Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 27

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

The result was delete. If anyone would like to merge it somewhere, the entire content was: "The FM- and TV-Mast Choragwica k. Wieliczki is a 288 metre mast for FM and TV broadcasts located at Choragwica near Wieliczka in Poland (Geographical Coordinates: 49°57'N, 20°5' E)." Sandstein 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FM- and TV-Mast Choragwica k. Wieliczki

FM- and TV-Mast Choragwica k. Wieliczki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod. Mast is a few meters short of the 300-meter-and-up criterion to get into the List of masts article. Delete as NN mast. —EdGl 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wow. I can see gamecruft, TVcruft, and bookcruft every day, but rarely do I see broadcastingcruft. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as broadcastingcruft. Hello32020 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as broadcastingcruft. Sr13 01:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as mastcruft (broadcastingcruft is such a last-week concept ;) ). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Mastcruft is too specific. Maybe polecruft? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above xxpor ^yo!|_{see what i've done} 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Cease transmission! per above. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless somebody points to to Wikipedia:Notability (masts). Do we have a rule that 'above 300, notable, under, not'? There are several smaller structures at List of tallest structures in Poland, should we delete them too?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How about the general notablility guideline? It certainly doesn't meet that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see what's different about this mast and half the masts from Category:Mast stubs. I looked at 5, and found a 190m and 200m; neither making any claim to being more notable. I would support creating a specific guideline and pruning the category, but until then I can't see why we should delete this particular mast and keep a hundred or so similar ones.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe we weren't aware of those? I'm going to nominate the 190m one right now, and think on the other. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Mhm, would you care to look through the rest of the category? I had time to look through short 'G' category, and found a 100m, 200m and unknown-height one. Pure extrapolation suggest we are looking at about ~50 below <300m in this stub category - and I am still waiting to see why height is important, as far as I am concern, 99% of those masts are not notable - they are masts, who cares about their height (I can see how it could matter, but do we have a height notability guideline?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:INN. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point, but I still say we need a notability guideline, or otherwise we are trying to plug one leak - or topple one mast - when 10 more are being erected :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. Uncle G 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Jeez! Can Wikipedia get anymore booooring??? C'mon, fan cruft, but mastcruft? Who the heck writes an article about a mast? Its a clump of steel people! Spawn Man 08:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Buildings and radio stations need to fulfill some guidelines and this mast isn't the highest in the country or its immediate neighbouring ones as far as I can tell. I see no reason keep it. For comparison: the Euromast is shorter, but it isn't a radio mast; it's a recognized symbol of Rotterdam. Now, that is a reasons to keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete this information, which lacks any depth, can be just as easily maintained in the article on the local town, see WP:LOCAL.-- danntm ^T _C 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and definitely expand. Tall structures are interesting and there's no reason not to include them, but additional textual and photographic data should definitely be included. --Ouro 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this looks to be factual, verifiable, and of interest to at least some people, I can't see any good reason to delete it. Certainly the criteria for the 'list of masts' article is not deletion criteria. Trollderella 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - boring, boring non-notable mastcruft. Moreschi 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You finding it boring is not a good reason to delete. Trollderella 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The mast being non-notable is a perfectly good reason to delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is true doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article on it if the subject has no claim to notability. And the article is boring, remarkably so. Moreschi 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lots of things can be shown to exist, such as every mail box, fire truck, school bus or telephone pole in the world, but why should they be in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts. Even if telephone pole fanciers started a telephone pole project and entered the height, type of wood, GPS coordinates and age of each one. (My God, its starting to sound as reasonable as the existing projects for elementary schools, shopping malls, hiways and bus stops!)Edison 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, a strawman! Well done, but we are not talking about those, we're talking about unique broadcasting masts. If there is not enough information to write an article, then they should be merged. Simple, no deletion required. Trollderella 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentWhat would these sub-stubby articles be merged to? There absolutely should be an article on broadcast towers. I found articles on radio, television, broadcasting and even transmitter but none on the towers which hold the antenna. It would be beneficial for some tower buff to write such an article, giving the history of towers and mentioning those which are historic or otherwise notable. Such an article would be more interesting and valuable than adding a stub for every such tower in the world. Finally found Radio masts and towers and added Wikilinks to that article from Broadcasting and transmitter. Not sure how to do it, but there should be a redirect from Broadcast tower to make Radio masts and towers easier to find.Edison 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable structure. Could be speedied if we wrote guidelines for mast article that don't claim notability. But even that guideline would be silly. Anyway, to be notable, I would expect at least a few sources to describe this mast in a non trivial way. The fact that other masts are equally non notable is not reason to keep this. Bring them on (in a group) and we can make Wikipedia a better encycolpedia.Obina 19:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — Some day I hope to find a definition of "random facts". Are those facts with no correlation to each other? If so then a list of towers is not random. :-) — RJH (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - to the article about the town. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable broadcasting facility serves multiple broadcasting outlets in Poland. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn broadcasting facility. Eusebeus 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Wieliczka per WP:LOCAL. No a record holder of any description. Ohconfucius 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no real reason given for deletion. Not convinced that masts aren't notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced that 'notability' is part of Articles for deletion criteria! Trollderella 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Polishpolecruft or [WP:NOT]] an indiscriminate collection of information. Some broadcasting towers merit their own articles: the Kamzík TV Tower is an interesting structure and local landmark, and so on. This is simply a directory entry, as most polecruft must be (unless Edison's WP:BEANS suggestions are taken up). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, per all the above points. It should not be deleted. Sharkface217 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete As someone who has an interest in broadcasting, I can see people's arguments for keeping it; however, in its current state there is nothing to assert notability. When there is something that asserts its notability, then it can be re-created. --SunStar Net 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mast. Herostratus 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not all masts are inherently notable. Not a valid reason to keep. —EdGl 02:33, 3 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. In terms of WP:WEB, this is a borderline case, I guess, as it's got one minor mainstream media mention and (at least some) content is carried (or just summarised and linked to?) by Metacritic. However, the preponderance of opinion here calls for deletion even after the Metacritic connection was brought up. This deletion is not prejudicial against a recreation in a form that clearly establishes new elements of notability per WP:WEB. Sandstein 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cokemachineglow

Cokemachineglow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This was originally listed for speedy, but since I've actually heard of it and read it myself on occasion I'm not prepared to accept that assessment without a second opinion. But at the same time, I'm not wholly convinced that my familiarity with it automatically proves notability, either. Procedural nom, so no vote from me; I'd rather put it to discussion since it's of at least borderline notability. (Update: I'd also like to note that there were already a large number of links from album articles citing Cokemachineglow reviews months before this article was created.) Bearcat 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:WEB; not notable. Hello32020 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Webcruft, fails notability. Sr13 01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No notability outside of a webzine. Denni ^talk 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cokemachineglow is very frequently cited as an authoritative source for reviews on Wikipedia with no link referencing it back to the site, as was noted above. While most of the albums this site is cited are not of a mainstream bent (Cf. Oneida's Happy New Year (album), or Shut Up I Am Dreaming), the site is elsewhere cited without linking to the Wikipedia page. I'm not sure how why Tiny Mix Tapes' article, for example, would be worth keeping, while CMG wouldn't. If one could convince me of good reasons for TMT being saved, but this one being deleted, I'd have no problem with such an end result. However, I don't work for CMG, nor am I at all involved with it, aside from reading it once a week. This article, though, is absolutely NOT spam, despite someone's speculation as to such. It's used by Metacritic as an authoritative source for reviews whenever a review is featured on the site. I'm checking on the issue of notability and will get back to y'all tomorrow. Edit(again): Article which has a paragraph about CMG. Edit (once more): I e-mailed Scott, the webmaster, and he said that there should be an article in Wired next month, as it should have been in print already, but was pushed back. It might be worth waiting for the next issue to come out before deciding finally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeichman (talk • contribs).
• Keep Pitchforkmedia it's not, but more than a buzz blog and a frequently featured reviewer at Metacritic. [1] ~ trialsanderrors 08:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per trialsanderrors' reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough from an encyclopaedic standpoint. Thethinredline 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per trialsanderrors. --Howrealisreal 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per trialsanderrors. Inclusion on Metacritic demonstrates notability. It's grown from one of the earliest MP3 blogs to a fully staffed webzine. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do note WP:WEB criterion 3, "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." The Metacritic use of their reviews in its aggregator surely qualifies. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB, sourced at metacritic does not satisfy the criterion established. Eusebeus 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not? ~ trialsanderrors 03:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. On balance, not yet notable enough. WMMartin 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - how is this even hard to grasp? Completely fails WP:WEB , not notable, a blog (the very soul of a reliable source) and arguments comparing this to (insert other small music site here) not only miss the point of WP:INN but give me more things to delete.--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Sharkface217 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources, no assertion of notability, no article. Moreschi 14:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elaragirl. Metacritic ? Underwhelming. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:17, 2 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 — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RusHouR

RusHouR (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Originally tagged with db-music but the tag was removed by anon, most likely the creator of the article. The claim is that the band is notable in Malta for winning a college rock-band competition. They have yet to record an album and it's pretty clear that it does not come close to meeting WP:MUSIC. The article is a complacent band resumé, essentially a few gigs in local bars. Pascal.Tesson 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; fails WP:MUSIC. —EdGl 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC; not-notable. Hello32020 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete do you unnastan da waards dat are caaming aata my maufff? Danny Lilithborne 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:MUSIC. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Announcer: Could the reliable sources please stand up?
  • Random person in crowd: They're not here!
  • Announcer: Why?
  • Random person in crowd, II: Because there are none!
• Delete, not notable. They play a lot of cover version, though... Metro Mover 01:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Why should I care about this band? Where is the notability? Meets criteria CSD A7. Sr13 01:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I thought "Maltese" was a kind of dog? Now that would be worth saving, a band formed entirely of chihuahuas! Delete as per nom.... Spawn Man 08:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, lacks verifiable third party sources and has no national presence in Malta. Should at the very least have either national tv or radio broadcast to be notable without a recording. Falls squarely into CSD A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, winning a college rock competition does not exactly meet the award requirement in WP:MUSIC.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 10:28, 27 November 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. Srikeit 10:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axodendritic

Axodendritic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Transwikied, doesn't seem to deserve a Wikipedia article. Derlay 01:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A5: article already transwikied. —EdGl 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A5 transwikied not needed. Hello32020 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy. A5 only applies when the outcome of an AfD was to transwiki. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not speedy delete, per Amarkov. Sr13 01:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Delete per all above. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 02:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but a quick note to the nominator that {{prod}} can be used for generally uncontroversial deletions. theProject 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy gonzales - Ariba ariba ariba! Delete this obvious speedy... Spawn Man 08:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a small mention and merge into synapse? Otherwise speedy delete, already transwikied and clearly not a candidate article title.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, A5. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 10:35, 27 November 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 (G11).--Húsönd 02:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dakak Park Beach Resort

Dakak Park Beach Resort (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Advertisement. -Nv8200p talk 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advert. Hello32020 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant advertisement and no notability. —EdGl 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G11, tagged as such. Blatant promotion, no independant sources, written especially well for an advertisment but not for a Wikipedia article. No evidence of notability. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G11, per Daniel.Bryant. I wish that the article's use of the term "world-class" was also grounds for speedy deletion per WP:VOMIT, but as yet it ain't :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — "room rates, excellent service, and facilities"? Blatant advertising - delete. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 02:36, 27 November 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, redirect "Don't drop the soap" to Prison rape. The phrase and its use as a joke is already mentioned in Prison rape, so I really wouldn't know what to merge. Sandstein 07:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC) -- Amendment: Even the "pick up" version has a fair number of incoming links, so a redirect is probably in order here, too. Sandstein 07:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't pick up the soap

Don't pick up the soap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This phrase only gets 602 Google hits, and most of these relate to the lyrics off an Offspring song - Googling for this phrase minus a phrase from the next line of the song ("someone will be waiting") gets just 216 hits. Maybe this warrants a very brief mention under prison rape, but an entire article? Delete Metro Mover 01:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Don't drop the soap" is more common...
• Delete. This is a sad phrase...fails notability guidelines. Sr13 01:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — No way of verifying, plus it fails notability standards. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to prison rape suffices. hateless 02:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Did the Google search as nominator suggested and agree that the phrase doesn't have a lot of coverage. Googling for "Don't drop the soap" gets over 36,000 hits however and makes the same point. It is a cultural touchstone as uncomfortable as it makes people feel.--Hooperbloob 03:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per above. And seriously, g-hits should not even come into play in this- this phrase has been used in countless movies, books, television shows, etc... It is inherently notable. --- RockMFR 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But even if it is a common phrase, why does it deserve an article outside prison rape? Metro Mover 10:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rename, but merge into Prison Rape - Wrong wording, but it still doesn't deserve a whole article... Spawn Man 08:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename & Merge Per above. John Reaves 09:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move and merge per above reasonings. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and merge to Prison rape. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 10:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The phrase "don't drop the soap" may have been used countless times, but this is a completely different phrase. Since it is so obscure it doesn't even warrent mention in prison rape. Koweja 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't merit a whole article, per nom, and not the more common phrasing, so not worth a redirect. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very well known expression, film made about the topic and a very important concept regarding prison rape. It sure merits a whole article and should be kept there Terveetkadet
• Rename and merge with Prison rape, as per above. Kingfox 19:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just a phrase. Hardly anyone will search it while looking for prison rape Mukadderat 01:50, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hourglass ministries

Hourglass ministries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Vanity -Nv8200p talk 01:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please refrain from using "vanity" in AFD discussions. Instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. Jpeob 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —EdGl 01:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails music notability guidelines. Sr13 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 21 ghits outside of Wikipedia and myspace. Unverifiable. MER-C 03:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just for the fact that everyone in this band is named Jason--Dmz5 06:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Purely local band, Does not pass WP:MUS. Ohconfucius 01:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:42, 2 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 by Viridae as reposted deleted material. --NMChico24 06:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWOL (Machinma

AWOL (Machinma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Questionable notability, possibly fails WP:V. ghits: [2] & [3] & [4] & [5] --NMChico24 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Apart from the fact that Machinima is misspelled and that a closing bracket is missing, this article has all the hallmarks of a deletable article. Especially the second Google link is telling. Sounds completely unverifiable to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons above. While I'm sure these characters would make a simply fascinating work of machinima, the original editor of the article could at least take the time to make the film before submitting the article to Wikipedia. --Dachannien 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a notepad for scribbling down cool ideas for your machinima project. Lack of xlinks and utter lack of any google hits seems damning. Welcome back when and if this is actually done, released, and proven famous. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please note this appears to be a repost, only with the name spelled differently (and incorrectly). Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awol (machinima). Went ahead and tagged it. --NMChico24 04:16, 1 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 —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LG Powercom

LG Powercom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non notable companys. Avdwez 01:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it is notable. It doesn't help that your only edits are nominating this for deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:26, 27 November 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 - Yomangani^talk 20:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathias holzner

Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. —EdGl 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Non-notable drummer. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 02:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable, check 76 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. At least part of the article can be verified (be it in Dutch) through this link. My keep is weak because precious little other sources can be found, but since Drums United toured the Netherlands, being part of that appears borderline notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep those parts that are verifiable. Trollderella 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:Bio, and is an example of Geogre's Law. Even if Drums United passes notability, it is by no means clear that individual members would become notable. --TheOtherBob 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN and, I suspect, CofI. WMMartin 15:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the Trollderella. Sharkface217 03:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. no reputable references Mukadderat 01:54, 3 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 all. Sandstein 10:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anton Productions

Anton Productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article provides no sources other than the company's own website. As such, this article fails WP:V through WP:RS, as a company cannot be the sole source of information about itself. Incidentally, even were this not a WP:V issue, it would certainly not be WP:NPOV, as a company cannot be a neutral party in reporting upon itself. Since this article does not attest to Anton Productions' presence on any ranking indices or use in calculating stock market indices, it also fails WP:CORP. The primary contributor to this article is User:Dickdarkly, is, as the article attests, the webmaster for the site in question. His involvement is thus a Conflict of Interest.

This is my first deletion nomination, so I apologize for any procedural errors I might have made.

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion, following the recommendation of WP:AFD as regards bundling: "An article about a company/organization and a second article about its founder, who has done nothing else of note."

• Dick Darkly
• J. Anton

Geuiwogbil 01:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all failed guidelines listed above. Sr13 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Delete per nominator, conflict of interest. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep of Anton Productions, which employs at least five actresses that Wikipedia considers notable. Delete Dick Darkly and J. Anton, which contain no information not found in Anton Productions. The article appears NPOV and I am not too worried about conflict of interest issues, although a template may be appropriate. --Hyperbole 03:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Hyperbole. Trollderella 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB criteria. Merely employing people that meet WP:BIO doesn't make a strong case for keeping this article.--Isotope23 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• My opinion goes for the founders too, who don't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is possible for someone to write neutrally about themselves, if difficult. This could also be neutralized by other people contributing to it. However, Delete since NN and NV. 170.215.83.4 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is possible, but to do so requires (as per User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you) multiple non-trivial sources independent of the subject, and thus for the primary notability criterion (of both WP:CORP and WP:BIO) to be satisfied. If the primary notability criterion isn't satisfied, then it isn't possible. And to show that it is possible, one needs to cite sources to show that the PNC is satisfied. Uncle G 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it doesn't meet WP:CORP --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus 00:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WMMartin 15:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Delete the related articles too. WMMartin 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Hyperbole. Sharkface217 03:44, 2 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 merge to List of Native American musicians which all are invited to do. Sandstein 10:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official native american musicians

Official native american musicians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Listcruft and undeserving of an article. Category:Native American musicians suffices. —EdGl 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is already a category based on Native american musicians. Sr13 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge per SR13 and Hyperbole. POV fork of the category list. Chubbles 02:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any non-duplicative information into List of Native American musicians. A list and a category can and often do co-exist, but the list of Native American musicians already exists. --Hyperbole 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Hyperbole. Danny Lilithborne 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm tempted to keep because List of Native American musicians is sometimes flooded with people who maybe have a grandfather who said he was Native American. The issue of ethnic impostors among American Indians is rather large, although possibly a subsection of List of Native American musicians could be created for those who can prove/confirm their status.--T. Anthony 04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Except that would be a POV fork. Bad idea. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I suppose it would. Whenever I do religious lists I often am pressured into confirming their religiosity in strict terms, but any alleged ethnicity doesn't need to be confirmed in anyway as questioning that is offensively POV. Oh well the game works as it works, I try not to think about logic to it as I once did.--T. Anthony 05:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to respond to what I think your point was. If it's irrelevant, ignore me.
  • The issue I have is not with people faking Native American heritage. They simply should not be in the list. People would shove into your section people who have confirmed Native American heritage, but who they feel do not have enough. That is POV, and it can be solved by just not including people with unsourced heritage. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh I see. I agree with that. The original list is a bit better than it once was, but yeah just avoiding having any fakes would be enough. A subsection like I whimsically suggested would be disruptive. Although possibly additional information on ancestry in the list could be acceptable. (Like if it's a parent, grandparent, great-great grandparent, etc)--T. Anthony 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What a stupid idea for an article, and its barely literate. The Crying Orc 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (and redirect). Why doesn't the list we already have require the evidence mentioned in this one? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - into the existing category --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per earlier comments. Then write to Congress complaining about any law that differentiates between people on the basis of ethnicity. Existing truth-in-advertising laws would work just as well, surely ( possibly with some minor tinkering ). Bad enough that some ghastly people discriminate against their fellow men on the basis of where their great-great-grandfathers were born, without this kind of stuff. WMMartin 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse rant ! WMMartin 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge per above. Sharkface217 03:45, 2 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 WP:SNOWballing this closed. --humblefool® 04:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piracetamol

Piracetamol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It seems obvious to me that this article is a hoax, with the title being a play on paracetamol (acetaminophen). There are Google results for it, though, and I wasn't sure it fit into speedy or prod anyway. The Google results seem to be a few misspellings of paracetamol, and a few dozen Czech and Polish pages that I can't read but that seem to say that piracetamol is an alternate name for piracetam there... possibly, heh. Galaxiaad 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Any drug that's used to "...induce and/or decrease the amount of thoughts of piracy going through a subjects head." for it's sheer strangeness, by the subject of, and hence should cite a load of, legitimate medical/scientific/other literature. 68.39.174.238 02:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as WP:HOAX. CSD G1. The idea of a drug that causes people to think about pirates is ludicrous. --Hyperbole 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Hyperbole. Sr13 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Sorry, I'm not good at being clear. I don't actually think it's a legitimate drug that induces thoughts of piracy... however, CSD G1 specifically excludes hoaxes, and this is definitely a hoax and not incoherent. (Then again, I don't spend any time at AfD so maybe things like this are speedied anyway, and I just don't know.) Also, I was wondering if it is a legitimate alternate name for piracetam... I just noticed in the history that it redirected to piracetam briefly. Should it be a redirect? --Galaxiaad 03:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsensical hoax. So tagged. MER-C 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax, concur. In addition to indicia above, the two accounts that created the article have no other non-vandalistic edits, never a good sign. Newyorkbrad 04:32, 27 November 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. --bainer (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DM Ashura

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]}}

DM Ashura is a Bemani fan known for making remixes of songs. A few of his songs are now in DDR, but I don't think that makes him "notable". In any case, unless Konami included a short bio in the Ultramix 4 booklet, I don't think anything but the fact that he made these songs is verifiable. --SPUI (T - C) 02:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: After discussion with the creator of the page and some improvement, I think the page is looking better. Moogy^(talk) 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP:MUSIC A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  5. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.). <---02Jam and Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix 4.
  9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. <---Broadjam Contest mentioned on the page. MarsPhoenix 02:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Dance Dance Revolution ULTRAMIX 4. Googling DM Ashura, as far as I can tell, turns up only one verifiable fact about DM Ashura: that he has a song on DDR Ultramix 4. That fact does not merit an entire article, and is expressed just fine in the DDR Ultramix 4 page. --Hyperbole 02:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Googling "Bill Shillito" comes up with a few more verifiable facts. I already added one source from that search to the page. Pumeleon 08:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment Search for the BroadJam and 02Jam stuff. It's there. MarsPhoenix 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Go here for proof of my song in O2Jam, please note the DTX information is outdated though. Go here for proof of the Broadjam contest. Also, is an artist's official webpage reliable as a source for notability? Bill Shillito 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• 'Fraid not, Bill, because it doesn't represent an independent (i.e. unconnected to the subject of the article) source. For more info on what would work, see WP:V and WP:RS. The problem is, the only place your music is really mentioned in significant sources of any kind is just mentions that it's appeared in these two music games, which is not really enough for an article. (And to User:MarsPhoenix, the line in WP:MUSIC about appearing in multiple non-trivial published works is referring to being mentioned in something like a newspaper article, not having their own work released in a game or on an album). Unfortunately, I'm not sure if even the BroadJam piece qualifies, because as it stands I can't actually find much evidence for notability of BroadJam itself (it doesn't even have its own article yet, but I'm not dismissing the possibility that the notability is there but no-one's written the article yet). Confusing Manifestation 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• My argument as for the "major"ness of the music contest is that the winners were featured in what is possibly the most well-known and best-selling music game franchise in the world. Here's another link to the contest from a Konami page: DDR Contest As for appearing in music games, is there a number of music games that would be "enough" for an article, considering some other artists in the "Bemani music" category? Bill Shillito 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment Third party sources indicating notability, in this case, need to be something other than your own creation (a personal website), a DDR official, or Konami feature. If you had a Third Party, by that criteria, review, award, or mention of another reputable or notable source then that would satisfy the requirements. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• comment for the time being I am going to abstain from voting, until more arguments are made and I have a chance to research more. [6] is approaching the type of material needed, but the IGN article itself does nothing to attest to you or your song's notability. Something indicating your material's uniqueness or importance would do nicely, however. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Comparing this to other articles on Bemani artists, this one seems to have even more information than most, though more sources couldn't hurt. What keeps this from being a weak keep or neutral is the fact that this was put up on AfD very shortly after its creation leads me to question the faith of the nominator, who is a fairly well-known troll in the Bemani community, and has a very long history of bad faith actions here. As for the sources, the Broadjam page linked to on the article does refer to the song and the artist in question, and the artist is not a Konami employee, so the reference would be third-party. --Coredesat 16:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - fan known for making remixes of songs, has a song on DDR. Trollderella 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable individual beyond possibly needing a one sentence ref in DDR. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment He's a liscensed artist, he can't be stuck into Ultramix 4 page. He's going to be releasing an album in less than a month, so what would be the point of deleting it only to reopen it in a matter of days? Not to mention that he's notable by those WP rules. MarsPhoenix 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Meets notability criteria. I suggest we merely add sources. Pumeleon 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [Forgot to sign after login]
• Redirect per Hyperbole; nn. Eusebeus 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why redirect him to Ultramix 4 page? There are no other artists on there, plus he's a lisenced artist. MarsPhoenix 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think the notability of this artist has been proven, what with his work being featured in 4 published games, and a CD due out next month. We may need some sources to satisfy the credibility of the article, but this isn't anything that won't be handled soon enough. DarkProdigy 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm leaning towards keep. The fan-done-good angle is probably sufficient notability in itself. Potential shortness of the article is a worry but that can be debated at a later date. Definitely wouldn't back a delete at this stage. Sockatume 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  Delete. Alas it seems there isn't any citable stuff out there on the "fan-done-good" angle, so that basis for a keep doesn't hold water. Sockatume 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per MarsPhoenix. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MarsPhoenix and Coredesat. Very notable if you actually think about it. ~ EdBoy^[p]\_[m]/^[c] 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Kind of a weak delete. Lots of other Bemani artists don't have dedicated articles, especially in the cases where a particular artist only has a couple of songs in a game. I'll concede that the "fan done good" angle is a potential reason to keep it around. At the very least, the unverified (and likely unverifiable) research and obvious vanity bio should be removed or revised.Drano 14:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge unless if you can write more than five reliably sourced sentences about him. Ashibaka tock 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Done. Most of the article is sourced. Pumeleon 09:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article contains much more information than many other Bemani artists, and as Pumeleon has said earlier, it meets the notability criteria. Just add a few sources and it will be fine. Also, to add onto this, keep per The Pokémon Test. DM Ashura is, in the eyes of many, more notable a Bemani artist than many others. The page should stay on this note alone.Bkid 11:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The article contains much more "information" (read: arguably unnecessary biographical stuff) than other Bemani artist articles, but it's not like there are any sources for most of it. If the article is going to stay, the unverifiable stuff definitely needs to be dumped. Drano 09:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Question - is it the fact that he's been licensed for DDR specifically that's making him "notable", or that he's been licensed for a rhythm game? If the latter, I'm going to write arch0wl - he has songs in O2Jam too. --SPUI (T - C) 15:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. First, please bold your first word so everything is easier to read. Thanks. :) Now to answer your question: He's "notable" because, minus any Bemani connections, he is still a up and coming musician that is very well known (although mostly just throughout the Bemani community). His success may spread later so that he is well known thoughout any music community, but we can't tell the future, now can we? So are you saying let's not give him a page until he's "really really really" famous? And who decides when that is? Bkid 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going into academic research, I could be really famous some day. Do I get an article? As for "who decides when he is": usually the measure is whether the press have said enough about someone to write a decent encyclopedia article about them. Sockatume 01:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But have you done any big research yet? DM Ashura has made plenty, and I mean PLENTY of songs already. His talent is pretty obvious to me. MarsPhoenix 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with talent. I don't think anyone would consider that a reason to keep an article around. Drano 09:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You just argued "His success may spread later so that he is well known throughout any music community.". As I say, this is not a valid argument. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sockatume 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A redirect here doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, as others have noted. One, there aren't any other artists mentioned on the pages suggested to redirect to, and two, such a redirect seems out of place—I know it has been suggested in past AfDs for Rob Levin, which was thought to be unreasonable by Jimbo and others. This isn't the same situation at all, but the point remains that a redirect doesn't seem to be a good solution. I think Coredesat and MarsPhoenix said everything else very well. In repsonse to SPUI, keeping in mind WP:POINT, creating another article "because DM Ashura exists" doesn't seem to be very sound reasoning.

Note, the previous comment was added by me, although I forgot to sign it and log in. Oops. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 03:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Additional information now added about inclusion in V-Rares, which are Konami's promotional CD's they release for each Bemani game. Bill Shillito 09:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Smells too much of OR to me, and when I try Google I get either (a) Wikipedia and clones, (b) chat from assorted fans on assorted NN boards, or (c) stuff from DM Ashura himself. Show us real notability in the form of clear references outside "captured" media, and I'll vote the other way. WMMartin 16:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "captured" media? Bill Shillito 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment Original research with six seven references on a one-page article. What, precisely, qualifies as OR in your view? There is very little here that is not backed up by another source. There is very little new knowledge. The only thing that qualifies would be the album's listing. But that's going to be rectified after the site update on dmashura.com. Pumeleon 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment DMAshura recently contacted me to discuss his case. He's got some pertinent points to make, but felt uncomfortable adding them to the deletion debate on his own article, so I'll be summarising and presenting them on his behalf.Sockatume 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1) This is a notability-based discussion. DMAshura asserts he has notability at least equal to Konami's in-house DDR composers, who have their own (significantly stubbier) biographies on the Wikipedia. Therefore, unless the AfD is expanded to encompass those articles, his own should not be deleted. As evidence: He is one of four artists to win a Konami-organised competition to have his work included in a DDR title.[7] [8] [9]. He is the only one of the four comissioned by Konami to provide additional material the game, beyond his competition entry. He is also the only one of the four to have his work included in Konami's "V-Rare" CDs, produced to promote upcoming DDR releases.[10] [11]

2) DMAshura's case for notability is not limited to his work on DDR, specifically he has provided music for O2Jam. [12] The producers of O2Jam assert that he is notable in the "beat game" (music game) community. [13]

3) Argument against merging. Given the lengths of the discographies of the various artists, merging the biographies into a list article would be unwieldy.

Strong Keep per all above points. Sharkface217 03:45, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emularena Grounds Server

Emularena Grounds Server (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Notability is the issue here, WP:WEB appears to be the applicable guideline and despite the claims of up to 100's of users at a time, it doesn't pass any criteria on WP:WEB. Also appears to have conflict of interest issues. hateless 02:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Sonicstadium.org does not pass WP:WEB, and a splinter group of disaffected N64 users from that site's forums most certainly does not. --Hyperbole 02:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Game servers are non-notable. MER-C 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 100s of users at one time is not all that awe-inspiring. The "We were kicked out" line says enough. This is clearly not encyclopedic or neutral. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - on grounds of notability. Also it is rather "essayish" --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:45, 2 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 Spiegel & Myrmel, Keep Cytter. I'm also closing the other AfD for Cytter now. ~ trialsanderrors 09:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anat Spiegel

Anat Spiegel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thomas Myrmel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Keren cytter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There's several interrelated articles here, the notability of which is in question. Anat Spiegel was created by User:Tmyrm, who is likely to be the Thomas Myrmel listed as one of her collaborators. The Thomas Myrmel article, in turn, was created by User:Keren cytter (later edited by Tmyrm), who is likely to be the subject of the article Keren cytter also created by Tmyrm. This article is linked to by both Thomas Myrmel and Anat Spiegel, but none have any incoming links besides the other two, making this a walled garden of sorts. All three articles are written in an unencyclopedic and somewhat promotional/'artsy' tone, though the assertions they contain, if true, sound at least marginally notable. Nevertheless there appears to be some tit-for-tat self-promotion involved. Opabinia regalis 03:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all - it's rare to see vanity articles that don't even bother to assert some kind of even tentative notability--Dmz5 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. I suspect all three users are the same person, due to similarities in writing style ... MER-C 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spiegel and Myrmel as quasi-walled garden, without sourced notabiliy; no vote on cytter: her article asserts notability, and extends outside the garden. -- Simon Cursitor 14:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spiegel and Myrmel Weak Keep and Rename cytter to Cytter. No sources for the former - non notable. Cytter is mention on the outside web site to have won a CHR25K Baloise prize. That is probably notable. The article needs clean up. The source shows her called Cytter so I see no reason to not capitalise.Obina 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cytter. Keren Cytter is the only notable one amongst them from the information available. The information in the article largely checks out, and now referenced up. She has exhibited widely in Europe these last 2 years, and has won a significant prize. Spiegel and Myrmel (who, incidentally, are married to each other), however, appear to be below the waterline of WP:BIO. "Thomas Myrmel" scores 49 unique Ghits, most of which are in dutch. Of those which are not, there are the odd blog articles and photos which the subject has posted, and a small handful of performance listings in czech. Myrmel + voisin scores 19 unique Ghits, and most appear to be event listings, principally from 2 websites. Spiegel scores 45 unique Ghits, all of which in dutch, Khadish + MTV scores 12 unique Ghits, all of which in dutch, so unless any nethelanders amongst you who can help verify these, I support Delete of Spiegel and Myrmel. Ohconfucius 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keren Cytter. Per references provided, multiple showings internationally, satifies the artists part of WP:BIO. Delete (but don't salt) the other two. --Oakshade 06:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the reasons for calling this non-notable are worded as if this was a personal vendetta Alf photoman 16:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spiegel, NN. Delete Myrmel, NN. Keep Cytter, looks like there's enough to support notability. Obviously don't salt the other two - looks like they've got the ambition to make it back in here on their own merits in time ! WMMartin 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Sharkface217 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spiegel, NN. Delete Myrmel, NN. Keep Cytter Mukadderat 01:56, 3 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 redirect to Biffy Clyro, no consensus for deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzle (album)

Puzzle (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be crystal-balling, with no reliable sources. Also, there's much more information on this album on the band's main article. I suggest a delete, then a redirect to Biffy Clyro. Also, the prod tag was removed by the author. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Assuming the band is notable, and I see no reason to think not, there's good reason to assume it will exist soon enough. Deleting it now makes resurrection later just that little bit harder. I recommend an immediate redirect without deletion and I would consider protecting the redirect until the album is released. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm. WMMartin 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm. Sharkface217 03:47, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirtfedd

Dirtfedd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This was nominated for speedy deletion, but the claim of a national tour gave me pause, since I know nothing about modern music. However, article reads like vanity, so I'll go delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There's nothing in this article that suggests that this band meets WP:MUSIC, and a low number of Google results ([14]) seems to confirm that Dirtfedd don't make it over the notability bar. --Hyperbole 07:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. From the New Music Network (listed as a source): "Clear Channel has partnered with GarageBand to showcase the best undiscovered talent on our radio station websites."[15] - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - First of all, this isn't vanity, and I don't know how exactly it "reads like vanity". I'm not a member of the band, nor am I in any way associated with the band. As I've pointed out on the talk page, I find that this article meets number 7 under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" on WP:BAND. All of the information in the article has been sourced. While I understand that they may be perceived as a small and unsigned band, and therefore causes some to believe that this is in fact a vanity page, this is not the case. I put a lot of work into this one. Hopefully it won't be deleted, but I'm afraid that it will be. --emc! ╬ ^{(t a l k)} 21:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Number 7 states: Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Where is your verifiable evidence that a small unsigned band has become the most prominent representative of a notable style? IrishGuy ^talk 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable unsigned band. IrishGuy ^talk 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks NN to me. WMMartin 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Google hits. Sharkface217 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that the vast majority of google hits are MySpace and various other blogs, how is google hits a criteria of WP:BAND? IrishGuy ^talk 05:36, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Djuan Edgerton

Djuan Edgerton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable biography. Leading page on a Google search is Wikipedia. Heavily biased. Only written by one user. Nameneko 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 23 non-wiki ghits. Severe verifiability concerns. MER-C 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-you know you're in trouble when a lot of space is devoted to the subject's more-famous high school classmates and people on the guest lists of his parties.--Dmz5 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; please try using proposed deletion for such articles next time, before nominating for AfD. Kimchi.sg 06:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like vanispam... to me. NN. WMMartin 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, unsourced, and of no interest or importance. DrKiernan 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:48, 2 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 - Nomination withdrawn with no delete votes. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 Shot Screamers

7 Shot Screamers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NN band, has been {{db}}'ed, then removed, then {{hangon}} was used, then {{prod}}, then prod removed. Originally, was only noted with a myspace account. — Deon555^talk 04:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Deserves to stay - Sorry about my growing pains trying to write this article, but as a regular reader of Wikipedia, I felt there should be an article for the 7 Shot Screamers.
  This band is notable through the 3 studio albums this band has released, all of which are around 40 minutes long. They have been reported in The Riverfront Times, The St. Louis Post Dispatch, and many others as seen on their bio on Big Muddy Records. They've won the award for best garage/rockabilly act of 2006 in the riverfront times. It's not a huge award, but it's something. This band has toured the United States twice, with a third one pending. They've received praise from notable musicians. They are the representative group of the St. Louis local music scene hands down. This sounds fanboyish, but their latest single "In Saint Lou" should be on the radio.
  The 7 Shot Screamers don't have nearly the recognition they deserve. I want an article on Wikipedia about them to document their history and be a source of information for people to discover them. Someday these guys may be stars, but even if they never are, they are an important part of rock and roll history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lurcho (talk • contribs).
• Keep appears to meet WP:MUSIC - two provided articles on the band from major newspapers, appears to have been on national tours. Might be skimming the notability line, but good enough for me. Resolute 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:MUSIC and is pretty well sourced at this point. Note: This article is a perfect caveat for how to treat new articles. Improve, don't delete. And speedy deleting can be a form of biting the newbies. Chubbles 07:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment EXACTLY! It's so frustrating to work with threats of speedy deletion looming overhead. --~Hasta luego 07:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to meet WP:MUSIC to me, well-referenced article. --Canley 09:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Some of the external links need to become sources, but current sourcing is sufficient in my opinion to establish the required notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - overzealous deletion almost removed this verifiable information! Trollderella 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Funny, because I wanted to quit the first time this article was deleted. I'm too stubborn to let it go.--~Hasta luego 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep at best. There's more to the article since I initially tagged it for deletion, but there's very little evidence of notability, outside of a tiny sphere of influence. - Tiswas^(t/c) 12:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment--I hate to be a dick, but I want this arguement to stop coming up in the future.
• Keep Worthy of inclusion based on newspaper reviews and concert performances. Linuxaurus 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:MUSIC, the 7 Shot Screamers are notable based on the following criteria:

3) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2] --They've toured the United States.

4) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). --They've released 3 studio albums. "Keep The Flame Alive" was released on Haunted Town Records, which distributes many Midwest punk bands' music. "7 Shot Screamers In Wonderland" was released on Big Muddy Records which, although young, is responsible for the music of the local St. Louis music scene.

5) Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.). --They've been featured in the Riverfront Times, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and the Daily Eastern News

7) Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. --Self-explanatory

8) Has won or placed in a major music competition. --Won best rockabilly/garage act of 2006 in the Riverfront Times. Not a huge award, but these "best of" awards recognize St. Louis culture's outstanding contributors.

So that's five criteria out of twelve, and it needs only one. --~Hasta luego 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Something must have changed since this was nominated, because the article I'm looking at definitely meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. RFerreira 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment from nom: definetly changed since I tagged it, If possible, an admin can speedy close this, as they're all keeps — Deon555^talk_desk 04:51, 30 November 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, allow recreation. It would not be out of the realm of possibilities to delete this under G11. - crz crztalk 17:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifty-One Entertainment

Fifty-One Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable organization. Google searches for "Djuan Edgerton", "Tracy Childress", "51 Entertainment", and "Fifty-One Entertainment" bring up nothing relevant. Sounds like the article is selling the company and flaunting its accomplishments more than anything. Nameneko 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be supported by Young Buck according to external link. Needs some treatment to get rid of POV, but pretty much salvagable. Should perhaps be renamed to focus on the mentioned event instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no good reason for deletion listed. This is verifable. Trollderella 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a felicitous combination of WP:SPAM, WP:VAIN, which manages to fail WP:CORP, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Article is nothing more than a copy-and-pasted press release right now but there are hints of notability. Rewrite, move, or merge as per MGM's suggestion. Sockatume 05:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks NN to me. WMMartin 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above points. Sharkface217 03:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, allow recreation - the current text is utter spam, but there has been notability expressed. Rather than having a slightly-modified press release, let someone right a NPOV article from scratch. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 19:49, 2 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakes United

Lakes United (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable club that does not assert its importance. No assertion of professionalism, apparently third tier in the Australian rugby league system. No sources cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The third tier in the Australian RL system is pretty much local league teams, which seems to run against any real form of notability. Local significance, definitely, but not anything more. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Following Capitalistroadster's work in establishing notability, I'll change my position to a keep, as they're more notable than most clubs at that same level (I'm not a big RL fan, which explains my initial leanings, but I can count two notable players I've heard of and one probably-notable one I haven't heard of). I'd say, though, that this club is probably going to be the exception rather than the rule where articles on clubs at this level are concerned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. They are a significant team - the Newcastle local rugby league competition was third in significance after Sydney and Brisbane in the days before a national rugby league competition in 1988 (admittedly a long way behind) . They have had players make representative teams in rugby league such as NSW Country. Paul Harragon, an Australian player played for them [16] as did Australian player Brett Kimmorley. A Google News archive search comes up with 59 hits. [17]. If necessary, I would vote to merge with Newcastle Rugby League but Lakes United are significant enough to warrant a standalone article. An equivalent UK soccer club to Lakes United would have an article. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Part of why I put this article up for deletion is that there's nothing in Wikipedia to explain the hierarchy. The Newcastle Rugby League article does not explain its position in the hierarchy; I wound up guessing based on the Australian rugby league infobox at the bottom of the NRL article. Because the article did not assert the club's notability, the default is non-notability, and that's why I went to AfD with it. I couldn't find anything useful in a Google search, either. Also, with regard to UK football, note that the first 10 levels of the UK football system are explicitly defined as notable in WP:COMPANY, while no other leagues are so defined. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This side is probably equivalent to a second or third division side in the UK soccer competition. I will work on the article later. It recently had four players that played in a Newcastle representative side against Great Britain. Allan Thomson played for Lakes United in the 1960s while playing for NSW and Australia. The hierarchy is that it is part of the Newcastle rugby league which in turn is part of the Country Rugby League and the NSW Rugby League. Capitalistroadster 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you for putting the club into context! That is my point, that the article doesn't establish that kind of context about where the club fits in the ladder. I'm going to ask two more pointed questions: are most/all of the players on the club paid to play (professionals)? Does the winner of the Newcastle Rugby League go into a knock-out tournament which ultimately crowns the champion of the NSW Rugby League? If either of those statements are true, I'm willing to accept that the club is notable, equivalent to other clubs elsewhere in the globe, and should have an article in the Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster.Sharkface217 03:50, 2 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, the existence of another article on a related subject is not a reason to keep this one, or evidence that we're biased in favor of the other. Opabinia regalis 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wssecure

Wssecure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Only 158 Google hits ^{[Check Google hits]}, most of which seem to be rather trivial links from other pages or listings at download sites. Several different anons and apparent single purpose accounts have been created to get first an external link, then a wikilink, to info about this software in Spyware. They are constantly reverted without explanation as to why this is important, often from a new account. For this reason I do not consider this article to have been created in good faith. Daniel Case 04:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Programs like HijackThis are still promoted by sites like download.com and through mass advertisements. But other free software that may not have thousands of Google hits, also need attention so that they can be useful to the general public. Wikipedia doesn't deserve to be thought as anything useful and is only meant for advertisements of commercial software. FSF is much better. - Fsf 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of software at all. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and it keeps articles of commercial software like HijackThis that claim to be from trusted sources. Well, all Wikipedians are retarded and they and the Wikipedia are not worth the trouble.

Fsf 10:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I think this will persuade Fsf to come back, and/or change his/her mind, but HijackThis is here because it's not only popular but notable. People post logs from it all the time on discussion fora to help diagnose malware infections and get knowledgeable help. Whereas I don't see anything similar for this.

Hope you consider visiting the project pages before giving any negative remarks about the usefulness of the product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

I didn't make any negative remarks about the product. I just said an article about it wasn't justified at this point in time.

And when it comes to negative remarks. I would suggest anyone who says we're all retards is hardly in a position to cast stones. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And, as always, saying "this needs attention" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia and pretty much guarantees the article will be deleted. Daniel Case 15:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A new program doesnt necessarily mean that it is not notable and programs from a company like DivX are always trusted. Anyways ,.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

True, we have plenty of articles about, say, upcoming video games. But they're already the subject of non-trivial news coverage before being released.

• Delete. It's a substub and there are no verifiable third party sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• An article called Spyware Doctor is there which is commercial $29.95 per year but Wikipedia deletes free software. This is really a shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

Fsf 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SOFTWARE and WP:NOT? We're not discriminating against free software. This article was posted as a promotional effort which is not what Wikipedia is for and it lacks the basic information to be called an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The article was categorized as a Wikipedia:Stub and therefore it might lack information to be called an article from the definition of Stubs. The article was originally created in an attempt not to promote anything but to let users know about it only through which it can be useful to the general public. It does not redirect users to pages that have ads or any commercial website like in Spyware Doctor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

The Spyware Doctor page does not "redirect" users to a commercial page, either. It merely provides an external link to it should readers wish to download it. Daniel Case 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"The article was originally created in an attempt not to promote anything but to let users know about it". And you call us retards? Just because you're not selling it doesn't mean you weren't trying to direct traffic to the page so people can download it. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, we already have tons of articles on free software. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hope you consider visiting the project pages before giving any negative remarks about the usefulness of the product. You can compare it with the commercial Spyware Doctor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

Again, you're asking people to compare it to a commercial product. And you say you're not promoting it. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant that commercial products like Spyware Doctor are still available on wikipedia.

Fsf 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not available. Wikipedia is not a download site. All we have here are articles about software that's notable for one reason or another. No executables for download. Daniel Case 13:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like you've already got what you want at softpedia.com. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a different program.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

Then it's even less notable. Daniel Case 13:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:SPAM covers this one. Delete B.Wind 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising, also because no notability is claimed or apparent. Sandstein 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant that commercial products like Spyware Doctor are still available on wikipedia. But you can delete it.

• Delete

Fsf 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This looks like a legit program. http://wssecure.sourceforge.net—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiyo o (talk • contribs).

This is only the second edit from this account, ever. Daniel Case 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Sharkface217 03:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. –– 30sman 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable software. Mukadderat 02:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Registered on sourceforge 2006-11-06. NN --Karnesky 21:14, 3 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 since the proposed merger target, List of minor characters in Oz, does not exist. If anyone wants to create it, the text of this deleted article is available on request. Sandstein 10:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jorge Vasquez

Jorge Vasquez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Minor character in TV series. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are 94 articles in the category Category:Prisoners of Oz (TV series), and, additionally, the list Characters of Oz (which should probably be renamed). Generally, the way Wikipedia handles TV shows is to allow and categorize separate articles for major characters, and to have a single article like List of minor characters in Oz. It's going to take a lot more than a single AfD to determine which articles should stand alone and which should be merged into the minor-character list. There doesn't seem to be a WikiProject set up for this show; Wikipedia:WikiProject_Oz deals with the "Wizard of Oz" universe. --Hyperbole 07:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list of characters or if that cannot be created, delete. Too minor for own page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge into minor character list - I was ready to opt for keep until I noticed that the article isn't linked from Oz (TV series). While minor characters in other series (like South Park, EastEnders, and 24) often have their own articles, the process usually involves splitting the article off of a list when the list gets too unwieldy. This is not really at a list stage yet. B.Wind 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per B.Wind.Sharkface217 03:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• As suggested above, merge in a List of minor characters in Oz, otherwise delete. The article is not cited from very relevant sources such as Oz (TV series) or Characters of Oz -- dockingman^talk 05:23, 2 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. The consensus was not very clear, but WP:V takes precedence. We have no source at all for any of this content, not even for the existence of this person. Sandstein 10:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell Gourley

Mitchell Gourley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article has no significance, it is about a young person who is yet to become notabable. Based on things such as 'believes in the simpsons' (all in lower case) it is obvious that it lacks. Can we put the image up for deletion as well? I believe this person is not notable enough to belong on Wikipedia. themit 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 41 non-wiki ghits, verifiability problems. MER-C 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - article does not make an adequate assertion of notability. --Hyperbole 07:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The Olympics are still crystal ballery, but the NorAm series of Ski Races appears to be notable (why else would a Paralympic Bronze medalist join the team?). I'm leaning towards a keep if sources can be tracked down. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A bronze medalist joined the team meaning that the bronze medalist should be noted, not the others. If you take a look at the article's history, there was lot of nonsense content at the bottom which I removed. [18]. And another thing, why doesn't Wikipedia have an article about this already? themit 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My point was that if there's a bronze medalist in the team, then it's not your sports equivalent of a garage band. Sports people who join in notable sports events are notable themselves (even if they don't win). - Mgm|^(talk) 19:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per macGyver. Trollderella 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability by association is a poor measure of notability. -- Alan McBeth 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and inherent lack of notability for the moment. Eusebeus 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm.Sharkface217
• Keep. Notability established. Mukadderat 02:16, 3 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. No particular article was specified as a possible merger target, but if anyone wants to merge this content somewhere, it's available on request. Sandstein 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalian Radio and TV Tower

Dalian Radio and TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable broadcasting tower. Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: what makes a tower notable? I think 99% of those in Category:Mast stubs are not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The things listed in WP:NOTE, of course. I think that at least 75% in your category aren't, based on what I've seen. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking forward to seeing it pruned, I feel bad for the two we have singled out :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've prodded a few under 200 m tall with deletion reason "no assertion of notability", but my watchlist is now full. MER-C 06:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I see no good reason to delete this verifiable, useful information. I have literally no idea what you mean by a 'notable' mast, or what relevance it has to AFD. Trollderella 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts. Is it the tallest, oldest, most frequently hit by airplanes. or in other ways notable? The article doesn't say so. So delete it unless it is shown to be worth an article.Edison 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What's special about superlatives? We have articles about all sorts of items that are not the tallest, oldest, most frequently hit by airplanes. This is verifable, factual information of interest to some. No reason to delete it. Trollderella 18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Has it been the subject of multiple independent news stories? How is it of any interest beyond the station owners? Yes, it is needed to get the signal out, but so it the transmitter, and I don;t see articles on individual broadcast transmitters.

• Merge into a list of towers; by nation if necessary. — RJH (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, nn. nn. WP:NOT Eusebeus 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merege. For reasons read the previous discussions on like topics and the consensus to keep these in a list. Vegaswikian 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge per RJH.Sharkface217 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Verifiable landmark. Mukadderat 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you care to provide a source that anybody cares about it as a landmark? Obviously, if there is such a source, it should be kept. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:29, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khan Beshov

Khan Beshov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Seems to fail WP:BIO, largely due to the lack of external coverage. If anything relevant information should be merged into the newspaper in question. Crystallina 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Zero non-wiki ghits. MER-C 06:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Reluctantly, though, since you don't find too many Iranian-Turkmen journalists editing newspapers in Inuktitut. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't we do a search in Arabaic for possible Iranian sources? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It'd have to be in Persian (although using Arabic script, of course}. Nothing in the article seems to point to the fact that he'd have more results in Persian - although his parents might, which is a different case. What might actually work would be a search in Inuktitut. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that his father is notable from Dmitri Beshov. That looks like an even better candidate for deletion than this one. Dekimasu 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that his father was necessarily notable. I was just saying that what we'd be more likely to get from an Arabic-script search would be information on his parents if they were indeed notable, which they appear not to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Actually, I don't feel very strongly about deleting this article, but I was hoping my comment would prompt someone to nominate his father, because that article definitely fails a notability test. Dekimasu 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a closer look at the father and see what I can see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - He may only be a rather minor journalist, but surely there is more information on him than other people (eg. Jake Niall or Csaba Csere). I would be very grateful if you allow the article to stay, and I will attempt to expand it. If you do delete the article, please inform me. Thank you. User_talk:Intergr8 12:00 27 November 2006
• Delete Being a rather minor journalist hardly qualifies him as notable. Best wishes for his further career in Inuktitut and beyond. Stammer 11:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If you are going to delete him, why is no-one deleting the large numbers of other low-brow journalists how have less information that Khan? Surely the article is not affecting anyone in anyway? I can expand it if nessessary—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intergr8 (talk • contribs).
• Weak delete. He may be notable, but the article is not written to emphasize the information that would make him notable. Dekimasu 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Surrender As creater of this article, I am giving up any defence of Khan Beshov, not that my defence would have changed anything anyway Intergr8 09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above point. Sharkface217 03:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Evidently the article is just a biography of a relative, without asserting any notability at all regarding the occupation of the individual in question. Never mind the lack of references, which are nowhere to be found. -- dockingman^talk 04:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an unverifiable, nn bio. Sarah Ewart 09:52, 2 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 as copyvio. Kimchi.sg 06:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcario Garcia

Marcario Garcia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The entire text of this article was copied from: [19] in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. The article was copied without the written permission of the author: Dr. Ricardo Romo, who wrote it for "Discovery" at the University of Austin. I recommand a speedy delete. If deleted I will write an article on the subject within Wikipedia's policy Tony the Marine 06:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article itself, delete the current text, and create new content per Tony the Marine. This doesn't require an AfD; any editor can write new content, and any admin can delete old revisions containing copyvio text. Newyorkbrad 06:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Flagged as copyvio. MER-C 06:29, 27 November 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 NCurse. Srikeit 10:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of games for TI-89

List of games for TI-89 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a compendium of every game anyone decided to program for a calculator. In addition, there is nary a source (WP:RS, WP:V). Crystallina 06:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete due to lack of context. So tagged. MER-C 07:00, 27 November 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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Training Laboratories

National Training Laboratories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-27 07:29Z

• Delete - fails WP:ORG and reads like an advertisement. Jayden54 10:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be mentioned in academic journals[20] and journal collector JSTOR[21]. Has other relevant Google links I didn't check too.[22]. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Keep as modified. I'll trust Dhartung's judgment below on this being a legit topic. My previous commment: "My gut tells me this is the sort of article that can be saved from deletion, but right now, the article merely lifts a chunk of text from the "official website" without providing any substantial NPOV facts. Where do I turn in my Buzzword Bingo card?" --Dachannien 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - edit, and verify. Don't delete. Trollderella 17:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - influential behavioral psychology institute. Needs a proper article. I'll de-copyvio and stub it. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - useful stub now that deserves to be fleshed out. B.Wind 23:27, 27 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online Go Server

Online Go Server (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-27 07:30Z

• Delete - nn game server, crufty, unreferenced. Game servers are non-notable. MER-C 07:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Jayden54 10:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete number of users fails WP:WEB and it's not verifiable to boot. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• References have been added
  • The first two reference links don't work for me. No added information there.-- Ben 17:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You must have an account on the site to view the information. Is there any other way I can prove the information is correct?--Jonpro
• Speedy Delete webspam. All the provided links are to the same place - guess where? B.Wind 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The links are to the same place because that is the only place that has information about the site. This article would provide another such place.--Jonpro 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If the only source of information on the web site is the web site itself, our WP:WEB criteria are not satisfied. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The places for never-before-published documentation of a web site are books, magazine articles, and so forth. Uncle G 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - What part of WP:WEB does this meet, exactly? -- Ben 05:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the user counts were verifiable without an account, all they prove is that the site isn't particularly notable: 100 active users is a long way from significant. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Alright, I agree with everyone. Please excuse the ignorance of a beginner :)--Jonpro 16:36, 28 November 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. DS 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derwent hippo

Apparent hoax - no google hits for "Derwent hippo" that are not wikipedia clones. This page is the only ever edit from page creator - back in March 2006. -- Chuq 07:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified, which seems unlikely. Grutness...wha? 08:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. East river whitefish gets more ghits, and it's on BJAODN. Tubezone 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mentioned source doesn't exist. This sounds suspiciously like the tree stub warthogs I used to see in the woods a few years back... - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V. Jayden54 10:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I lived in Hobart in the late 1980s, used to see these things all the time but never heard the term "Derwent hippos". The scope is too narrow in location and time to be a notable and verifiable slang term, and the phenomenon, while interesting, is surely not isolated to the Derwent only, but most rivers with a pulp or paper mill. --Canley 11:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:06, 27 November 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 merge the most important information to Wikinfo. That would be the lead, as far as I can tell, which I have now merged. Sandstein 11:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GetWiki

GetWiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A prior AfD decision was overturned at DRV and is now back here for reconsideration. Please consult the prior discussions before discussing and closing. Procedural nomination, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - Having read the previous AfD and DRV, it seems the most important argument for its notability is that Wikinfo is using it, so I suggest we merge the most important information of this article into the Wikinfo article and then redirect. It isn't notable enough for its own article. Jayden54 10:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - I have previously argued vehemently for retaining the article and overstepped the line in several ways. Now that I've considered what others have told me, I've decided that consensus is the way to go, and that keeping the essential information but merging it into Wikinfo would achieve that. Later on, should GetWiki get to be used by other notable wikis, we could reconsider this. David Cannon 10:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above, perhaps as a section in MediaWiki entitled "Forks of MediaWiki" or a separate article of the same name. Not notable enough by itself, but definitely deserves a mention. MER-C 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Makes the most sense until the fork has been shown to still be in active development and used in a few other places. metaspheres 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or if you must, Merge and redirect, frankly, having reviewed both the prev. AfD and the deletion review, even a merge smells like rampant systemic bias about a subject that could really only be considered to notable by Wikipedians, but whatcha gonna do? (As for Wikinfo, I've never heard of it, not that that's really relevant, but I think it says something about how much insiders assume importance about Wikimedia-related topics when, I suspect, much of the world has never heard of Wikimedia.) Xtifr _tälk 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above, though this needs a giant chainsaw trim for that. Likely not notable enough for an article of its own. I don't think this warrants more discussion than one or a few paragraphs at most. *sigh* I needed to restore this article's talk page; why everyone neglects the poor widdle talk pages when restoring deleted pages? They're so cute and adorable when they're small. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - my understanding (feel free to correct me) - is that this is the only meaningful fork of MediaWiki that is in use. That in itself is something. BigDT 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment it may be "something", but is it something notable? Is there non-trivial independent coverage by reliable sources? Or is this just something that deserves at most a minor footnote in the articles about MediaWiki and Wikinfo? Frankly, I think this is starting to run afoul of WP:ASR. Although I suppose it might be marginally better than Elephant (wikipedia article) (AfD). (Or not. The Elephant article was better written and better researched than this one, IMO.) Xtifr _tälk 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to ask, what exactly is the story behind "Elephant (wikipedia article)"? The AfD mentions something about Colbert, so did the article have something to do with elephants, or was there something else going on that we should know about?? Seriously. metaspheres 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Basically, it was this: Colbert vandalised Wikipedia on TV. Unluckily, patrollers were awake. Wikipedia reacted by doing usual countervandalism measures. Then, someone created an article about the Wikipedia article and the incident. I think the article was ultimately userfied, I don't know where. I think the whole incident is documented in the Post somewhere, and in some article about Colbert. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BigDT, or merge to Wikinfo perhaps. I just don't see a reason to delete this. RFerreira 02:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Totaly lack of reliable and secondary sources (WP:V,WP:RS) and it fails to meet any guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia:Notability_(software). --Quirex 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge per above points. Sharkface217 03:55, 2 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 all or merge and redirect, see below. Sandstein 11:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill

University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WTVZ Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WPVI-DT/KYW-DT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WBFF Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WGBH/WBZ/WCVB Cluster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sinclair Radio Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

KXAN TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

American Towers Tower Austin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

KVUE TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

KEYE TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

KEYI Radio Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Charlotte Mecklenburg Public Broadcasting Authority (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Brill Media Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

American Towers Tower Philadelphia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nexstar Tower Vidor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

RGV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Buda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hill Tower Cedar Hill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Silver King Broadcasting Tower Hudson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sinclair Media Tower Robertsdale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Little Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nextel South Tower Pendergrass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pinnacle Towers Tower Pendergrass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Journal Broadcast Tower Arkansas City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Gray TV Tower Maple Hill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

ACME TV Tower Madison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

ERF TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Univision Television Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Heritage Broadcasting Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

CBS Tower Escanaba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appleton Tower (mast) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

KLKE TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nebraska Educational Telecommunication Tower Giltner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

MMM Tower Minden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WGHP TV 8 Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

TVL Broadcasting Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Superior OK Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Broken Arrow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Owasso (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WRLH TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WSET Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

American Towers Tower Suffolk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WUXP TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

American Towers Tower Whites Creek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Richland Towers Tower Nashville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Transmitter Nador (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

OMEGA Transmitter Shushi-Wan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

American Towers Tower Newton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Midwest Tower Dolan Springs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Indosiar Television Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm nominating a whole bunch of radio and TV towers that are less that fewer that 400 meters tall. None of the towers that I am nominating are noteable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Note that these articles constitute only a tiny percentage of the articles linked to on List of masts. I tried to pick some of the least noteable entries. Also please note that Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts states "Mast articles should be merged and redirected with this list, unless they contain substantial additional information that does not fit in the list (for instance, Warsaw radio mast)." None of these articles have any substantial additional information.

--Descendall 09:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Week Keep All - per WP:LOCAL--Row97 09:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all into general or regional articles. These look like prime candidates for a table, since there's little to say individually about each. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (and redirect). If the policy says "Mast articles should be merged and redirected with this list, unless they contain substantial additional information that does not fit in the list (for instance, Warsaw radio mast)." Then I don't see what we're doing here. This is for requested moves. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. MER-C 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or, if we can't get rid of them completely, Merge. Let's be clear about this once and for all: things aren't notable simply because they exist, or are over a certain height. WMMartin 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect all, as non-notable local structures. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Merge if necessary, but don't delete useful information just because you are not interested in it. Trollderella 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right that I'm basically not interested in these radio towers, but I did nominate the articles for deletion in good faith. I just don't see any useful information in any of these articles. The most that anyone can say about any of these things is that they exist and they are located at a certain geographic coordinate. --Descendall 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per WMMartin. I see no merit in someone taking a large online database and making an article out of every entry in it. Now we have an article which soon becomes outdated every time a toweris replaced, and which adds nothing beyond what is in the source database. Edison 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all these are already listed at List of masts. Looking through the articles there is little to no worthwhile extra content that justifies a separate article, other than the images; which would make a nice Wikicommons gallery linked to List of masts. I'd be fine with a merge/redirect too if someone wants to undertake this.--Isotope23 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all These are fine on a table per User:Isotope23. This maintains the information for those masses needing mast data. If latitude and longitude is needed, columns should be added to the table.Obina 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Mgm. — RJH (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close as too large of a nomination. Group by state and try again. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all as I don't believe any of the articles contain any important info that isn't already in List of masts. -- Kicking222 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all with List of masts. If latitude/longitude are needed, add them to the table. B.Wind 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all nn broadcast towers. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of broadcast towers. Eusebeus 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all stubs. If anyone is interested in the geographical coordinates, these could be kept in the List of masts article. Otherwise, all info is already present, and no useful additional information is imparted. Ohconfucius 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as suggested by Isotope23 above. The information is available in a much more readily accessable form elsewhere on the Wikipedia.Sockatume 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, no real reason given for deletion, not convinced the towers are not "notable," and the grouping makes it difficult to judge on their own merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment. I disagree with your assertion that they are badly grouped. All the articles are c&p "[Towername] Tower is a [n] meters high guyed TV tower at [City, State, Country] at LONG°" N and LAT°" W. [Towername] Tower was built in [Year].". They are amongst the lowest structures listed in the page List of masts. Out of the list of a thousand, there are nearly 700 masts of under 400m in height. In most of the articles, there is not even the slightest assertion of notability, so this is pure cruft. IMO, they could have been speedied, but at least we're having a debate about it here. Ohconfucius 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Baldy. CraigMonroe 14:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: for the towers that belong to TV stations, merge into the parent station if an article exists on the station. For the University of North Carolina tower, merge into the article on the university. For the Charlotte Mecklenburg Public Broadcasting Authority, rewrite so the article is about the parent organization rather than just the tower. For American Towers articles, create an article about the parent company and merge. For others, merge into the list of towers. 69.140.173.15 15:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They're all landmarks and serve important functions, hence they're notable. --Oakshade 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Municipal watertowers serve as local landmarks and argueably serve in the most important function in the world -- the delivery of water to human beings. Would you advocate including them in Wikipedia? --Descendall 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...you might be onto something. I'll explore this. --Oakshade 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to start with routine streets first. Those are other things that 1) act as landmarks 2) serve and important function and 3) have an enmormous and well-established consensus against them. Out of the 28 people who have worked on this issue, 22 said that these things have to go, and a similar unanimous consenus was reached on one of these articles just a few days ago, but what the heck? --Descendall 08:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per above. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Isotope23. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all per WP:LOCAL to List of masts. Note, this is not a vote to keep. If they are really of local interest, mention in the local article and then link to List of masts. Vegaswikian 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep or Merge per above points. Sharkface217 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: add pictures to all and expand them. I hope, there are some people living in the areas of them, who know more. Structures taller than Eiffel Tower are not worth of being deleted from Wikipedia! ( Lorannus, 2 December 2006)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bio. JDoorjam Talk 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Isaac Conde

Jamie Isaac Conde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prod was contested, so I'm moving this to AfD. Non-notable person, probably vanity. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Being the son of famous parents does not confer notability. Neither does appearing once on a magazine cover. Kimchi.sg 09:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - might deserve mention in e.g. parent's article, but not enough here for individual notability. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Jayden54 10:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with parents. As far as I know that is the common practice with non-notable children. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article dosen't really demonstrate that this person is significant on some way. Atlantis Hawk 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with all above. (Anonymous user) 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.208.231 (talk • contribs).
• 'Delete'Non-notable person vanity entry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.155.1.3 (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 Keep - crz crztalk 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Therianthropy

Therianthropy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails the everything test, WP:OR, WP:RS per WP:V, WP:N, WP:POV, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:NEO, etc. NeoFreak 09:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Additional comments:This article is a neologism of the neologism Otherkin. Therianthropy is a made up word by an internet group as stated in the body of the article: In the early days of the Usenet group alt.horror.werewolves (around 1992), the members discussed fictional shapeshifters. Some users began to publicly claim that they considered themselves to be partially non-human animal. A number were only joking, but enough people were serious about it, and claimed this was their personal understanding and experience of themselves, that it became the subject of ongoing discussion Initially such people called themselves lycanthropes, but as that word more accurately describes wolf-people, therianthropes was chosen as a more general term. At first glance the article seems very legit (the authors have done an excellent job of presentation) and the author even goes so far as to try and apply his neologism in a "Scholarly" context but once you begin to read it the fact that it is a vanity article created by a "community" of people attempting to create a scientific or legit sounding name to their...belief system is rather obvious. There are no reliable sources, no verifiable claims of notability, it is written in a POV tone, and serves as nothing more than a soapbox. A gross (if not attractive) violation of WP:NOT. NeoFreak 09:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that the terms are, while related, not in fact derived from eachother in any way.
• Comment: It was my understanding that the word was not made up by the Usenet furries, but rather just adopted by them. The beginning of the article seems to say that it is a more general term for animal people, encompassing werewolves and such. I'm refraining from voting either keep or delete; The term, subcultural use, and variations thereof are pretty popular on the internet, but I'm not sure how much of the subject would be reported on in verifiable sources, even moreso considering Wikipedia's bias against things having to do with the internet. I agree that the article is in gross need of work and NPOVifying. (edit: additional comment— note that the hugely disproportionate amount of furries on Wikipedia are going to flock to this AfD.) Voretus^talk 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, delete; lack of reliable sources. Voretus^talk 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, therianthropy is a combination of the greek words for beast and man. I can't find any academic use of the term and wikpedia is not a dictionary. There is already a article on shapeshifting. Yes, it is popular on the internet as a neologism. I also have no doubt that this AfD will soon be kneedeep in furrie meatpuppetry but AfDs are not a vote, you have to have a reason besides "fursecution!" or "I like this article". We'll see I suppose. NeoFreak 10:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, assume good faith please. It's disingenuous to declare in advance that if lots of people vote keep it's just because they're meatpuppets; the same sort of claim could just as easily be made about swarms of deletionists who hate interestingcruft to "explain away" large numbers of delete votes should they happen. Or, for that matter, dismissing a section of the article because "The section on "Scholarly use of the term" can only be there to try and help justify or help legitimize the "modern usage" section." (from your comment on the article's talk page) Well, if it does, what of it? Bryan 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You are of course correct, I should assume more good faith and I aplogize if I've offended you. As I'm sure you know if you spend enough time in AfD and you can get a little jaded and cynical about the process' abuse by conflicts of interest. In addition to my personal opinion of the author's motivations I have also justified all my actions through proper process per the guildlines and policy of an AfD nom. NeoFreak 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, you were a bit quick on the trigger with this AfD IMO - you left a comment on talk: just two days prior and hadn't recieved a response. But considering I have on occasion let problems I considered "critical" sit for six months to a year while awaiting a solution we could just be operating on very different perceptual timescales. :) Bryan 05:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm neutral on this article, but I am reasonably certain that I can scrape up an academic use of the term (at least in the derived form "therianthropic") referring to the animal-headed human depictions of Egyptian mythological deities. That aside, there look to be a couple of actual legitimately published books cited as reference (including a Penguin-published work cited regarding development of the term). Is there something I'm overlooking? ... 14 years is plenty of time for a term to stop being a neologism, especially if its seen print via Penguin. Serpent's Choice 11:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Penguin book is about werewolves and has nothing to do with the neologism labeled in the article. The only "reference" citing the article's POV is a fansite. Like I said the term Therianthrophy is a combo of the Greek words for beast and man so if you looked hard enough you can no doubt find it used somewhere outside the furry community but not in the way as defined by the article as a demographic or recognized academic term. NeoFreak 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Amazon seems to list at least one book that directly deals with the topic under this name. An absolutely cursory look at the publisher looks like it might be one step above self-publication, but I'm unsure if this is sufficient to give WP:V weight to the topic. I've got two articles I'm sandboxing at the moment to try to bring through DRV, so I really don't think I've got the time to see if this one's recoverable right now, but there's a start should someone be so inclined.... Serpent's Choice 12:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: of the sources that are cited, I've looked up two. The Magic of Shapeshifting by Rosalyn Greene is quite obviously describing the same subculture that is described for seven pages in "Werewolves" by Daniel Cohen. However, using the Amazon.com "search inside the book" feature yields only two uses of "therianthropy" and one use of "therianthrope" in The Magic of Shapeshifting (it mostly uses "shifter subculture" or "shifters" instead) and the Cohen book doesn't use "therianthropy" or "therianthrope" at all. Some further digging seems to indicate that the terms used by the subculture are wildly various: therian, shifter, were, polywere, therianthrope, theriomorph and so on. I think one difficulty is that "therianthrope" is not now the standard term used by the subculture, and never has been. That's one reason why I put a split template on Therianthropy. Separate the mythology from the subculture, and then let the rest sort itself out. Probably the subculture article will need to have a lot of material deleted if it can't be cited properly, but there's enough published material citing the subculture under some name or other that an article about the subculture could easily be supported, just perhaps not under the name "therianthropy."Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I was thinking that the subculture is best termed "therian" and the main article on them might best be named that. But that begs the question of where they got that term at all? Likely derived from therianthropy (mythology) and now they are trying to reclaim the original term for their own. If they have succeeded in that aim then their article can be therianthropy; otherwise it should be therian with mention that the term therianthropy has acheived some limited usage in that sense. --Justanother 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'll admit as to being completely stumped as to which different name, if any, the article about the subculture should be under. All choices seem to have a problem, and I've yet to see a print reference for "therian," the current winner in terms of popularity. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The "neologism" is not our neologism, but rather a term that the therianthropes came up with for themselves. There's plenty of sources out there that use it. Bryan 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, it's a made up neologism. While not used only by those that identify them selves as furries that doesn't really have any bearing on wether or not this article meets wikipedia policy. If you really want to keep this article could you please provide these sources and do you have any way of rectifying the other fundemental violations of policy? NeoFreak 17:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You can't just list every policy under the sun and declare that it fails all of them without any further explanation. The only objections you've given any detail to are that the article's a "neologism" (which is only against policy if we invented the term, not if we're reporting on a neologism that other people recently came up with) and that there aren't reliable sources (the article already lists six published books as sources). Could you explain what the other supposed fundamental violations of policy are? Bryan 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Have I not? I assumed most of the violations would be obvious. When I say it has no reliable sources that is because none of the citation's source material meets WP:RS per self-published sources. The few books sources don't really support the position maintained by the article or do so only through original research. All of the POVs that the article puts forth either fail under the aformentioned problems with sources or they have no sources at all, making them WP:OR. The article puts forth a hypothesis about "therianthropy" based on the authors attempts to apply his understanding of the neologism in a "scholarly" context. Note that the actual term is not used, just the meaning of the neologism as he understands applied to that context. More violations of WP:OR. None of the sources in that section apply to the neologism or its use, just the concept as the author understands it: a violation of WP:V as well. This pattern repeats itself throughout the rest of the article except now the author is applying it to the "modern subculture". The author even contrasts his pet term to medically diagnoseable medical conditions such as clinical lycanthropy, multiple or split personality disorder and body dysmorphic disorder without citing any medical work or making any claim of having any expertise. Of course all this is written in a POV and very pro-therianthrophic stance. Zero sources and and violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. The author also makes unsourced and POV claims about "therian" groupings, belief structure, degrees of identification, variety of involved species and social struture all with little or, more often, no sources at all. See where I'm going with this? It's all original research to support a particular POV that is not sourced or verifiable. Also note that the def of a neologism per WP:NEO is words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. It doesn;t matter who came up with said neologism. Of course there is no verifiable notability put forth either and the entire thing is wrapped in a hard candy shell of WP:BOLLOCKS. Etc. NeoFreak 17:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I would resolve a lot of these issues simply by trimming of the existing article, though. And I think you're being rather extreme in dismissing some of the sources; one of them's published by Penguin, that's rather far from a vanity press. The quality of much of the article is debatable but taking the position that there are absolutely no good sources in here is a bit over the top. Bryan 05:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not arguing that the Penguin werewolf book is legit. I'm saying it is misused as the author of the essay is using to justify his POV and apply his term to it. It inclusion does not support the articles POV without original research. Even is that were not the case that doesn't make the article salvagable and the author doesn't specificly justify its inclusion as a ref. NeoFreak 10:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
            • The article cites the book in reference to a discussion on the origins of the term at AHWW. If the book actually cites the term, then we've got no problem; inclusion in a Penguin-published work is pretty much in gold standard category for "not just being a neologism". I'll try to find a copy in the next day or so, work permitting ... a page reference, or the lack of one, ought to put most of this discussion to rest. Serpent's Choice 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • While it would help it is by no means going to do anything to alleviate the rest of the issues with this article. NeoFreak 11:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
                • The Penguin book is not misused (since the information in the footnote is in the book and it does discuss the subculture for seven whole pages) but it does not support "therianthropy" as a term used by the subculture - in fact, it doesn't list any of the terms used by the subculture (which is probably just as well, since it is a book for children). So, it is a legimitate source for the article, but not a legitimate reason why the article should continue with the title "Therianthropy." Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a well-constructed POV/OR essay, not an encyclopedia entry: it'd be good as part of an FAQ, but not here. Sam Clark 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sam Clark. Isn't there a Wiki dedicated to wannabe furry creatures? This belongs there. Edison 18:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • yes there is, at wikia:furry 65.118.187.102 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Then again, I am a therian, so you kinda could guess I'd vote to keep it. Otherwise, merge it and Otherkin into one article, as both are related. By the way, why was Otherkin not deleted? EDIT: Now I see that someone did put it up for deletion, but it was kept. Why should that article be kept but not this one? PS: Therians and furries are not the same thing. --CF90 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • They may not be the same thing, but their communities overlap in a great many ways. Delete, merge if you must, but this article is about a neologism for a small insular group, which does violate policy. --humblefool® 01:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you have any justification under wikipedia policy for your "vote" or is the extent of your support based on the fact that you agree with the article's POV? As for the Otherkin article it was cleaned up by myself to help meet policy. NeoFreak 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Do not merge with Otherkin! Therianthropy and otherkin are entirely separate beliefs although there are people who share both (hence the 'overlap'). Otherkin hold beliefs (past lives, the existence of mythological creatures on an astral plane, et cetera) that most therianthropes do not have. In addition most therianthropes disparage or take offense to the term Otherkin, which they feel implies a rejection or denial of one's humanity. As for this article being a 'vanity' article, therianthropy is a belief, not a community. Therianthropy has no leaders, no central creed, and there is no main community. In describing a belief and not a community, the article stands as legitimate, since therianthopes are not a singular community and many do not even participate in online 'therian' websites. This article simply names and describes a belief held by people who may have little else in common. The term 'therianthropy' is also used by a significant number (in the thousands) of people worldwide. — 24.230.61.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • CommentDo you have reliable sources to substantiate your opinions? This, as you've described, is a neologism and the article is an essay. NeoFreak 10:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the anonymous commenter's point that the article should describe a belief and not a community. However, the views ascribed by that commenter to Otherkin are not beliefs that are universal in that 'community'. If anything, I feel that this reinforces the need to get rid of the Otherkin article, since that one really is a neologism. NickArgall 06:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Neologism, but moderately popular in its niche and (in parts at least) well-written/referenced article. I'd hate to see the content lost so merge it with a more popular or general term for the subject (shapeshifting already opens with a big list of synonyms, and could really do with the references) and redirect. Sockatume 05:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I see this as a reasonable article in its own right, but if enough people disagree then a compromise I'd be comfortable with is merging it into Otherkin and turning "therianthropy" into a disambig pointing to there and to lycanthropy. That should preserve the relevant information and also leave a foundation if at some point in the future more material is added to warrant splitting it back out again. Bryan 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur with merge proposal -- I have come across the word, but could not prove it is not a neologism; IMHO it certainly has the potential to become a formal description of the phenomenon and therefore to be something by which people would search. Simon Cursitor 08:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The two terms are significantly unique from eachother, albeit related. If a merger is to take place, it would seem more fitting to merge Otherkin into it, being far smaller in scope and popularity.
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NeoFreak 10:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge to shapeshifting Shapeshifting is about transformation, whereas therianthropy is about identity. There is overlap that can and should be discussed in the articles, but I don't believe they should be merged simply because they are about related phenomena. NickArgall 06:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I agree. The Shapeshifting article covers such a broad concept (in both folklore and fiction) and is already so long that lumping Therianthropy into it would probably just lead to another split down the road.Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment regarding sourcing. It appears that this term is in reasonably wide use in published works, in both senses of the term. Please see a hastily assembled list of attributions on this AFD's talk page. Clearly, copies of these sources would be required to write a properly verified and referenced article (rather than, admitedly, the current essay), but I think this demonstrates that such an article is well within reach. Serpent's Choice 12:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Much thanks, I've left a comment there. NeoFreak 12:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hope I'm doing this right, never edited wikipedia stuff before. In August 2003, The Learning Channel aired a program called 'Animal Imitators'. One of the people interviewed was Coyote Osborn, long-time administrator of the 'werelist' website linked to in the article. I don't know if this lends any weight, though. On one hand, the term wasn't actually used; on the other, Coyote is a prominent member of the community but doesn't otherwise put himself out in the public eye very much, yet he was found and sought out for interview by TLC. The video is available for download on various sites; his interview begins almost exactly 37min into the program if you are viewing it with commercials left in.
• Weak Keep per Serpent's Choice's discovered sources. Cleanup (and probably a fair amount of rewrite) required, but topic appears verifiable even if not all of those sources pan out. The sources would satisfy NN. OR and NPOV issues can be addressed short of deletion. Merge might also be a viable option. Shimeru 06:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For what its worth, I'm willing to do the heavy lifting needed for the cleanup and rewrite, but it would be another day or two until I'm done with my current article projects, and I've already been informed that some of the material I cited will require interlibrary loans. So, if someone has at least some sourcing they can put in place earlier than 1-2 weeks, I'd be appreciative. Otherwise, if the article's still here, I'll get to it. Serpent's Choice 11:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A useful term with, as has been shown, applications in academia as well as the popular usage. The popular usage alone, which is different from that of 'otherkin', would render it a good topic. -G.E. Wilker 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Pretty strong keep per Serpent's Choice's sources. These folks have been referenced in a few books, and the online community is big enough to balance out the not-ideal amount of book sources. Original research is certainly a problem, but with these and other sources, the article is worth keeping. Needs rewrite immensely, but POV-ness is not inherent to the subject; I'm convinced that it can be covered with impartiality suitable for Wikipedia. And being POV is not a criteria for deletion, only significant revision. I don't feel that merge is appropriate, either, although my opinion on that is less strong. Otherkin and therianthropes often move in very different social and subcultural circles, as shown by the sources, which don't share a significant overlap with the Otherkin article. The history of how the subcultures of otherkin and therianthropy came to be is also quite different, as can be seen in their respective articles. (Incidentally, I'm pretty much Wikibreaking at the moment, so I won't be able to answer much query about my comments, but I did want to put in my word on this one. :P) Switchercat ^talk_cont 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs to be fixed, not deleted. NickArgall 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Also, not a neologism - google book search shows that the term was used in 1915, and five minutes with amazon gives an account of people facing criminal charges of 'lycanthropy or therianthropy' in the sixteenth century. So the term is at least 91 years old.
• Strong Delete. The article itself does not seem to advance the base of knowledge too much, coming chiefly from sources which are suspect, not quoted in the text, or seemingly biased in their scope and application. A merge to Otherkin would add citeable sources, but the two don't seem sufficiently linked, to me, to warrant this. I vote for deletion if simply due to the fact that the article concerns what IS a neologism (if not in its original formation, then in the scope and application it has met within its usage in this article), and additionally... no one can deny that this article reads like a POV essay. References frequently aren't cited, it contains comments such as:

"Stereotypically, it is said that furries view therianthropy as "taking it too far" or "too seriously", while therianthropes assert that furries are frivolous, juvenile, and/or don't respect or understand the true nature of animals."

At least one key difference seems to be that most therians see this as being part of their own nature, rather than a dysfunction or psychological defence mechanism, thus it is often valued rather than hoped to be "cured".

These, and many others, are pretty broad statements to be made... has the article writer talked to most of those who identify with this group? Can they quote studies? How do they show this stereotypical history of the opinion of Furries, are they sure these are commonly and majorly held views by Furries? Can they prove it? MY digging through the sources (and I will immediately apologize for my assumptions if direct sources for some of the therefore seemingly POV statements are provided), has turned up nothing. Anyway. Even if the article cannot be entirely deleted, it should be cleaned up in a very huge way to remove some POV or utterly unverifiable/opinionated statements. Merging into Otherkin does not seem to me to be accurate, because it would necessitate defining one article as a subset of the other in some ways. Since the two things seem distinct, and only hazy evidence can really be found about either, I would say that this article should be deleted. As has previously been said, many things are interesting or noteworthy, yet not well enough documented to meet encyclopedic standards.

I feel strongly that this is one of those, or that at least needs to be reworked from an essay, into an article whose goal is to inform, not convince. Raeft 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I believe that most of the problems you've cited could be solved by doing what the new split template suggests: splitting the article into Therianthropy (mythology) and Therianthropy (subculture), with Therianthropy (subculture) vastly shortened to just those statements that were supported by the sources. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I've argued on the talk pages for Otherkin and Therianthropy that believing you're an animal that doesn't exist (Otherkin belief) is essentially a variation on believing that you're an animal (Therianthropy). I strongly believe that any detailed exploration of the differences between those beliefs would fall into the realm of original research. NickArgall 06:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If what we have here is a modern incarnation of totemism and shamanism and it is practiced by a sizable group of people that prefer this term then who cares that it is a neologism (if it even is one). A good comparison is Wicca as the modern incarnation of witchcraft, Wicca having 50 years behind it. It all boils down to WP:V. The article may need WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR tags but I would like to see if it develops. --Justanother 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was considering weakening my keep based on a poor Google performance of therianthopy. Therianthropic does much better but also gets more into the existing unrelated scholarly usage. Therian does much much better but has other meanings also and is a proper name to boot. (edit: strike that, I do not know what I was searching on earlier today) So I wonder how much of this is wishful thinking regarding WP:Notability, i.e. that it is a very small group seeking to legitimize the term they have adopted for themselves. Upon reflection, my guess is that the interest is broad enough to warrant inclusion. The other option is to create an article for therian, which, as a term, seems to have much more popularity among the community but then what would you call their belief system, totemism? --Justanother 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The word wasn't made up by this community, but rather adopted by them, and between this and the related Otherkin article (which will probably be merged with this one) we have enough sources to write some things about the subculture/religion. Its notable enough to have books talk about it, so I think its a keep. Titanium Dragon 18:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Concerns about WP:NPOV are best addressed by fixing the article, not removing it. I've seen enough sources here, especially with Serpent's Choice's work, to come to the conclusion that the other criticisms can be addressed as well. The discussion on the Draconity AfD convinced me that that article wasn't worth saving, but the circumstances here simply aren't the same. Baxil 03:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - There seems to be a large amount of confusion between therianthropy as psychological/spiritual phenomenon and therianthropy as subculture. 'Therianthropy as subculture' is not what I feel the article should be about, although I think a section on subcultures associated to the phenomenon is of some relevance. Arguments that 'Otherkin and therians are different subcultures' misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia (although the obsessive detail on some fan topics might lead people to think otherwise). Therianthropy, the belief that one has an animal soul, is a long-established phenomenon that plays an important role in understanding tribal cultures. The fact that this belief crops up even without cultural supports and in the face of societal sanctions (such as the 'clinical lycanthropy' diagnosis) is noteworthy. On the other hand, statements that "Otherkin think therians are far too serious" are pointless, and should be excised in favour of encyclopedic content. NickArgall 05:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a neologism - I first read the word more than 20 years ago. Documented in various places, including dodgy 1930s books on psychical research, I fear ( I'm ashamed of some of the junk I've read over the years ). Distinct from lycanthropy, and with enough of a difference in conceptualisation to differentiate from otherkin. I would like to see lots of work done on all the articles in this special-interest cluster, to bring them up to a high standard, but this should not be beyond the combined wit of Wikipedia. WMMartin 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I came across the term, didn't know what it meant, found a detailed explanation here. It's a usefull article. Even new words need an explanation. Especially new words.
• Strong Keep per Serpent's Choice, Baxil, WMMartin, et al. Furthermore, Strong oppose merge from Otherkin merging these two articles will do far more harm than good, as there are many many wildly differing oppinions on these two terms even within the communities they refer to and the other/theri/whatever community at large. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Sharkface217 03:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but split into separate articles, one dealing with the scholarly definition (once split, the scholarly article should be considered for possibly merging with Lycanthropy) and the other article dealing with the subculture (which should then be considered for merging with Otherkin or deleting, as appropriate). At least half of the problems that led to this Afd come from these quite separate contexts being hopelessly tangled in one article. Note: a split along these lines was already attempted (see Talk:Therianthropy#Disambiguation and the older edits [23] and [24]) but was apparently reverted by furry meatpuppets. It is ridiculous for a scholarly concept about 100 years old to be tangled up with a subculture less than 20 years old. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the two uses are sufficiently dissimilar to warrant two articles: Therianthropy as the scholarly usage and Therianthropy (subculture) as the modern totemism. Do not merge with OtherKin but consider merging that into the Therianthropy (subculture) article. --Justanother 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Okay, I've now placed a split template on Therianthropy and I've reverted Therianthropy (subculture) and Therianthropy (mythology) to their earliest clean versions (for easier viewing for those contemplating the split, so they don't have to go to the work of digging through the history). However, Therianthropy (subculture) would need a lot of cleaning in order to bring it up to par. (Note: there is also a Therianthropy (fiction) floating around, which should probably be merged with Shapeshifting or deleted). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being premature (this AfD being still in progress); I added an item for the split discuss and noted my support. Also, modern use in fiction can go into the main article if we take the main article as being somewhat generic. --Justanother 19:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be premature either, so I'm waiting to see how this Afd goes before transferring content from Therianthropy to the two articles in the proposed split. However, I've created a temporary archive at User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea/Therianthropy just in case. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete Neologism with no repuitable references. Mukadderat 02:25, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utopian Apathy

Utopian Apathy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:MUSIC Sigma 7 09:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jayden54 10:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable with a whole 7 non-wiki ghits, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 13:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, no albums, no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 20:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for vanity piece, no evidence this band will ever become notable and the article seems to have been written by the members themselves, or a fan. -Markeer 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Not Delete for their not really being any massive threat coming from the article. It's not like the entire Wikipedia index will crumble after one attempt at a band page is allowed. - WikiMan52 20:56, 28 November — WikiMan52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment well, that's very dramatic friend, but the AfD process is intended to prune unneeded or inappropriate articles. If the best argument you have is this one, that simply means this article should go. -Markeer 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Retort Why is it unnecessary? I don't think it has no use at all. It has given me information and so therefore it is not useless. How also is it inappropriate? I don't see any swear words or wrong themes, so why is there all this fuss? - MusikFan68 1:15, 1 December — MusikFan68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Not DeleteWhy not? A wiki is a website for sharing information. You'll be sorry when they make the big time and you denied them a page on the website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.29.67.179 (talk • contribs).

• Comment If this band becomes notable at some point in the future, I have no doubt an article about them will be created then. In the meantime, please refer to wikipedia's guidelines regarding criteria for musical group notability. No one is saying that this group will never become important or have an article. The delete votes above seem to be based on the fact that this group is not notable now, making a wikipedia entry inappropriate. -Markeer 04:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I noticed that all three improperly-signed opposition comments are from new anonymous users - one of which has vandal warnings. While not a problem in itself, it means that your votes might not be counted. Even so, there is no justification presented to keep the article. As you should know, the threat is created from the cumulation of individual articles which make Wikipedia harder to maintain - my case in point is Defendant, where a single person seems to think their garage rock band is notable. The information obtained from these types of page are unreliable at best, where the most reliable is a link to a myspace page. This Myspace page allows the owner of the page to share as much information as he wants to, thus not requiring any justification for notability.
  If there are no serious objections to the deletion, I claim that the concensus has been reached. --Sigma 7 05:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that we're here to form a consensus, so there's no "voting" per se. That said, I do detect a consensus emerging, to which I will now add...

• Delete per nom. Re: the unsigned comment above: if they "make the big time" I'll be at the head of the queue supporting an article about them. But the time is not yet. WMMartin 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Why is it that you so-called wikipedia users lash out at pages you deem to be nonsense, whilst still having your own pages which contain far worse that that found in this article? If you users believe that this article is taking up unwanted space, I believe that you should turn around and check out your own pages because they are much more of a waste than this article. For example, User:Markeer 's page contains something on Boxes and a picture from Star Trek. It seems to appear that this holds no possible information to the community at large and that it is helping no one furthering their knowledge. Since you believe in sharing useful information, the fact that you will be hypocrites and delete a perfectly good page, whilst sparing your useless ones. LB1, 13:26, 2 December 2006
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Sharkface217 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update there, the page has now been updated/edited, therefore removing any context of it being a prediction (crystal ball), It is now just informative. Leprechaunboy
• Retort Wikipedia is a FREE encyclopaedia, and it is fair that they can set up an article. How is it that it is wasting space when there are more useless articles, it is free and everyone has a right to contribute

• The key word in your response is encyclopedia. To be an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must not be an indiscriminate collection of information. That means we don't write about every single band out there, only the more notable ones. And inclusion is not an indicator of notability. MER-C 09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for letting us know about the other useless articles. If you feel such articles in the main namespace (i.e. encyclopedia articles) need to be removed, then you can follow the standard deletion guidelines to bring them to our attention. --Sigma 7 12:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not Delete User "Markeer" is not a renowned person/band, yet his wikipedia page continues to exist, while the Band Utopian Apathy is a more notbale one. If anything, Utopian APthy's page should continue to exist and Markeer's page should be deleted as it gives no relevant output to the wikipedia community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maco.c (talk • contribs) 10:26, 2 December 2006.

What are you talking about? His user page isn't included in the encyclopedia because it's under the 'User' namespace, as you can see in the URL, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Markeer. The Utopian Apathy article on the other hand is in the encyclopedia, and must therefore be notable enough, which it isn't. Jayden54 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate procedure is to correct the issue by requesting deletion of content, not state that you need to keep content because "less-important" content is present. In case of User namepace pages, those are less likely to be deleted, since it gives a general guideline about the experience of the other user (i.e. he is more likely to know about Star Trek than others.) and that it has a linked talk page that permits Wikipedia-based communication. Likewise, if you believe the article has merit, the article needs to be written in that fashion, and not fall into known article patterns known to be deleted. Try taking a look at linked from List of bands to see plenty of articles that were not deleted, since they rely on solid content without looking like an advert. --Sigma 7 12:11, 2 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. DS 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kendel Turner

Delete suspected hoax, could not be speedy deleted due to assertion of notability, but as the subject scores a grand 4 Ghits, all from wiki or mirrors, I tried other likely spellings of his name and was equally underwhelmed. 2 Ghits for "Kendal Turner" + cyclist, and 13 unique Ghits for "Kendall Turner" + cyclist. Article created by Annebarton, a SPA. In any case unverifiable. Ohconfucius 10:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:V, and probably a hoax. Jayden54 10:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an unverifiable and likely hoax.-- danntm ^T _C 15:14, 27 November 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 essentially original research, though an encyclopedic article on the topic might be possible. Opabinia regalis 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prestige vehicles

Prestige vehicles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Expired prod. The content is a bit extensive and seems to be well-referenced so I felt it deserved an AFD. Just listing here, No Opinion from me Srikeit 10:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm concerned that while the vehicles themselves appear well-referenced the basis of the article, that Prestige cars are vehicles that enjoy a high degree of esteem among the public, due to their high price and styling., appears to be OR and POV, with litle or no attempt to source the statement, define "high price" or mention which "public" this is. It's also geographically-biassed; a "prestige vehicle" in Burkina Faso (GDP per capita income, $1,300) is unlikely to be one of those listed on the page. I realise that POV and apparent geo-bias are not bases for deletion, but OR is. Weak delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On re-reading it does state There is ..., no objective guideline as to what constitutes prestige on how to determine whether or not a veicle has prestige. The best indicators are press releases, the usage of the term luxury car, and the manner in which automobile manufacturers sell their cars. I still make that OR. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Well the article clearly states that there is no definition of high price. A vehicle might have prestige in the eyes of some, but not in the eyes of others- some consider a BMW 3-Series to have prestige-others don't. Everybody has a slightly different definition. We should not delete this article as prestige vehicles do exsist and the concept is quite prominent in western society. Prestige cars do exsist, thus an article making note of their exsistence isn't OR. The statements themselves aren't exactely OR either- they come from reviews and lifestyle columns in magazines such as Forbes. If you'd like I can add some in-line citations. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the whole concept here is original research and a list of vehicles based on undefined, non-objective criteria. There are no reliable sources in this article that qualify the term, nor are their sources for the "criteria" discussed, nor for the list of so-called "prestige" vehicles. The only way this would be reliably sourced would be if this was a direct list of http://www.prestigecars.de/, which actually does show a list of "prestige cars". That is not exactly a suitable reliable source to base a whole article on though.--Isotope23 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The concept is not OR. Prestige cars do exsist. Why do you think people spent $52,000 on a Hummer? Because it has prestige. Perhaps the format of the article needs to be changed, but concept does undoubtely exsist. Yes, this is a subjective concept for which there are no objective guidelines and sources but only lifestyle columns to cite. Should we delete this article just becuase it isn't of scientific but highly subjective nature. Prestige cars play a big part in the day to day lives of millions of people around the globe (I admit mostly in developed countries); thus it is our obligation to make note of this phenomenon. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but where are the reliable sources and verification of this concept of "prestige vehicles" as you've stated? Here are just a couple of the statements that I'd consider original research because they are in no way sourced and appear to reflect "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position":

• "Prestige cars are vehicles that enjoy a high degree of esteem among the public, due to their high price and styling." Where is this definition from?
• "The only attribute common among prestige vehicles are their relatively high price and often sophisticated quality as well as the high amount of esteem they enjoy and project upon the owner." Again, where is any sourcing that states these attributes constitute a "prestige vehicle"?
• "The best indicators are press releases, the usage of the term luxury car, and the manner in which automobile manufacturers sell their cars. Prestige vehicles will usually have marketing hinting at their esteemed position within the automobile market." According to whom?
• "Some vehicles carry high MSRPs as well as a high amount of esteem among the public, yet fail to meet the comfort requirements of a proper luxury vehicles. The cars tend to be performance or utility oriented." Again, where is the source for this statement? Where is it defined that these vehicles are not "prestige"?
• "The Hummer H1 is another example of a non-luxury prestige vehicle. The H1 enjoys a large amount of esteem among the public due to its $100k+ price tag" where is the sourcing that proved the H1 is esteemed by the public due to it's price tag?

I could go on, but the point is that most of this article is WP:OR. You could change the format of the article, but it wouldn't change the fact that this is an unsubstantiated essay on the concept of "prestige vehicles". You could removed all the unsourced statements, but as I stated above, you'd have no article... just a list of the vehicles at http://www.prestigecars.de/, which is the only thing that is sourced (though I'm not sure this would support an article as an absolutly reliable source. It is only our obligation to make note of this phenomenon if it can be verifiably sourced that this phenomenon exists and right now that is simply not the case with this article.--Isotope23 20:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well we could cut this article down to a mere paragraph and merge it into the status symbol article. But we need to mention this concept. Do we also need a source for stating that on a sunny day the sun shines? The exsistance of prestige vehicles is obvious. That said, this article was written when referencing criteria were a bit more lax and thus much of it is lacking references. So we could trim this article down to a section and merge it into the Status symbol article. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the sunny day question as rhetorical and simply state there is an obvious difference between your example and what is stated in this article. Nontheless, I don't have a problem with merging mention of this concept to Status symbol, but any merged text should still include some sort of rudimentary sourcing on the topic to, at the very least, establish what constitutes a "prestige vehicle". I don't think the concept is so obvious as to render sourcing unnecessary (as with your sunny day example).--Isotope23 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then we need to agree to diagree on the sunny day example (Yes it was rhetorical). We all know that there's a difference in our apperance when we dicide to drive down Main street in a S500 versus a Kia Rio. The former one has prestige which is abvious to onlookers-but that aside. I think the source in the article currently are sufficient to support a small section in the Status symbol. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Certainly a valid topic, but not sure this is the right article title and could use NPOVing in line with the use of legitimate sources, which would also solve the OR problem. metaspheres 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with status symbol. This article is full of original research. The passing mention of the concept in status symbol is probably enough, although it would nice if it were referenced. -- Alan McBeth 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced, unverifiable original research. Valrith 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV. Vegaswikian 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tonywalton's comments. WMMartin 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above points. Sharkface217 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete POV of original research. Mukadderat 02:24, 3 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. W.marsh 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Learning to Labour'

'Learning to Labour' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is not an encyclopedia article, it is an essay. There's really no category to speedy it under. Danny Lilithborne 10:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not really sure about this article, because a Google search produces some interesting results, such as a link to an Amazon book on this subject (available here) and a link to more background information so it appears that the study this article is about is real. Any thoughts? Maybe this article just needs a good clean-up + wikification? Jayden54 10:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV essay. MER-C 13:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge -- condensed version appropriate under Paul Willis (cultural theorist)
• Delete. OR/POV. Someone's homework, probably. WMMartin 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mukadderat 02:24, 3 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; however, to satisfy WP:V, someone needs to rummage through [25] to ensure this doesn't end up here again in a month or so. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Whiteside

Alan Whiteside (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Biography not notable enough. Has published books but these are not widely received and has not received awards. Raker 10:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep. From google seems enough notable. Cate 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. appears to be an acknowledged expert in his field of AIDS. "Alan Whiteside" + AIDS scores 38,100 Ghits, and scanning through the first 50 pages, they all seem relevant. What's more, his book 'AIDS in the twenty-first century : disease and globalization ' is carried in 414 libraries in the USA alone. Ohconfucius 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Concur with Ohconfucius above, seems to be sufficiently notable in his field. I'm not just saying that because we share a surname, either. Sockatume 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep -google hits says that he is highly notable. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Google hits are not a reasonable measure of notability. Paris Hilton has 22 million, while Special Relativity has only 704,000, but in the great scheme of things Ms Hilton is of little consequence by comparison. Prof. Whiteside gets about 42,000. However, on balance he appears to be a notable author and contributor to his field, so this article gets a Keep from me. WMMartin 18:20, 1 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 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lilly Truscott

Lilly Truscott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Expired prod. However the prod reason suggests merging so am listing here to see if anything is salvageable from this article. No Opinion from me. Srikeit 10:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Main characters usually warrant and have their own page. Ohconfucius 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, even though I disagree with Ohconfucius. I think it's something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the notability of the source material and quality of the article, but in this case, I think it passes (at least marginally) on both measures. Xtifr _tälk 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ohconfucius and Xtifr. Pink moon 1287

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei and civil leaders

Opus Dei and civil leaders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page has no clear focus, exists just to promote Opus Dei. There is no need for a page just to discuss the Opus Dei and civil leaders. There are 22 different Opus Dei subpages on Wikipedia, and the remaining pages are sufficient to cover Opus Dei's relationship with Civil Leaders.

I am also nominating Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations for deletion. That page's title prevents its complying with NPOV-- it is merely a POV fork that exists just to present one side of the Controversies about Opus Dei. --Alecmconroy 10:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Is this Opus Dei propaganda or something? --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as per nom Emeraude 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a merge? Maybe it should be merged into the "main" article if it contains any views not presented in that, to provide further coverage of it and try to neutralize that. Remember, things that aren't originally neutral can be neutralized and titles can be changed. 170.215.83.4 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the Controversy article does need a total rewrite, but I don't think there are any thoughts here that aren't touched on by the main controversy article. That said-- I certainly wouldn't object to anyone keeping a private copy of the to-be-deleted pages article around in their userspace in order to guide us in future edits of the controversy page. I personally don't know that it will help, but if anyone thinks it will, that's cool. But we should delete it from the main namespace-- by its very nature, this page will never be NPOV, and we have no business calling it an article. --Alecmconroy 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom and Ter. ---Charles 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into main Opus Dei article. Personally, I do wish the hooha about OD would die down. There's nothing worth arguing about, in my opinion. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 10:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both as POV. Where new points made in these articles are NPOV they should be incorporated in the Controversies article. WMMartin 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per above points. Sharkface217 03:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All info is contained in Opus Dei. --Tbeatty 15:17, 2 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, no consensus. 1ne 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Gatehau

Joseph Gatehau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Included in the nomination are the following articles, for the same reason:

• Reigan Derry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Klancie Keough (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lavina Williams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lisa Mitchell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Ricky Muscat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Chris Murphy (Australian singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Dean Geyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Jessica Mauboy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't think any of these people are notable outside of Australian Idol 2006, a music competition/reality television show. I know that WP:MUSIC says that people that have "won or placed in a major music competition" are notable enough for articles, but WP:MUSIC is a guideline. I originally merged these articles with the Australian Idol one when I split them, which was for this reason, but that got reverted so I put {{mergeto}} tags on all of the articles. Only one person supported that, so I'm taking the articles of people I don't think are notable to AfD. These articles listed in this nomination are of the people that according to the articles are known/notable only for their appearances on Australian Idol. Articles about people that have competed in such televised contests have been deleted or redirected to bigger relevant articles in the past. _JD^talk 10:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom and tons of precedent. Non-notable reality TV rejects, crufty. MER-C 11:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep These talented singers are notible outside Idol. They should have a page here, like all other Idols from Australian Idol and international Idols. --Whats new? 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Australian Idol 2006 first, they still deserve some mention on the encyclopedia, but do not need their articles on their own. Being a Top 12 in the Australian Idol is something, but I don't see much notability outside Australian Idol. Some mention (a paragraph or two) about them in the Australian Idol 2006 will be good. A complete deletion will not benefit at all. Just a brief mention of them will be better than nothing. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Make more listcruft and merge into List of contestants on Australian Idol 2006, excluding any that get or have a record deal. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 16:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this verifiable information that at least some people are interested in. Merge if necessary. Trollderella 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Edison 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect the ones that are not notable outside the show to Australian Idol 2006. Keep the others. No need to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom DXRAW 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all - I think it's VERY pre-emptory, and quite ridiculous, to delete these articles straight after Australian Idol has finished. If earlier series are anything to go by, there are usually a couple of finalists that also become notable (in the case of Anthony Callea, possibly more notable than the Idol winner themselves!) - many of these earlier finalists have produced their own CDs and would easily now easily pass WP:MUSIC. You can't tell me that someone like Jessica Mauboy won't have a record contract and sell lots of CDs very soon (given that she had to record one in case she won the competition!) - record companies have usually snapped some of these people up, and they have sold well. And as a matter of fact, contra to what the nominator and MER-C claim, precedent for Idol finalists in other countries has KEPT most of them for some time, at least until it can be established that the person has become notable or not. For comparison, Season 1 of American Idol finalists all but one still have articles, and 6 of the top 12 on Season 1 of Australian Idol still have articles. I suggest we keep these for one year, and after that, if the people haven't appeared again or no longer notably fulfil WP:MUSIC, at least merge them into the Australian Idol article or an article as suggeested above by Chris. JROBBO 21:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all sites due to the current popularity for all contestants, merge maybe. Mjohnsona 9:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - what may be nonnotable in the United States is most certainly notable in Australia, keeping in mind that a national tour and/or single release on a major label is sufficient for WP:MUSIC - and Australian Idol finalists do their tour, just as American Idol finalists do. B.Wind 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Eusebeus 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I would have a look at nominating these people after six months once we can see who has gone on to bigger things and who is on the way to being yesterday's hero. On past experience from Australian Idol, there is at least one person other than the winner who enjoys some level of success. Capitalistroadster 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment that's not the appropriate way to deal with it. We don't keep articles because the subjects might become famous or notable. We create articles after the subjects are famous or notable. At the moment, they all (except for maybe the top three) fail our inclusion criteria. In six months, if they have made more of themselves than a Warhol moment, then a proper article can be created. These articles should never have been created in the first place, and only now that the show is complete is there any real argument for keeping any of them! Xtifr _tälk 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is classic! First some retard tries to merge the articles, and now that he failed in taht debate, he tries to get them all deleted! only 1 failure agrees with you, give it up douchebag!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SilverNightFire (talk • contribs) 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now as per Capitalistroadster. I think a blanket nomination is premature given that the contest concluded less than 48 hours ago, and at least 2 of the contestants (Mauboy and Geyer) are prominently in the news in Australia and recording contracts appear to be in the works. The others? Who knows? I would suggest looking at this again in 6 months, and merge anyone that's settled back into obscurity. That will be most of them, but for now they are reasonably high profile celebrities. Certainly they are currently higher profile celebrities than many people whose legitimacy is not being questioned. That'll change, and quickly, but I think we should wait until it does. The articles are crufty, and pretty dreadful, but that's another issue and not reason enough to delete. Rossrs 07:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep them. They aren't really notable out of idol because idol 2006 only just finished! I mean, Dean Geyer has been signed with Sony BMG already apparently and Jessica Mauboy may be heard of after idol, seeing as she was runner up. Keep all of them I think, maybe if they don't have any notable things out of idol later on you should get rid of the ones that don't. It's too early now! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MandyJane123 (talk • contribs) 08:59, November 28, 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment - It's a bit soon to be blanket deleting. Even given my hatred for Australian Idol the articles still need to be kept for a while when they are out of the news and have done nothing else that is notable then I will fully support deletion. Firelement85 11:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, meet WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. No reason to delete any of them, they meet basic standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per most of the above! Ummm, why need to rush deletion? I don't see much point in deleting at all. RaNdOm26 12:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect all for now, unless any of those won or placed, and shame on whoever created those articles in the first place! We DON'T INCLUDE ARTICLES BECAUSE SOMEONE MIGHT BECOME FAMOUS/NOTABLE! Let them get famous or notable first, and then start creating articles. It is not "too soon after the show ended to delete these", it is too soon after the show started to have even created articles about individual contestants in the first place! Xtifr _tälk 14:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In this case, they are famous/notable. "Might become" ended after the show started. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • As a set, they are very-marginally-notable for their association with the show, which is why I said merge. None of them has yet established enough individual notability to justify a separate article yet. (Unless you want to point out one that has established notability separate from the show already, in which case I will happily !vote to keep that one.) Xtifr _tälk 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No, individually they are. Please read WP:BIO for more information. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I have read WP:BIO, thank you, and I see nothing there to suggest that losing game show/reality show contestants are notable. In fact, there is plenty of precedent to say that they are not, i.e. Kari Schmidt AfD, Bre Scullark AfD, Catie Anderson AfD, Sarah Dankleman AfD, Tiffany Richardson AfD, Jayla Rubinelli AfD, Brooke Staricha AfD, and many, many more. Xtifr _tälk 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • There's no such thing as precedent here. They meet the standard of "Notable television personalities" with various name recognition and coverage. That's right in WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Stong keep all - Keep for one year then decide what should be deleted Cervantes87 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) — Cervantes87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep all per Capitalistroadster. RFerreira 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per JROBBO. - Vicer 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP ALL, you do not know if they'll get a record deal or not and by deleting this is deleting all our hard work. You may need to add it back in future reference anyway. Shaggy9872004 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  The point is that right now, they don't. Articles can be undeleted later, and if they are all merged, they can't be deleted anyway. _JD^talk 09:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Australian Idol 2006 as per Terence Ong. --Howard the Duck 09:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep DEAN GEYER : He is most likely to have already signed a record deal with Sony/BMG. Sony's representative indicated this to the media prior to the announcement of Aus Idol winner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.0.163 (talk • contribs) 10:35, November 29, 2006 (UTC)
• Why are you going to delete a historical event like Australia Idol and the shows performers what really is the point. Australia is apart of the world. The articles on the singers is a good reference point for anyone wanting information on the show and the people that have appeared on the show.

Who decides what is culturally significant?

Who decides here what people may be interested in reading and wanting to read?

Why would anyone want to delete a cultural significant point in Australian TV and who decides what we want to read about as well?

The whole situation here latley has gone out of hand people nominating things for deletion and they don't have any idea what they are deciding what should be deleted.

As an Australian I find the articles historically significant in terms of "Australian Television" historical moments.

While I am here I know that people come here to find out informaiton on the artists of Australian Idol and a number of other TV shows - Pop Artists and recording labels.

So, can anyone tell me in academic terms why the material should be deleted? pipera

• Merge to a list of all Australian Idol entrants according to the season they appeared in.--Tiberius47 13:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  They all appeared in the same one -- Australian Idol 2006. _JD^talk 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Lavina Williams. Before Australian Idol, she was part of the New Zealand R&B group Ma-V-Elle. They released two albums, which surely qualifies her as notable as outside Australian Idol. Robyn 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or be consequent and delete the American Idol contestants too. Rough 21:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ALL - We should keep these articles as they do meet Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. Otherwise, if the articles are deleted, then the articles of other previous Idol contestants from the globe, such as American Idol and Pop Idol etc., that do not include the winner, should be deleted as well as they are in the same situation as this year's Australian Idol's contestants. By the way, who says that the remaining contestants bar Damien Leith will not play any significance in the future, such as Jessica Mauboy and Dean Geyer. The bottom line is, if you are going to delete the previous contestants' articles, consequently, all remaining contestants of previous Idol series from all over the world must be deleted too. Omghgomg 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all, like we apparently do with Jeopardy! contestants. — CharlotteWebb 05:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Lavina Williams per RobynG, and conditional keep Jessica Mauboy as runner-up per reasons stated by Capitalroadster & JROBBO, it has been proven in many cases that runner-ups (such as Anthony Callea or Shannon Noll) or at least a top 6 finalist (such as Ricki-Lee Coulter) goes on to do something notable to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines later on. Neutral on the rest of the bunch unless if a clear consensus comes out for the losing reality tv stars contestants that hasnt done anything notable since their respective game shows ended --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above.Sharkface217 04:01, 2 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 merge as per below. MER-C 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numerary assistant

Numerary assistant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Also nominate Associate (member of Opus Dei) and Cooperators of Opus Dei. Non-notable subject matter. These pages can never be more than stubs, and the information contained on these pages is available on the main Opus Dei page. Alecmconroy 10:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge all into a common article, such as Types of members of Opus Dei. That way, we avoid having stubs but keep the stuff from cluttering up the main article while leaving room for expansion. MER-C 11:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea-- I've made such a page and have merged the info that seems helpful. --Alecmconroy 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So we can redirect and close this debate as moot, then? MER-C 08:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Absoulutely! I thought someone else had to do it. lol. Can you tell this is my first AFD? --Alecmconroy 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 09:27, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gumption (company)

Gumption (company) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails to meet WP:CORP Budgiekiller 11:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 11:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (duh, I am the nom...) Budgiekiller 12:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• You are the nom. Delete, approaching {{db-spam}}. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Uhuh, I know, sorry sir... Budgiekiller 12:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. Jayden54 12:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tony. I was also tempted to tag it spam. 16 unique Ghits, including 1 wikipedia, and the vast majority of the others are from ecademy.com, a forum in which Mr Gumption frequently participates to champion his causes. None of them confirm its notability. For all we know the business was founded last month. Ohconfucius 03:59, 28 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inboxdollars

Inboxdollars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-27 11:30Z

• Delete - poorly formatted spam. MER-C 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bare assertion of notability that lacks credibility, and it's that bare assertion that keeps it from being a speedy. Mytildebang 18:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G11 (assertions of notability don't help if it's pure spam, which it certainly seems to be), or simply delete as failing WP:CORP and WP:SPAM and the fact that a brief passing mention on some morning talk show does not confer notability. Xtifr _tälk 15:20, 28 November 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 after rewrite. Opabinia regalis 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XEvil

XEvil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:N, WP:V, seem to be original research, every source is a link to either the main game site or the games forum. The Kinslayer 11:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 11:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a game guide that fails WP:RS and WP:N. NeoFreak 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no references to show notability. Jayden54 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think Nifboy found a reliable source. It's on the talk page. Couldn't that just be inserted? I could reduce it to stub form and only include that source.--Clyde Miller 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think Home of the Underdogs is a reliable source since it is an indiscriminate collection of older games. The Kinslayer 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well PC World has a page about it, is that good enough? I also found this, as well as this. What about these?--Clyde Miller 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, you've proven the game exists. That was never in question. Have a look at WP:N and WP:V, they explain what is the right kind of source. hings like proper media mentions, reviews, things of that sort, not brief descriptions of what the game is and a download button. (I'm trying to be helpful BTW.) The Kinslayer 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well people don't care about things unless they cost money, for the simple reason that there's always a catch, and costing money is usually it (hence lack of reviews). Therefore, most free games without a catch don't bring regular attention since it's the media's job (in America at least, the place I'm searching from) to show us the terrible and awful things about our world. In the case of video games, the game needs to be conterversal and a scapegoat of how awful video games are (to hit the target audiance of people who want videogames gone), a category which this game doesn't fit. In the case of PC game World, it is published media with a description of the game and I thought that would be enough. If that isn't enough, which to you it probably isn't, just go ahead and delete it. I'm tired of fighting a losing battle. But make no mistake, I'm not convinced and probably never will be that this should be deleted. I'll also hope that when you said "I'm trying to be helpful" you're not being "sarcastic or ironic in an AfD" since I usually assume some sort of good faith (you know what happens when you assume). Since "a topic is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." I'll wait until another published company has a writeup about it, and now the multiple published works part will be true. Until then, it will be deleted. Cheers, Clyde Miller 23:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
          • Easy, I honestly wasn't being sarcastic. I was just making a suggestion for what is really needed in the article. If something like I had suggested was found, I would be quite happy to change my stance. I understand what your saying, and I believe people are working on clarifying metters on games such as this, because like you say, free games get very little (if any) media coverage, but could well be notable. The Kinslayer 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Well even if I can convince you, few people who have voted come back and see how the comments and discussion are going, so I don't think I could convince the other delete voters to change their mind. However, since other people have voted keep I think I will change my vote to keep, and I'll do my best to clean up the article.--Clyde Miller 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Finished with my rewrite. Spelling aside (could someone look that over?), I hope it is a better.--Clyde Miller 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
                • I just finshed rationales with the images, and I think this is shaping up to be an okay article after some major cleanup. Comments? voting change? Ideas?--Clyde Miller 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Kc4 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Comrade Hamish Wilson 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep with a strong tip of the cap to Clyde Miller for fighting for the article. The multiple independent coverage is pretty thin, but it's arguably there based on the links provided. So, I default to keep. -Kubigula (ave) 04:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete (was keep til I noticed the guideline said MULTIPLE) I've played this game for the past 5 years regularly. Lots of people know about it, but wikipedia is bureacracy and is about following the rules. See Wikipedia:Notability_(computer_and_video_games), does this article meet any of the criteria? Has the game has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game: The underdogs is the only real review of the game, I suggest everyone actually read it if they voted on it. Has the game has won an award from a notable award-giving body independent of the game creators, sponsors, and publishers? No, but it has an underdogs award but is underdogs notable? Has the game been converted to other media? No. So it fails 2 of the 3 guidelines but the guidelines say you only need 1 of these. Thus is underdogs trustable? Home_of_the_Underdogs seems to be notable enought to be included on Wikipedia but there are policies against using inclusion as an argument. So the question is, is underdogs notable? What are other sources which document free and old games are there any more notable than underdog? I think I'll side on keep just to be safe. --Quirex 20:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Note I looked and the guidelines said multiple sources so no I'm changing my vote to Weak Delete. Wikipedia policy forces the vote. --Quirex 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree - the Underdogs article was the only decent review I could find. If you look at the links provided by Clyde Miller, you'll also see two tiny reviews on PC World and About.com, both of which are clearly appropriate sources. As I said, the reviews themselves are so small (bordering on inconsequential) that I can't really quibble much with a delete vote. I'm on the fence myself, but I think that the cited sources arguably satisfy policy. So, I defaulted to a weak keep. -Kubigula (ave) 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well the "policy" you citied says "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." Since that means that a source doesn't have to be a giant review, PC World (published) should be ok (that makes multiple sources). Also Notability is under discussion, so I'm not sure how much we should trust that. Right now I'm not sure good how good of an idea it is to vote based on policys under discussion or proposed policys. Just my two cents--Clyde Miller 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I went through and read all of the article's references. The PC World link is just a trivial description of the source which is so small it probably could've come from the README or the .lsm file itself. The PC World is trivial and thus it really has no bearing as a reliable link. Thus it still unfortunately lacks multiple non-trivial sources. Is there a PC World article which links to that PC World Article? --Quirex 00:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I went through a lot of google hits, and I have to admit that I couldn't find any reviews that were clearly non-trivial (other than Underdogs). Every other mention of the game is of the 1-2 paragraph variety. Some of them do appear to be legitimate (albeit semi trivial) reviews rather than something coming from the developers e.g.. You almost got me to teeter over the line to a weak delete, but it's now an OK article as rewritten, so I'm sticking with my weak keep so long as there's a non-trivial rationale for notability. -Kubigula (ave) 04:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, many game sites have this, no need here YamSan 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm a little skeptical of the validadity of this vote considering this user has made three edits to wiki, and two are afds votes. A little odd for a new user. Also, I'm not sure if your reasoning is valid. What do you guys think? YamSam, what's the deal?--Clyde Miller 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above points. Sharkface217 04:20, 2 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. Jayden54 12:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Bondy

Luke Bondy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is the wrong spelling of the name. A full article already exists under the correct spelling, which was not previously linked to the theatre directors category. I have now linked it. Furlongrd 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close, I've redirected it as a reasonable common misspelling. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 27 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Coppolino

Patrick Coppolino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Autobiography with no particular notability. Has video camera, publishes on YouTube. Won a student film award. Weregerbil 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing to establish notability in the article; if he becomes notable in the future, then this can be re-created. --SunStar Net 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:COI. Jayden54 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Don't forget to nuke those images. MER-C 13:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete terrible article about a non-noteworthy person. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - some claims to notability, but this looks like a page for self-promotion. Cybergoth 15:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain This is tough. He has won awards (whihc can be verified), but it's an ad... tough. Chrissperanza! chat edits 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Change to Weak Delete. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The is a perfectly legitimate article. It's a biography about someone who has achieved things that have grabbed media attention. All information is verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patchco (talk • contribs).
• Firm Delete per nom. He's not notable yet. Article violates WP:AUTO/WP:COI. His film-making activities appears to be a strictly local phenomenon: Student Video Contest award is just that, a student award, and not one of the top ones in the ceremony which carried prize money. The other prize was from local organisation 'Strengthening Hamilton Community Initiative', and the video was shown on Hamilton stations CHCH and Cable 14. The only news article I found were in local papers Hamilton Spectator and Mountain News. Google search returns 53 unique Ghits, this includes the Patchco website, which is not yet up, and a whole bunch of googlebombing from computer game related sites. On the other hand, Flash Halo does score quite a few Ghits, but we're not voting on that here. Ohconfucius 04:37, 28 November 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 per CSD A1. (edit conflict) _JD^talk 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Putting Salt on a Snail

Putting Salt on a Snail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ran across this on NPP, unsure of what speedy criteria it might fit, although it probably borders on nonsense. You guys decide. riana_dzasta 12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense John Reaves 12:20, 27 November 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 redirect - AFD closed early. No merge, as the article is a direct copyvio of www.fidnet.com/~weid/weapons.htm, with some bits already in the siege article added. Question - if you are suggesting the article should be merged and redirected, why on earth did you bring it to articles for deletion? Just be bold and carry it out. Waste of time going through AFD. Proto::type 13:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seige tactics

Seige tactics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Doesn't contain anything that isn't already in the Seige article. Suggest merge and redirect. riana_dzasta 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to siege (seige is a redirect) - Skysmith 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh, that's my dodgy spelling :) Thanks for pointing that one out. riana_dzasta 12:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom. Jayden54 12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. Grutness...wha? 13:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. Can someone speedy keep this, since no reason was put forward for deletion? MER-C 13:14, 27 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basil Considine

Basil Considine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod. Appears to be an unreferenced page in violation of WP:COI, and has no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. --Elonka 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO, so non-notable. Jayden54 12:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• anyone looking at this article has too much time - Delete it then. Oh, and profoundly non-notable. riana_dzasta 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above the above. Chris Buckey 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lijnema 12:39, 1 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 soft redirect. W.marsh 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of manga by Japanese title

List of manga by Japanese title (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hopelessly out of date and behind of List of manga. Users who wish to have manga listed by their Japanese title are better off looking in the Japanese Wikipedia anyways. SeizureDog 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant, listcruft. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to the Japanese Wikipedia article. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 15:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Soft redirect seems a reasonable solution. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wqua 22:47, 27 November 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, nomination withdrawn.--Isotope23 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

At first sight, this may well fall into the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" subcategory of WP:NOT things. Article is {{unreferenced}}, but I'm sure that paper sources to reference it will exist in reference libraries, so WP:V is not a major issue here. There are 99 articles in the Category:Television schedules; this one was selected at random. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep this and the 99 others; this is legitimate and interesting information. Is the nominator planning to AFD all 99 schedules? 23skidoo 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not today anyway, never if this is kept, and not anytime soon if it is deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable historical information. Useful for comparison purposes, both between seasons and between programs. Graphical presentation moves this from being just raw data to being encyclopedic. Powers ^T 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 1) It is not in dispute that articles may properly consist of lists or tables of information rather than solely prose (e.g., List of cities in the United States. 2) It is not in dispute that the same information may properly be organized in different ways in separate lists (e.g., List of United States cities by population). 3) It is not in dispute that television series are encyclopedic. 4) I believe organizing television series by the period of time in which they were broadcast is reasonable and useful, and the nominator has not presented an argument on this point to the contrary. Postdlf 15:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. DCEdwards1966 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep See previous discussion. No new arguments presented, no reason to change the results, not less than a month and a half later. Mister.Manticore 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn per Mister Manticore. If I had seen this (had remembered it rather, because I probably did see it), I wouldn't have wasted anyone's time with this. Apologies all round, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of course! Trollderella 18:02, 27 November 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 deleted by Improv: "article fork". Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majirism

Majirism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Absolutely no Ghits for the word "majirism" (and I copy and pasted it because I figured it had to be wrong when I typed it since this article is so elaborate. The article creator may have potential WP:COI given their choice of user name. I believe this may be a great article for the jokes page, but I do not trust this article at all. Further investigation shows that this is primarily a cut'n'paste from the Pentacostalism article with the work Majirism substituted in a few locations. Nowhere in any Pentacost-related page does the term show up. ju66l3r 13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. -- Merope 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Jayden54 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; nonsense. They even forgot to substitute most of the occurrences of "Pentecostalism". No sources for the existence of such a sect. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedily delete per CSD G3 If someone took the time to explain this using the reason field in {{Db-reason}}, it would be obvious to the administrator that this is vandalism. I just added that tag. Jesse Viviano 21:52, 27 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies featured on Arthur

First nomination can be found here. That closure was taken to deletion review, where no consensus to endorse or overturn the deletion was found. As a result, the article is being relisted here to generate more consensus. The deletion review closure can be found here. For the record, I have no opinion on whether or not to delete.Martinp23 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The article cites no sources so fails WP:V, and smacks of WP:OR. Furthermore, the atricle is a compendium of trivia violating WP:NOT -- Whpq 14:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I like the article and it has interesting information, but I think it's a bit too much trivia for Wikipedia. Maybe the important facts should be merged into the main Arthur article? We don't really need a list on every parody. Jayden54 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it is impossible for this article to be written without using original research, as no reliable sources have studied it. Seraphimblade 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:V and WP:OR, but leave a note at Talk:Arthur (TV series) so admins interested in tracing sources can find this article in the logs.- Mgm|^(talk) 19:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Not a major part of the encyclopedia, but will be of interest to some users, and should remain accessible. Could be merged and redirected to the main Arthur article, but this smacks of unnecessary work. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Whpq, trivial fancruft. Pete.Hurd 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no secondary sources, not encyclopedic in scope. Eluchil404 08:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and OR. Shimeru 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Is there any independent source for these statements ? Ifnot, delete as original research. -- Simon Cursitor 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Like I said last time, Keep or delete everything in the category "In Popular Culture". Matty-chan 12:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information]]. --Rory096 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Fails WP:NOT, and looks like a lot of OR. WarpstarRider 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you want it to not be original research, try TV.com. It talks about the parodies in the allusions section on the episode page. Matty-chan 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment Please add those references to the article then. JoshuaZ 03:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, OR, unverified. Should have been deleted the first time around, where consensus was clear to delete. Proto::type 10:05, 1 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 RESULT:Keep as nominaton withdrawn. SYSS Mouse 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Green Gobs of Greasy, Grimy Gopher Guts

Great Green Gobs of Greasy, Grimy Gopher Guts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a non-notable song with only the lyrics and variations. Cnriaczoy42 22:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Retract my nomination I liked this song and did not asume that it had this history. I didn't mention copyright, I just thought since the past version was only lyrics and at that point I didn't know about the history of the song this was not notable. Since this version of the article actually teaches me something I retract my nominaton. Cnriaczoy42 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable and fails WP:SINGLE. Jayden54 22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn notable and the title is irksome. Seriously, though, the lyrics are most likely copyrighted and it's possible they should'nt be here. More than that which school children in which country sing this?--John Lake 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I've removed the lyrics. MER-C 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to The Old Gray Mare. Common and popular variant lyrics. Powers ^T 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diarrhea Song, where this very article was mentioned, even before it was created. Note that The Diarrhea Song was kept. Powers ^T 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a perfectly legitimate folklore topic. Not sure why the example set of the lyrics was deleted; they can hardly be a copyright violation, although there are many, many variants. Google has more than 13,000 hits for the quoted phrase "greasy grimy gopher guts", so the song obviously has received some popular attention, and the article in its current state observes that it has received academic attention as well. I may try to find the Sherman-Weiskopff book on ILL. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I've expanded the article a bit. A recording appears on a Smithsonian Folkways compilation, which gives a 1959 date of its original collection on an earlier album of songs performed at children's camps. I've added information about the Smithsonian record to the article. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. And it's schoolchildren over here in California that sing it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I know that the song was sung in southern Ontario during the late 1960s. I suspect it's attested throughout North America at minimum. This is another reason why I doubt strongly that the lyrics are copyrighted. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Notable, and obviously verifiable. Lyrics, however, should obviously be removed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (edit conflict). It's been the subject of folklore books and it's even had a children's book series named after it (I think the others are called "Mutiliated monkey meat" and "chopped up birdies feet", but it's been a while since I read them.) [26] --Wafulz 17:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable, and of interest to some. Trollderella 18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has references: a record from the Smithsonian in the 1950's, a book title which got 2 reviews in the trade press. It has been around the U.S for decades. "No author nor copyright in the song is credited on the Smithsonian recording." so I would not worry too much about the original lyricist asserting his copyright. Edison 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, including the lyrics. Well-sourced for an article on something as hard to pin down as a children's song! The original source is so obscure as to be effectively anonymous, so it's more or less in the public domain. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Very well known song. Everyone who's ever went to elementary school in the US/Canada knows it by heart.
• Weak keep. Known as far away as Australia & New Zealand too (though not, I think, in the UK). Grutness...wha? 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Stupid song, but notable.--T. Anthony 00:35, 28 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of collective nouns for objects and concepts

List of collective nouns for objects and concepts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

While many of the "List of collective nouns for ..." articles are unsourced and contain dubious or purely humorous entries, this one takes the cake. I'm not sure there's a valid entry on here, at least not in the usual sense meant by "collective noun". Powers ^T 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - if you think it is unsourced, unverifiable, or wrong, edit it. Trollderella 18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If I did that, there'd be nothing left, except maybe "a clutch of eggs", although even that has problems. Thus, deletion discussion. Powers ^T 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If the subject matter of an article is unverifiable, editing the article won't help. -- Alan McBeth 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is really up to the creator of an article to source the claims. Some of these appear to be created frpm the mind of the editor. There could and should be such an article, but it must be referenced. Edison 19:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I doubt this is maintainable. How long is this supposed to get? There's no inclusion limits. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• To quote from the article: "A heap of trash". And to respond to Trollderella: If it's unsourced, unverifiable or wrong, why should anyone bother to edit it instead of using Delete. Emeraude 19:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• The "Status" column clinches it for me - there are better ways of listing collectives than in this article. Delete. B.Wind 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too vague Yankee Rajput 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete But if I hadn't read this, I would never have learned that the proper term for a group of unicorns is a "blessing."--Dmz5 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree that there are maybe 1 to 3 valid entries on here -- and it's not that the rest of the list is just wrong, it's that there's no way it could be right. Tesseran 03:46, 29 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Tricks Revealed!

Magic Tricks Revealed! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Copyright violation issues have been raised on the page, so I will leave it blanked except for a couple of notices. But the copyright issue is not obvious enough, IMHO, to qualify the page for Speedy, so I'm tossing it up here instead. (I'm guessing that the copyright issues are about copyrights on the magic tricks themselves.) If you check out the previous version [27] of the page, I still do not think we want it on the project. It's totally unencyclopedic. It's scattershot, in that it appears to pick several tricks at random to reveal. It also has external links prominent, all to one site, and so may ultimately be spam. So overall I do not beleive that this page benefits the project with it's continued existance, and actually has potential harm. TexasAndroid 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to transwikification to Wikibooks. This was a how-to article, and as such unencyclopedic. Note, however, that the claims of copyright violation appear to be bogus: the text that used to be here does not duplicate the referenced websites. Copyright only protects verbatim words, not ideas; and specifically, copyright does not prohibit the revelation of how stage magic tricks are performed. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The pre-blanked version is primarily an advertisement for the linked website [28]. --Dachannien 15:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not and pprobably never will be an encyclopedia article. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Linkspam to one site. Also, unreferenced. I doubt it's legal to reveal the secrets from a commercial site that makes money with the information. We can't copy text from a commercial site, so we can't copy products either. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Some people may want to use this article for homework or research in school and if this is deleted they will find it harder to get such information... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJ MeXsTa (talk • contribs).

The above Keep comment was actually left on the article itself here. I have moved it to this, the proper AFD discussion page. - TexasAndroid 13:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• We have plenty of encyclopaedia articles on magic tricks which can (and indeed in many cases already do) present any verifiable information on how those tricks work. The collection of information from a single source on an arbitrary small set of tricks under this non-useful title seems absurd, and has all of the appearance of an advertisement. Delete. Uncle G 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the arguments made. Alucard (Dr.) 20:41, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anomaly (band)

This band is not notable at all: they have never even released a single or album, they've never even toured anywhere... If you search for "Anomaly band" on Google you'll get about 700 hits, and most of them are mirror sites of the wikipedia article, and others have to do with some other bands. "Anomaly Malta" returns absolutely no hits. Delete Marcus1234 11:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 12:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Is this A7-able? Marginally, so no tag. -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Maltese bands, but if the article doesn't give a lineup, the band can't be sufficiently notable for WP:MUSIC. B.Wind 00:10, 28 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cozmo

Cozmo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete- This is an example of WP:Music. LILVOKA 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN. Scienter 18:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Only one significant Wikipedia link to the article (from the article dealing with his label). Article asserts notability as a producer, but no mention of Cozmo elsewhere. B.Wind 00:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable musician, does not meet WP:MUSIC. I would also point attention to the record label, Done Deal Entertainment, LLC and all the artists mentioned therein, it seems to be the only function of user Lyfe Tyme... -- dockingman^talk 06:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)