified, sourced, notable, encyclopedic. Certainly better-known and more notable than most of the internet memes that have articles. Agent 86 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Added 5 print references which presented and discussed the jokes as illustrative of economic issues, and not just as a "Joke of the week" filler. Multiple independent, reliable, and verifiable print sources over a span of years from around the world. Every Wiki article should have so notable a subject. Edison 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as references have been found by User:Edison, proving its notability. Axem Titanium 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - can we rename this article? I agree that it is weakly notable, but the title is misleading and uninformative--Dmz5 22:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Topic is encyclopedic and plenty of material in article. Seems ok to rename when AFD is over. Fg2 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is encyclopedic, sourced, and undoubtedly will improve over time. RFerreira 05:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I've seen it used in political science textbooks, and can look up references, it's an interesting paradigm in political science, and while it could be merged into say ideology it wouldn't fit terribly well. Wintermut3 06:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable joke... well referenced. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep this is a notable joke. --SonicChao ^talk 14:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sheesh. "Delete because it's not funny" is GREAT rationale. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencylopedic. I don't dispute that "Two Cows" is a well-known, widely used rhetorical device. Nevertheless the article doesn't add any non-obvious information on its subject beyond reproducing the "Two Cows" joke. Encyclopedic articles are about their subject matter; that is, they more than merely exemplify their subject matter. If a reader who encountered the "Two Cows" joke elsewhere came here to find more information on it, would he leave any more knowledgeable? No. Accordingly, the article as it is now is unencyclopedic. To the extent I doubt any verifiable information could be found to make it ecyclopedic, the article should be deleted. Pop Secret 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep b/c i've never heard of this "two cow" reference, i find this entry incredibly useful. Jiggles3000 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I Dissent. Webster defines Encyclopedia as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge". To the extent that "Two Cows" is either a joke, or a rhetorical device used as an explanatory device, it qualifies as "information." I disagree that there is as wide an intellectual chasm between describing subject matter and exemplifying/embodying it as Secret, J. would have have us believe. Indeed, it is unclear that encyclopedias function as merely devices to encapsulate general concepts, instead of descriptively identifying something; if that were the case, biographical articles would not exist. It seems obvious that I know what a swimming pool is and elucidation does not result from wikipedia; my knowledge is not furthered. Yet, swimming pool is a valid article - its propriety is an article precisely because certain people may not *know* what a swimming pool is. This is the same logic that defends Two Cows. Additionally, as specifically noted on Wikipedia's policy page defining what Wikipedia isn't, it is noted that "...there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover..." To the extent that a layperson would seek further information about "Two Cows" and the corresponding no cost of keeping the article, it should stand. M'Naghten-T'sea-voz, C.J. 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the two cows joke is a notable phenomenon. - ∅ (∅), 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is encyclopedic, doesn't fail any policies. --- RockMFR 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's source material. Thus it violates WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Pop Secret 05:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT#REPOSITORY doesn't say that you can't keep source material on WP. It says you can't merely keep source material. So long as the article backs up that source material with additional content, it's perfectly admissible. SteveBaker 09:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hm. I actually hadn't realized its similarity to the concept of a tutorial on the invention of currency. Keep. DS 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Not the world's greatest article - but some of our readers will find it useful/interesting. SteveBaker 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep More than a joke, it's an allegory of the various political & economic systems we live under. Of necessity, improve the artice & add better sourcing. After all, you only have two cows until one gets nominated for deletion. --Ssbohio 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that bit has references. --Richmeister_talk 05:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Major Delete, by the way: No I Don't Have Two Cows, Unlike You! 86.20.53.195 18:05, 12 December 2006 (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 per WP:COI and WP:BIO. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff Mendicino

Geoff Mendicino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Vanity article. No independent, reliable, verifiable evidence of notability. Drat (Talk) 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If everybody who had over 2000 Google hits had a Wiki page, then I would have one as well. There is no reason for this to continue to exist.--LordHuffNPuff 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is very notable and has many references in Google. Over 2000. User:IP^{Talk | Contribs} 12:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator also I think WP:COI applies as the author shares the same name. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hopelessly nn internet celebrity, 992 ghits outside of myspace. MER-C 12:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not appear to meet WP:BIO. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable. - Cate | _Talk 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article and the subject fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people):

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

• No one has written specifically about Geoff as far as I can tell other than a blog which is a trivial work

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.

• No Geoff does not contribute enough to any field to be notable.

Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.

• No

Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.5 Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.

• No

Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame)

• No, he is not hollywood walk of fame, nor is an e-personality who is verifiable like Lowtax.

Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or

• No

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:

• No, just some mtv appearance which with gamelife.

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

• No he has received no notable awards.

Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field

• No

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.

• No

Professor Test?

• No

Verifiability

• No

Expandability

• Possibly

100 year test?

• No

Biography

• No

Search Engine Test [[13]]

• This about the only thing he comes close to passing but it is primarily his information and profiles.

As far as I can tell this person is not currently notable and there is not indication of notability in the future to warrant keeping the article. --Quirex 05:28, 13 December 2006 (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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International rankings of Singapore

International rankings of Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I fail to see how this is even remotely encyclopedic. This is just cruft. Unencyclopedic list which needs to be deleted imo. – Chacor 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same reason for having International rankings of the United States. This is a helper page for Singapore, which is too long to accommodate the information. The listed rankings kept seeping into Singapore, and User:Nichalp suggested relocating these information during a peer review. Rather than calling to delete, please suggest where to merge instead or how to expand to make it encyclopedic. Otherwise, many users will keep inserting these rankings back into the Singapore article, and we will have endless discussion which rankings to keep or remove. Thanks. --Vsion 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently that page is a spinoff taken from the Singapore one. Because X exists doesn't mean Y has to exist. Indeed, the U.S. article should also be deleted. – Chacor 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then please nominate International rankings of the United States for afd, as per your comment. --Vsion 07:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International rankings of the United States. There. – Chacor 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'd also say "delete" for International rankings of the United States if it were up for deletion nomination. Agent 86 19:01, 8 December 2006 (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. Despite the 8 delete to 2 keeps, the keep votes actually presented arguments instead of "per nom" and were given weight. However, the google link lists 11 hits for the name, with only a couple distinct links to the site. The MTV reference was similarly underwhelming. There sources cited simply did not confer adequate notability, so I find that the nominator's claim of non-notability is valid. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GameLife

GameLife (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Online gaming show. Only real claim to notability is getting hits from being an Awful Link of the Day on Something Awful and getting sponsored to go to E3 by some media company. Only two minor non-first-party sources, one of which is a press-release. Alexa rank 2,596,635 Drat (Talk) 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. MER-C 10:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, also the website is "mocked" because of it's quality as stated in the article. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website. Axem Titanium 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above FirefoxMan 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep': I'm gonna vote keep, as the internet becomes a medium of entertainment thier certaintly should be some standards for inclusion, the fact that this is baisicly as of now a 1up.com sponsored show and likewise appears on thier "gamevideos" network, therefore it should deffinatly qualify it as a legitamite article, in the same way the Desperate Housewives or Ugly Betty are notable because they appear on ABC. Deathawk 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But there is a big difference between National TV and some little section in Gamevideos.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.222.222.139 (talk • contribs).
    • Their segments have appeared on MTV and they have been interviewed on the radio. --Quirex 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 64.222.222.139 04:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 24.158.46.217 04:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - These references need to be integrated into the article. They have been mentioned in a very notable trade magazine for video games, Electronic Gaming monthly. ([[14]]). They've appeared on MTV [[15]]. They've had radio interviews [[16]] and have appeared in the Pheonix (a printed newspaper) [[17]]. This means they pass WP:V and have one reliable real world secondary source. They have lots of primary sources some some secondary sources of various quality but they do have multiple sources and multiple reliable sources thus they pass WP:RS. MTV uses some of their clips so they pass criterion 3 of WP:WEB and they have secondary sources documenting them thus criterion 1 is passed. I don't think the lexa ranking is fair since their content is hosted offsite on youtube and other video sites. With all these references and the topic passing WP:WEB I know the article can be improved to include these references. Does not fail WP:WEB. --Quirex 05:18, 13 December 2006 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gametrash

Gametrash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Gaming website. No independent, reliable, non-trivial citations of notability. Alexa rank 2,253,497. Drat (Talk) 10:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Amazingly Keep On first glance I thought that maybe it should be gotten rid of but haven read through it it seems ok to stay. Jamesbuc

• Why? MER-C 13:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Can you explain why it should be kept? What are your reasons?--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE Fails WP:WEB and has no independent, reliable, third-party sources cited. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it is trash. nn website. Axem Titanium 21:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 22:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and salt was deleted on an AFD a few months ago. Should be speedy. Click on the "logs" button at the top here and you will see deleted in October. Anomo 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment actually speedy only applies to articles that have been through XfD before. Whispering 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB Whispering 01:43, 14 December 2006 (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 speedy delete (G7). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shehzad Kazmi

Shehzad Kazmi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not a notable subject. The creator (user) has removed the {{a7}} notice several times, and wishes to have the matter reviewed. Oden 11:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Who qualifies notability?--Humeyra 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Some people may not be notable in the true aspect as defined in the notability criteria set by Wikipedia. I respect the opinion of Wikipedians but some people have notable contributions in their domain, in their locality. Either you declare that people have no impact on a smaller scale and go ahead and remove the article. --Shehzad.kazmi 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt. Unreferenced, unverifiable (with 118 ghits), autobiographical resume of a non-notable person. Worse still, it fails to give any assertion of notability. Wikipedia is neither an advertising service nor a free web host. This flouts almost every rule in the book. MER-C 11:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete The author just blanked it. Also it seems to be a target for vandalism I have reverted it several times tonight. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:01, 8 December 2006 (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 per WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undead battalion

Undead battalion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A non-notable, unverifiable video game plan from some schoolboys. Yes, this really was made up in school one day. Nydas^(Talk) 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - obvious violation of WP:NFT. Doesn't stand a chance. MER-C 12:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete haha, I never actually thought that WP:NFT would ever be applicable literally. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:22, 8 December 2006 (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 as hoax worthy of speedy deletion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Bernard Sawyer, AIA, G.C. Architect

Looks very notable, but Google has heard neither of him, nor of the magazine he's supposed to have founded. Hoax? Created by User:Robertsawyer would you believe?--Sandy Scott 12:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - unreferenced autobiography. MER-C 12:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as joke/fake article vandalism. 4 ghits for name, none relevant, zero ghits for "Architechural Business magazine". Tubezone 12:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless confirming sources are provided. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:AUTO. -- Mikeblas 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:11, 9 December 2006 (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 Userfied as obvious autobiography. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leona-Louise Lewis

Leona-Louise Lewis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

There is nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability, and nothing to meet WP:BIO criteria. Also, it appears to have been created by either the subject, or someone closely related to it, judging by the username - Leonalewis (talk • contribs • count). It seems to be either a vanity/promotion page, or an attack page, but I'm not certain it has any encyclopedic value. SunStar Net^talk 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - No notability established. 2 links to radio station websites that don't appear to have anything to do with the subject and a Myspace link. Speedy tag was removed by author...I'm going to replace it. --Onorem 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete no notability and looks like an attack against a real person. feydey 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Er, I am Leona-Louise Lewis, people. God, stop being so childish, and live in the real world for once. I guess you're all wacked out on waccy baccy, eh?? --Leonalewis 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• And, for the record, I created this article. Nothing to stop you from writing your own article on yourself... heh heh heh!! --Leonalewis 13:50, 8 December 2006 (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. OK, I read it all. The sources, the article, the entire discussion here. I must say, the discussion here was the most entertaining of it. Despite the persistent hammering by large caliber arguments on the WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR themes, the counter arguments put up a spirited defense of the article. Even though I take it that I'm one of one a few people to grow up in the U.S. without having heard of this game, I was persuaded by the common folklore arguments. Unfortunately, common folklore doesn't provide the facts and details needed to write an article. That get's back to the WP:NOR arguments. On balance, it can't stay without sources because despite what everyone else seems to "know" about this, it still needs sources. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circle hand game

Circle hand game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Originally kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle hand game in May. In the six plus months since, the article has remained obstinately unsourced, other than Urban Dictionary and the like. Each new edit seems to be either original research or yet another thing made up in school one day. Verifiability applies to things made up in school as well, even if they are things that "everyone knows about". WP:IHEARDOFTHIS does not trump WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS, I think. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is for those of you who say because the nature of this game is that it can't be cited, it should be deleted. Folklores and bedtime stories have been passed around by word of mouth for thousands of years, yet they cannot be sourced, does that mean they should be deleted on wikipedia as well? This game is very popular amongst children and young adults, and has been passed around by word of mouth and popular culture. Just because you haven't heard of it does not make it unpopular. From personal experience, I can say that the vast majority of young adults have heard of this game, making it more popular than some folklores. 10:00, 9 December 2006
  • Yes, it does mean that. Unsourced material should be deleted, period. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR cruf-article. Six months is long enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if you took out everything in the article that couldn't be cited to a reliable source, you'd have nothing left. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - This article is becoming a place to just post gibberish - I have cleaned up the worst of it but lets get rid of this piece of junk. Markco1 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The nature of this game is one that cannot be sourced. You're not going to find information in any newspaper articles, because it is somewhat of an underground thing, and even if it were sourced, that article would be inaccurate because the game does have so many different rules from school-to-school. The page should remain because it is a popular game in schools. Perhaps it should be locked for editing, but not deleted. Kherrell4 10:40, 8 December 2006. — Kherrell4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• If, by its nature, it cannot be sourced, then it should have been deleted long ago. We cannot have subjects which cannot be sourced. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - While the rules may vary from place to place, the overall game is very popular. It should be kept because it's not "Urban Dictionary" or fake. This game is not simply a catch phrase. It may have different names, it may have different rules, but it's the same game and it's popular enough to have an offical listing here. - Mrtrumpets 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC) — Mrtrumpets (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep some sources are given. Article is hard to source in the first place. Ignore all rules? -Ryanbomber 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• What a novel idea - no sources exist, therefore ignore WP:NOR, WP:V and therefore WP:NPOV (to say nothing of WP:RS, WP:NFT and probably half a dozen others). I'm sure this has never been suggested before as a way of handling unsourceable subjects... Guy (Help!) 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• There's so many things wrong with that I don't even know where to start. First of all, I said there IS sourcing (albeit it doesn't look very good, but it's still there.) Second of all, how is ignoring verifiability ignoring NPOV? Just because a statement exists as a source doesn't instantly make it NPOV, nor does a statement that isn't sourced always not NPOV. Third, this isn't WP:NFT seeing as it's obviously been around (see: this discussion and people saying "I know about this game.") We really shouldn't remove information for no reason other then it's hard to verify - especially if we already have verification.-Ryanbomber 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• The sources are junk, NPOV cannot be verified without independent critical review (of which none exists), 90% of the content added over time is things made up in school one day (check the history). Find credible, non-trivial sources and you can keep the article. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If "The nature of this game is one that cannot be sourced" then there is no place in the encyclopedia for it. L0b0t 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The only sources provided since the last AfD are unreliable; more appropriate to a personal webpage than an encyclopedia. (aeropagitica) 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE OK, time for today's Wikipedia lesson: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level.

And further into the rule The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. and Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources

Already you have stated there are no reliable, third-party sources on this, so the article Fails WP:V and Reliable sources

Moving on...

Original Research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

kipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Well, by looking at this, we see the article in question is in violation of this policy. So we have an article which is NOT 'improving' wikipedia, is Original Research, does not cite reliable third party sources, and is not verifiable by the common person. BTW: Ignore all rules is meant not as a way for someone to use it as a 'get out of jail free' card to add whatever they want. It's mainly there for things such as edit wars and stopping vandialism. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:V, WP:OR, the like. Also note that WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping, and WP:IAR isn't an "I don't have to give sources" card. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There have been a number of these types of games that have been nominated for AfD in the past month or two. All have been hoaxes and follow a similar pattern in which a number of people, likely sockpuppets/single-purpose accounts, come to the AfD and talk about how popular and widespread the game is. These same accounts post ridiculous statements on the articles talk page. While this particular article seems to be a little less extreme in this sense, it still certainly hints that its a hoax in the same way. I doubt the game actually exists and even if it does, an unverifiable playground game with varying rules and names certainly in unencyclopedic. --The Way 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNo reliable sources of notability. A non notable web site or two that mentions this is not a reliable source.Obina 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Though I understand the issue of verifiability is problematic to the article, due to the nature of the game... I for one, had seen this game come up at least once a day at my high school. I'm not suggesting that my experience lends any merit to the article, but I am aware that this isn't some inside joke people just randomly decide to make an article about. I'm positive that there must be a reference to this game somewhere, someplace (even, perhaps, in a book of adolescent school games, or whatever). This isn't really something just "made up in school one day"; it was just something you were passively made aware of in adolescent, like birthday punches and wedgies. This is all from the bottom of my heart. --C.Logan 03:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I had seen something like this going on back when I was in high school, but it's an entirely unencyclopedic topic. The article states that the only real rule is the use of the circle-hand, then lists a bunch of unsourced rule variations. Then it lists a bunch of strategies. This is all original research, and should not be allowed.
  It's quite similar to what often happens with that "The Game" article, where random people keep trying to add in their own rule variations, strategies, and various other nonsense. The difference here is, that article actually has a print source, and removing all of the OR doesn't leave us with a blank article. This article has no reliable sources, it isn't verifiable, so it has to go. WarpstarRider 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is such a well known game that if it fails Wikipedia source requirments, then there's something wrong with our source requirements. — coelacan talk — 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with them, any more than not having information on that character in the fifth episode of the third Star Trek series who appeared for 2 frames means that our inclusion requirements are wrong. Wikipedia isn't meant to be for everything that is true. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting that there's a problem with notability (which is what your star trek example would refer to). This may or may not fail on notability, but that isn't the issue that's being raised. The issue here is verifiability. And I'm saying that if something which millions of people have first-hand experience with is nevertheless not verifiable by our policy, then there's something wrong with our verifiability standards. Can you at least respond to my point instead of a strawman? — coelacan talk — 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You missed my point. My point was that Wikipedia is not meant to cover everything which is true, just things which are verifiable. And if there are no sources, it is not verifiable. There's no way you can twist the definition to make things which have no sources such. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point, which is that it most certainly is verifiable. You already knew about it before this article, didn't you? And so does everyone else voting here (except for "The Way", apparently... what hole did they crawl out of?). If three people sit in a room together and one of them brings up some childhood game, and the other two say "oh yeah I remember that," then that's verifiability. It doesn't matter if they can't find a newspaper article or a scholarly journal on it. It's verifiable because everyone here in this vote knows that it's real. That's enough verifiability for folklorists, for example, who often have only oral history to work from. We all know it, so it's verifiable. If our standards then say that it's not verifiable, then our standards are methodologically wrong. — coelacan talk — 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment While three people sitting in a room saying "Yeah I remember that" is verifiable for their purposes, Wikipedia has higher standards. Please look at WP:RS. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, it's also discussed as being called "Money Shot". Lots of people in that thread all relating their experience of it. Now if I recall AfD procedural rules, it's time for someone to tell me "ooOOooh that's not a reliable source!" — coelacan talk — 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And here it is being mentioned on FOX's "Malcolm in the Middle" supplementary website. (I'm surprised that exists) — coelacan talk — 00:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

More. — coelacan talk — 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

picture of it being played, discussion, video and discussion, discussion through this thread, picture and discussion, discussion based on "the game" website but lots of people chime in with their accounts. All of these sorts of things should count, although I'm aware that someone will say they don't. All of our own personal experiences should count too. In the case of modern folklore and childhood games, perhaps a different verifiability standard is in order. In any case the "Malcolm in the Middle" citation will undoubtedly seal it this time, but it's crazy that something this well-known could get AfD'd in the future. — coelacan talk — 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I'm considering only the sources and information in the article. The external links do not comply with WP:RS - as a rule, blogs don't - and I'm sure that just about every Wikipedia editor know of another meaning of "money shot." B.Wind 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you overlook FOX's "Malcolm in the Middle" supplementary website? The game is being referenced in a popular TV show there, or at least within the "world" of the show. What's wrong with that source? — coelacan talk — 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not - the "journal" is actually a blog, not generally considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia. Oh, one other thing: you do realize that Malcolm in the Middle was fiction? B.Wind at 147.70.244.102 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (can't log in on work computer).

It's a fake journal, created as supplemental material for the show. It's part of the story's canon, and so it counts the same as a mention on the TV show itself would count. The fact that Malcolm in the Middle is fiction means nothing here. So what if the game is referenced in fiction? Stephen Hawking is referenced in fiction all the time, and those mentions are encyclopedic; they go to Stephen Hawking in popular culture. — coelacan talk — 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Definite Keep Though of course WP is not in general a source, for some elements of popular culture we may be the best thing going, DGG 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are a little off target. WP is never an acceptable source, there are no exceptions allowed. This is all spelled out in WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. L0b0t 14:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It has little to no encyclopedic value, it is not written in a global perspective, it is mostly not verifiable, and it is poorly sourced. I also doubt that it's uniformly known throughout the United States.UberCryxic 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you making any actual argument that it's got no encyclopedic value. "Not written in a global perspective" is not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for article improvement. I just gave sources, one of them (FOX) that can't be called unverifiable. And I doubt that Czech bluegrass is known uniformly in the US but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. — coelacan talk — 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment You don't need to be in school for it to be Made up in school. To help our friends Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. per the Afd page.

As for the Malcom reference, while I agree it could be concidered source, the Blog would not. Also, this 'game's article needs to have multiple, reliable, independent, non-biased, third-party sources cited for it to pass the AFD. I also want to remind people, one newspaper article or one TV Show appearance does not make anything 'notable'. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source. Please look at a few of the Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or punching game), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day This still fails WP:V since there is only one reliable (and I use that term VERY VERY loosely) source, this does not pass WP:V. Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more major news sources for verification. There is np newspaper mentioning this 'game', and only one un-remarkable appearance in an American TV sitcom. That, by most standards, is not enough for notability.

All we have is a TV show, and a Blog (which blogs are not acceptable by wikipedia standards as Reliable Sources)

Primary sources- present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.

Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

Where are the primary sources beyond MitM?

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

I can't see that this is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, even with specialist knowledge.

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

And...

..That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article..."

I can't see how this was published by a reputable third-party publication. The Blogs and forums do not count as they are self-published. See "What counts as a reputable publication?" and "Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable. Reading those will show that blogs and the discussion forms do not count as Reputable publications nor Reliable Sources.

HERE IS THE KICKER

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it.We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

I think this may end the debate if this is worth an article or not --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. This game is certainly notable enough, but I don't think the current sources are adequate for WP:V. On the other hand, given its popularity I wouldn't be surprised if someone reputable has done a piece on the game at some point; if such a reference is found I'd surely vote keep (and cleanup). The fact that the game doesn't seem to have a standard name makes finding references difficult, unfortunately. — brighterorange (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: another verifiable television instance: season 1 episode 9 of WWE Tough Enough. Documented here, not a blog. By the way, nice essay there Brian, but don't be premature in declaring the debate over. I dispute that the MitM journal thing is a blog. It's fictional supplemental material; pieces from a "journal" by one of the characters of a show would have been included in fan club magazines before the rise of the web. And exact same content in the exact same format would not have been considered a blog eight years ago. But even without the journal, the scene happened on the show in season 2 episode 6. Now we have two television sources. That's "multiple" which is the word I see in all the notability guidelines. But! It's time to get deadly serious here, people! If we delete this article, then thousands of kids, upon entering their first year of junior high or middle school, are going to have no source for the rules except by learning them the hard way. You don't want little kids to get punched, do you?? Thnk about it, closing admin, thousands, maybe millions of punches can be spared to little kids if only you make the right choice today. Okay, now the debate's over. Seriously. — coelacan talk — 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hark, the snow is falling - despite the diatribe, still nothing from a reliable source regarding the so-called game. The fact that it "appeared" in an episode of a fictional television series does not mean that it is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia any more than cranko (a fictitious game introduced in the series MASH). Without any reliable sources that ties it into something that existed before the Malcolm in the Middle episode was even written, the argument that you've been pusuing for so long doesn't even exist. Good luck on finding such an objective "reliable source," preferably one having nothing to do with fiction.B.Wind 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's like people don't read. Right above you. WWE Tough Enough, in the training room, season 1, episode 9. — coelacan talk — 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's from a blog, too. not a reliable source. B.Wind 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. — coelacan talk — 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you agree it isn't a reliable source. Kidding aside, even a blog such as the one posted at Sci-Fi.com from Roger Moore, creator of Battlestar Galactica, is not concidered a 'reliable source'. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a blog. And it's part of the MitM canon, so it's on the same level as the show. — coelacan talk — 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A fictional program, that is. Time for an admin to put this puppy to bed. B.Wind 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the notability requirements that requires that every source be nonfiction. If a fictional show is referencing a real-life game, there's nothing wrong with us noting this reference. In fact it would make a good subsection of the article, "The circle hand game in fiction". There is absolutely nothing wrong with such a reference, you'll see that sort of thing all over Wikipedia. And you're still ignoring the WWE Tough Enough instance, which is a second reference on television. — coelacan talk — 04:51, 14 December 2006 (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.